Dr Greene makes it look so easy and relaxed meanwhile he's constantly calibrating and recalibrating the conversation for pacing, clarity, inclusion of the whole panel and overall cohesiveness. He's just an unbelievably good host and, of course, always on top of the material. Awesome presenter.
I was just thinking the same. I really learned a lot from him, and applying that in my work. But in this video there's a higher then usual amount of times he has to step in and correct hence you probably noticed it too just like me.
I wanna know who that guy is that queues up the animations and videos of exactly what the speakers are talking about a split second after they start talking about it.. that guy deserves a raise.
lol, it's a tricky process but it's basically called "editing", the timings are the least difficult thing, take a look at this: DaVinci Resolve 19 - Complete Beginner Tutorial
make them talk about it. grab them by the shoulders and shake them vigorously shouting "tell me how the universe began!!" that always works for me. or throw money at them and demand they earn it by explaining penrose conformal cyclic model.
@@RcStR365 i find the most satisfying way to engage in deep conversations about how the universe began and Einstein's equations is to hire a hooker for an hour. they usually have a PhD education.
I have to say thank you for resuscitating my school education topics that I chose to learn, but had no way to pursue a career in my small country. I have to acknowledge Anna's courage to sit on this stage and hold her ground in the same esteem. You have inspired me so I thank you. I also want to acknowledge that I am enjoying observing the body language of the panel, it is so much fun to see it switch and change about when certain topics are being discussed 😎😁
They say "blah blah blah" percent of communication is non-verbal. ...I played bartender for a decade. It's more like 120%. Ego gets the better of the best of us. whether it true or not.
Someone linked this to me because they know I love Astronomy and Physics (and studied Quantum Physics and Mechanics in college in the 90s) but in the "comment" they left for me, basically said "look at these so-called scientists trying to undo what god created by making it all about science which can never be proven" and I just face palmed.
They only have half the story. Not even half… maybe some day someone will actually listen to what I am saying and understand how everything works. Then we won’t have to die so much.
This is the boldest and most intriguing idea in cosmology that I have come upon since inflation itself. I need to look into this more deeply. If true, then the implications are staggering, and many ideas from Hawking radiation to multiple universes are no longer viable or necessary.
What an astounding presentation! Many years ago I saw a similar event at Cambridge University where we were introduced to plate tectonics I feel this is going to prove to be equally profound. Four very, very clever people including THE science populariser of our age have come up with an alternative to something that has always bothered me. I can usually grasp the rough idea and communicate it but inflation (in the cosmic sense) had me utterly baffled, I feel a lot better knowing that I wasn't losing it. Utter respect to all of you especially Anna whose passion shows clearly. To have achieved so much while so young is doubly incredible, to explain it in another language with such clarity is staggering.
It hit me like a ton of bricks. Our measure of expansion is what we see, not what is out there, because the information hasn't reached us. I read and accepted 'inflation" back in the 80's, and I always suspected it didn't matter how or why in the first second. The entire universe acts like a black hole, but once it gets too big it breaks, and it will happen again. This talk is simple and amazing. When spacetime warps and contracts, we wont see it coming. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
This discussion contains many profound ideas with some usually hidden ones presented openly that are not limited to a 'cyclic cosmology'. For example, is a simulation based on a 'solid model', i.e. GR, what are the initial conditions used, i.e. spatial shear and is there an arbitrary 'sense' to it all These topics enter the discussion about one hour into the video lead with good questions by Dr. Greene. I, for one, would love to hear/see what Roger Penrose, Neil Turok and Jim Peebles have as reactions to this work.
Not only is it possible, but it very well COULD be the universe we live in. Like Paul said, the expansion was measured by observations of red shift that was millions and billions of years old...we can't actually measure what the far flung areas are doing NOW. So yes, the universe could be contracting at this moment, and we wouldn't know for many, many years
@@TheJoker-dj4yq it clearly is imaginable. Imagine the redshift would have turned out as a blue shift. Then people would have drawn the conclusions the person in the original comment was asking about. Thought experiments are never factual. That's the joke
@@TheJoker-dj4yq Contrafactual thought experiments aren't "fairy tale fantasies." They are usually an attempt to extract a general concept that might not be apparent from observation of present circumstances. One wonders why you felt compelled to spew out such a vicious low-class comment. You're obviously emotionally unbalanced. Have yourself another chaw of terbaccy and calm down, Jethro.
I think the Universe is dynamic & animated, & pulses like a wave, producing a series of Big Bangs like a celestial sausage machine. There is no beginning and no end, except for the birth of consciousness which was needed to give meaning to all material existence.
Will save the Nobel for after we find out how old is the observable universe and what is beyond PS these are thoughts of an amateur young astronomer! Thank you
So amazing watching this ringside view of scientists trying to figure out - what do these observations mean for our theories? Brian works his magic of bringing the rest of us wondering human family into this discussion - the modern campfire!
I remember when Brian Greene made gis pop sci debut on the discovery channel or TLC or something similar, PBS? I didn't care for his educational style at the time, but i have grown to LOVE Prof. Greene 🥰
@@michael-4k4000they recorded this last month, go on their website you’ll see them advertising the live show. First set of live shows they’ve had since before Covid. 🎉
I just love science programs like these. Hypothesis are postulated and then discussed until there is nothing left but facts close to be 100% true. Religions, in contrast, postulate theories that may not be questioned and are almost 100% false, yet people can't let go of it. Like a ship that kept one safe for years, but is sinking now, goes down with those that hang on to it, while those that accept the fact, start swimming and stay on the surface, at least for a while
It should be the leading theory. Not necessarily Penrose, but if infinity is mathematically acknowledged, then who needs a beginning? The future and the past are infinite
Your videos are a constant source of inspiration, driving me to explore further into the mysteries of the universe. Thank you for kindling my inquisitiveness.
Because time has no cause , effect and affect upon anything(s) physical existence , dynamics ( nor space its self ) . Time is not a true three dimensional dimension . Time can not change any movement by any physical thing(s) . Nor Life . A true three dimensional object could change the movement in and of themselves ; of three dimensional objects . Time in the context of the Universe doesn't matter . It doesn't . Anyway , the stop in time would not be the stop of movement . Movement is independent of time . But time is not independent of movement .
Did they explain how entropy doesn’t ultimately WIN over accumulating cycles?! This was so interesting that it is worth a second watch. Many thanks for bringing such high quality content.
Have not watched yet, but isn't "the universe" pretty much the only perfectly isolated system there is? In that case, wouldn't equality satisfy entropic laws?
If considering entropy as a law is correct, then entropy follows a certain order (message). Furthermore, there is no such thing as chaos, just rearranging to a new order...which also does not follow the idea behind entropy. If entropy was a law, we wouldn't be here. The idea is flawed.
@@c-djinni we don't know, maybe we can't know. We don't know how the universe was created, what was before. For example multiverse theory where bubbels of universes keep popping up. Or brane theory, were a collision of higher dimensional branes created our universe
11 месяцев назад+2
amazing idea, and an amazing video. I need a second watch.. but still beautiful.
Don't worry, the point is, even these giant brains don't understand it all either. That's pretty much the point of discussing and trying to understand all of this.
@@LordLOC they don't , true . And discussing other theories of the Universe . ( Presented by those that know the alternative theories such as Cosmic Plasma and Electric Universe theories best ) . Not just from mainstream understanding of both theories .
@@philharmer198 There are "theories"/hypothesis and there are ideas/suggestions. "Main stream" or not. If you cannot produce a model, much less mathematics, you're just day dreaming and perhaps coming up with a theme for a science fiction movie.
Never latch on to any hypothesis (it's not a theory yet as we have no strong observations of its predictions and wouldn't yet expect to have any evidence that would falsify it, so we can't say that we have ruled out the things that would falsify it).
@@truhartwood3170 Why assume something negative about this comment? People should "latch on" to hypotheses and consider them as they see fit. "Latch on to" doesn't have to mean "rigidly adhere." If you never latch on to a theory and pursue it, you get no where. More likely it's time to "latch off" from the standard theory of inflation.
@@mattmiller4917 just important to be as dispassionate as possible when considering various hypotheses so that we don't cherry pick data or have confirmation bias or unduly neglect or ignore other hypotheses. That's all. Even theories should only be loosely held as "the best explanation we have right now."
@@truhartwood3170 Certainly, but at the same time, we all "latch on" to ideas all the time, and becoming interested in something does not necessarily imply a lack of skepticism. There is nothing in the original comment that merited your criticism.
A "multi"-verse remains a SINGLE UNIVERSE composed of multiple universes (like ours, which could be inside a black hole), ETERNAL and INFINITE that is continually TRANSFORMED and manifests itself in many, infinite ways, whatever they are called: Human beings, Galaxies, Quasars, Black Holes, Dark Matter, Singularity, etc... The Universe or Multiverse only transforms: It is PURE ENERGY.... It is impossible to prove it, but it makes no sense to have a Beginning, or an END in time, or any Space LIMIT: What could be BEYOND the Space "limit" of the Multiverse? Well, ANOTHER Universe... And what could have been BEFORE the BIG BANG? Well, another Universe or Multiverse... And once ours cools down and perhaps COLLAPSES into a SINGULARITY, perhaps it will give rise to another Big Bang... ETERNAL...!!! And most importantly: That Universe-Multiverse is GOD! A God who does not reward, punish or monitor anyone. That he is not looking out for anyone. So ENJOY your life!
Always like B Greene and much appreciation for finding Sir Roger Penrose and his C3 theory decades ago of cyclical big bang and his MC Escher inspiration.
Muito obrigada queridíssimo Professor Brian Greene, abraçãoo ! Amooo demaaiiss este Planeta Terra Universo Magníficos e Fascinantes ! 😊👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻♥️♥️♥️🌍🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲⛰️🏔️🌋🌳🌴🌲🌴🌲🌴🌳🌎🪐🌕🌍🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲🌏🌕🪐🌍🌕🪐🌏🌎♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️
what they fail discuss is the causal mechanism for the expanding universe (currently reported with a large time lag) to reverse to a contracting universe in the observable space. Otherwise an excellent presentation.
@@D1N02I don’t think so. Is there any Evidence to your claim? You would have to demonstrate the process, where materia has been created from absolute nothing. No materia equals no action imo..
How can I do that when there is obviously no complete understanding of physics. It is just ockhams razor that nothing is singular, so why should a universe be. We are part of it so we cannot look beyond or before it.
There's a concept of cyclical time and the universe in Hindu scriptures, especially Rig Ved . It talks of eternal creation and destruction of the universe and time. Shiva is the entity that drives the time and Vishnu controls the space. Shakti is the energy that gives birth to matter. Time dilation , which has been proven, the Mahabharata says 100 years of Brahma is 311.04 trillion years, which is roughly the life span of our universe.This concept given in these scriptures make me see everything with a scientific eye and encourage my curiosity to know more and more about our universe. " There was neither non-existence nor existence then; Neither the realm of space, nor the sky which is beyond; What stirred? Where? In whose protection? There was neither death nor immortality then; No distinguishing sign of night nor of day; That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse; Other than that there was nothing beyond. Darkness there was at first, by darkness hidden; Without distinctive marks, this all was water; That which, becoming, by the void was covered; That One by force of heat came into being; Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation? Gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. Who then knows whence it has arisen? Whether God's will created it, or whether He was mute; Perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not; The Supreme Brahman of the world, all pervasive and all knowing He indeed knows, if not, no one knows. " --- Nasadiya Sukta, Rig Veda
Не может ли быть так, что расширение вызвано самим квантовым явлением, которое нарушило суперсимметрию энергии и вернуло её в так называемое состояние со вновь возможностью квантового явления в этой суперсимметричной энергии?
QFT - Quantum Field Theory supports this idea, exactly as you say. I feel a little less alone in the Universe now. Thank you for making this profound remark! Спасибо
Here’s the thing: we live in a 3D reality and we simply don’t have the sensory capacity for X(we don’t know what we don’t know) so we can’t possibly understand higher dimensional information that is absolutely necessary to know this equation, much less solve it
Even if true, this doesn’t necessarily preclude us from discovering it. We just might take a really, really long (unpredictably long) time to stumble upon it. Please don’t discount our species’ ability to understand/create/destroy things that are still nearly inconceivable in 2023.
It's clear that there was rapid expansion and that the universe is much bigger than the tiny piece we can observe. What is this space stuff were all waving in anyway?!
Something that doesnt react to matter, forces or light. Its black just because our eyes recieve no photons from thier. There might be more colours or other kinds of matters in it.
Here is the thing about the expanding Universe theory . Expansion looks the same . Everywhere in the Universe . They all cancel each other out . Imagine a Life being looking out into the stars , then galaxies etc . Then come advanced enough to have telescopes , as Advanced as ours . Their Thinking is as Advanced as Ours . They would conclude that the Universe is expanding as well . Put together , expansion theory has a problem ; it can be cancelled out .
How about this man, if the big bang went off and expanded in all directions, where is the opposite force of the bug bang? Could we be in a 2 universe system? Where there exists an opposite universe with the laws of physics turned 180°. Seems plausible to me.
@@TheOleHermit Where the vacuum itself is compressed by an external event. Maybe an intense gravitational wave from somthing that's unprecedented on the scale of our visible universe.
@@kx4532IOW, your comments have no integrity and are meaningless. Don't you think the world already has more than enough online disinformation schmos? /smh
My belief is that the big bang was a somewhat localised event in a much larger universe. Like a rock dropped into the ocean, its effect is localised when compared to the whole universe. Maybe black holes collapse even further when they reach a critical mass, they implode more then explode
@@philharmer198we have pictures of black holes. Well, at least the event horizon. They do in fact exist and are extensively studied. Eg we've captured the gravity wave signatures of back holes merging.
@@truhartwood3170 Other theories think differently . Cosmic Plasmas and Electric Universe Theories for example . Show that black holes don't actually exist . Who Interprets the information matters . Are these waves moving out from this " black hole " or inwards ( towards the center of the , source ) ? Or Outwards ? Pictures of black holes , remind me more of currents of plasma . Like Ocean currents . A whirl pool of plasma .
@@philharmer198 The 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three scientists for groundbreaking contributions to Science. 1. Roger Penrose: Received half of the prize “for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity” - 2/3 . Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez: They jointly shared the other half “for the discovery of a supermassive compact object at the center of our galaxy”. Not only is it scientifically proven, the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT), photographed the supermassive black hole in M87* or Virgo A, as well as Sagittarius A*, central to our home in the Milky Way galaxy. They both physically exist and are 100% REAL, proven phenomena.
@@mrhassell Now take that information upon which they base their truth of black holes and give this information to the Plasma and Electric Universe theorists , make it public , this information and find out what they have to say , about this information . Do they come to the same conclusion as they do ? I doubt it .
There is a mathematical description of the universe by a man called, Sotade Olusegun. His research publications are so insightful to explain the nitty-gritty of the Universe. I will suggest that you get his RUclips videos as you search through RUclips by his names. He usually puts the links to his research publications in the description sections of his videos on RUclips.
@@philharmer198I actually see this weird state of unnecessary confusion in the current scientific interpretation of important science experiments such as those supposedly "proving" the loss of "realism" in the violation of Bell's Inequality. The assumptions that he made were simply not consistent with a determinatistic reality. He therefore assumed nondeterminism to prove nondeterminenism.
@@philharmer198 The mechanism that causes physics to exist is a sphere that expands at the speed of light. There are many hints of that. The big bang began as a point that expands. Light cones are really just expanding spheres. Huygens Principle of wavelets. The wave function of the two slit experiment. I don't know why we're talking about superstrings when expanding spheres of wave functions seems to be more accurate a description.
@@davidletsch3198 Spooky action at a distance (entanglement) must be creating confusion. Isn't the most reasonable explanation that there is something between entangled particles, something that we can't detect?
Consider, the universe itself is living. If it is, we can surmise that it was "born" from the interaction of other pre-existing universes like our own with an endless number of other related universes filling the proverbial night sky beyond the realm of our expanding universe. All of it is alive and growing.^
If you see a pile of broken glass on the floor, you don't know what it was until it is all put back together. In a broken state it could be a bottle or a glass. Our universe is the pile of broken glass, how can you think it was a bottle when it could have been a glass?
Why would the observable universe expand at a rate any different from the rest? What we can observe is a function of distance from our location, no? But if you take a location at the edge of what we can observe, there is causal connection from that location to an equal distance away from that point? Am I thinking about this wrong?
As an East Indian, great contributions to such thought experiments is practically genetically engineered into our blood. My mind can't help but feel compelled to try and further understand the cosmos and essentially, everything we could possibly one day come into to contact with or observe. Like a child trying to figure out, on it's own, how a car functions. What wonderous conversations this festival has bestowed upon us so that we can contribute and maybe one day, one will bring us closer to understanding the meaning of life and our origins..
how did they get to be the same temperature? gravity on the PODE. the PODE itself would be extremely close to uniform and the mechanism that actually made the big bang expand is still not yet understood. so that could also play a part.
The idea of a cyclical universe was popular in antiquity. Many Greek philosophers propounded this idea. It was particularly common in stoic philosophy. The idea fell out of favor however with the advent of Christianity. Writing in 400 CE, St. Augustine argued that if the universe were cyclical, Christ would have to die an infinite number of times in cycle after cycle. The Idea was then abandoned in the west for centuries. It reemerged in the 18th and 19th centuries, perhaps most notably in the works of Fredrick Nietzsche. This idea of a cyclical universe is commonly call eternal return.
When I was in high school, I thought that a universe and its energy would dissipate beyond its event horizon in akin to hawking radiation, but only after achieving entropic equilibrium; returning its energy to the environment that birthed it.
I was dead serious and fascinated by this idea. It's been my dream to chase that question. But now I know to bite my tongue and question without assumption.
As described, it seems that slow contraction and ultralocality are not terribly sensitive to the form of the scalar potential field (provided it is negative). But I would like to know much more about how "hands on" the modeller must be in creating a temporally varying potential that transitions from slow contraction, into a bounce, and then on to a phase of expansion. In a robust theory, one would want that transition to happen as a result of model physics and not solely because the modeller had prescribed it to occur.
This planet Earth's civilization is still quite primitrive and this is why: 1- The Earth human beings ¨believe" that the Infinite Universe STARTED with a ¨bang" and they call it ¨Big¨. 2- Most of the human beings believe that ONE being created the whole infinite Universe, they call it ¨god¨. 3- Earth beings believe the Infinite Universe isn't infinite and has a measurable SIZE. 4- Scientists here on this mediocre planet ¨believe" that ¨light speed" is the highest speed possible. If ytou want to wonder about fast speed, start with ¨light years per second" and go on from that. Dr. Stephen Hawking was once asked by Larry King in a CNN interview many years ago whether he, Stephen Hawking, believed there was intelligent life "out there". Dr. Hawking said YES, there is definitely intelligent life in other places, but it is very rare and still HASN'T happened on Earth. Now upgrade your brains and understand the Universe is INFINITE, both in size and age. ¨Big Bangs" are happening everywhere in the infinite Universe, they are localized phenomena, not something singular and unique.
Zero entropy is a weird way to look at anything, as you can simply assume just limiting space/time to a point could be all entropy at the same look. It doesn't have to make sense that way of looking at entropy. Entropy is a deceiving concept. Personally it's always bugged me. Why isn't a singularity entropy anyway you look at it? Gr8! Peace ☮💜
also, if we run with this Einsteinian dream that all relations are self defining in a sense, the size of the universe changing isn't actually what expansion means, expansion in that sense means the changing of relations inside the space. in that language the notion of a singularity just doesn't exist anymore or it changes into a different kind of statement which can just as easily have a past as any other point or volume.
My only question to esteemed panelists is--If speed of light is constant in vacuum then is that vacuum devoid of space and if scientists actually created vacuum devoid of space for experiments then what space is made up of? The answer is simple-time doesn't exist. There's no arrow of time as such rather there's only arrow of entropy which spreads at lightspeed and even slows down if we travel at higher speeds and there's simply no time or time dilation or time dimension as such. There are only spatial dimensions.
No vacuum is devoid of space . Without space the vacuum would not exist . The vacuum is based on the physical dynamics . And Space can not be grasped a hold of by vacuum .
There are only spacial dimensions . Therefore physical dimensions Time is irrelevant to these spacial dimensions and physical dimensions . Both would exist without time included .
For the first time, the programme takes into consideration the initial point of supposed big bang expansion might have taken place in the back ground of space-time already present.
This theory actually makes sense: how the universe was once in a condensed ball of mass and energy and the world sort of like "exploded", giving birth to the universe.
Great Great question! I bow to you Profesor Greene. Like a great book you open our minds and I thank you daily. Question: one implies a God if pre bang didn't exist. And time may be man made but pre big bang may of been a plate of gasses that came from even mutation and or evolution where and how did they start.? And think that the universe is still forming and it will expand as it cools it may slow and retract and effect gravity as the stars burn out billions and billions Of years from now; note new Suns are being born so this may take eternity. ?
I propose mini big bangs. When black holes go critical because they grow so large they split their atoms and in the process lose their gravitational attraction. Could you imagine what would happen then!
I'm convinced from a philosophical and meta physical view that it's cyclical and infinite not necessarily in space but in cycles. Your multiverse is one in cycles not in dimensions.
This talk disappointed me. I was hoping for a discussion of CCC (Conformal Cyclic Cosmology) as well, not just a new idea that sounds like it hasn't been vetted yet. Even after this discussion, I'm still more of a fan of CCC. The "bounce" idea just doesn't seem plausible to me. Please consider doing a talk on CCC. I know Penrose isn't a fan of string theory, but if that's a sensitive topic, just try to avoid that sticking point.
Exactly. I was quite surprised that Penrose and his CCC were not even briefly mentioned. Penrose even discusses using polorization observations of the CMB as a way to support his theory, just as this audience was describing. It's just crazy that Brian didn't bring it up.
Dr Greene makes it look so easy and relaxed meanwhile he's constantly calibrating and recalibrating the conversation for pacing, clarity, inclusion of the whole panel and overall cohesiveness. He's just an unbelievably good host and, of course, always on top of the material. Awesome presenter.
You’re definitely right, Greene is great, I loved his books and I love these videos
I was just thinking the same. I really learned a lot from him, and applying that in my work. But in this video there's a higher then usual amount of times he has to step in and correct hence you probably noticed it too just like me.
Indeed, he does a terrific job of managing the discussion.
I couldn't say it better myself. If all science teachers were like him, imo, we would have a LOT more kids into science and chase it as a career
Genius facilitator and leader, love these series.
Hi another Anna here, thanks for telling this amazing story Anna, and the other people in the video :D
I wanna know who that guy is that queues up the animations and videos of exactly what the speakers are talking about a split second after they start talking about it.. that guy deserves a raise.
Just doing my job.
lol, it's a tricky process but it's basically called "editing", the timings are the least difficult thing, take a look at this: DaVinci Resolve 19 - Complete Beginner Tutorial
These talks are great, thanks for putting them out for free
I come here because I have no friends that want to talk about these things. (insert tears)
You're not alone...me too 😂
same
Me too
make them talk about it. grab them by the shoulders and shake them vigorously shouting "tell me how the universe began!!" that always works for me. or throw money at them and demand they earn it by explaining penrose conformal cyclic model.
@@RcStR365 i find the most satisfying way to engage in deep conversations about how the universe began and Einstein's equations is to hire a hooker for an hour. they usually have a PhD education.
I have to say thank you for resuscitating my school education topics that I chose to learn, but had no way to pursue a career in my small country. I have to acknowledge Anna's courage to sit on this stage and hold her ground in the same esteem. You have inspired me so I thank you. I also want to acknowledge that I am enjoying observing the body language of the panel, it is so much fun to see it switch and change about when certain topics are being discussed 😎😁
They say "blah blah blah" percent of communication is non-verbal. ...I played bartender for a decade. It's more like 120%. Ego gets the better of the best of us. whether it true or not.
" We should all work on something that is wrong." - Anna Ijjas. I am taking this to the bank 😤.
Lol for real huh 😂
He must be a joy to be interviewed by like this. Professor Greene is so perceptive, insightful and masterful in the art of scientific communication.
Fantastic.Thank you so much for organising this festival, and for its live broadcadting. I have found this conversation particularly interesting.
incredible discussion about the bleeding edge of modern physics and cosmology.
leading wedge?
Thanks for the vid and engagement.
Great channel for exploring
This was one of the best, even most important programs yet from the WSF. Thanks for letting us eavesdrop on great ideas.
Someone linked this to me because they know I love Astronomy and Physics (and studied Quantum Physics and Mechanics in college in the 90s) but in the "comment" they left for me, basically said "look at these so-called scientists trying to undo what god created by making it all about science which can never be proven" and I just face palmed.
They only have half the story. Not even half… maybe some day someone will actually listen to what I am saying and understand how everything works. Then we won’t have to die so much.
@@spiralsun1 , by all means, let us hear you!
It is the best and important program . It shows the flawed thinking . Currently .
@@spiralsun1listen to you? Who are you and what is your theory,
No Criticisms!!! I'm just selfish and want more of the genius you gather... Absolutely love this, Thank You!
Brian is the GOAT. So captivating the way he gets science accross
Another exceptional World Science Festival event.
We will see..... never assume as it makes ans ASS out of U & Me.... 😅
This is the boldest and most intriguing idea in cosmology that I have come upon since inflation itself. I need to look into this more deeply. If true, then the implications are staggering, and many ideas from Hawking radiation to multiple universes are no longer viable or necessary.
True. This is a landmark idea that may form the basis of the origin of the universe.
What an astounding presentation! Many years ago I saw a similar event at Cambridge University where we were introduced to plate tectonics I feel this is going to prove to be equally profound. Four very, very clever people including THE science populariser of our age have come up with an alternative to something that has always bothered me. I can usually grasp the rough idea and communicate it but inflation (in the cosmic sense) had me utterly baffled, I feel a lot better knowing that I wasn't losing it. Utter respect to all of you especially Anna whose passion shows clearly. To have achieved so much while so young is doubly incredible, to explain it in another language with such clarity is staggering.
Very nice discussion. Thank you! 👏👏👏
It hit me like a ton of bricks. Our measure of expansion is what we see, not what is out there, because the information hasn't reached us. I read and accepted 'inflation" back in the 80's, and I always suspected it didn't matter how or why in the first second. The entire universe acts like a black hole, but once it gets too big it breaks, and it will happen again. This talk is simple and amazing. When spacetime warps and contracts, we wont see it coming. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
Great talk
Anna's directness is hilarious
I love these, they are so thought expanding. They make you know not one person is in charge. We will all be a part of that particle in the end.
much expanding. so universe. wow
Maybe you’ll be just a particle in the end, but not me. Speak for yourself..
@@macysondheimWhat will you be ?
Another really excellent panel discussion! - I wish I had the maths to understand all this stuff as well as the panel members . .
first goes like, then i watch. brian never dissapoints. never
This discussion contains many profound ideas with some usually hidden ones presented openly that are not limited to a 'cyclic cosmology'. For example, is a simulation based on a 'solid model', i.e. GR, what are the initial conditions used, i.e. spatial shear and is there an arbitrary 'sense' to it all These topics enter the discussion about one hour into the video lead with good questions by Dr. Greene. I, for one, would love to hear/see what Roger Penrose, Neil Turok and Jim Peebles have as reactions to this work.
I hope they weigh in on this idea as well. I've been looking for reactions but haven't found them.
It makes you wonder if we lived in a contracting universe what would our theories of the origin be... Great episode!! Thank you!
That’s a great thought
Not only is it possible, but it very well COULD be the universe we live in. Like Paul said, the expansion was measured by observations of red shift that was millions and billions of years old...we can't actually measure what the far flung areas are doing NOW. So yes, the universe could be contracting at this moment, and we wouldn't know for many, many years
@@TheJoker-dj4yq it clearly is imaginable. Imagine the redshift would have turned out as a blue shift. Then people would have drawn the conclusions the person in the original comment was asking about.
Thought experiments are never factual. That's the joke
@@TheJoker-dj4yq Contrafactual thought experiments aren't "fairy tale fantasies." They are usually an attempt to extract a general concept that might not be apparent from observation of present circumstances. One wonders why you felt compelled to spew out such a vicious low-class comment. You're obviously emotionally unbalanced. Have yourself another chaw of terbaccy and calm down, Jethro.
@@TheJoker-dj4yqHahahaha if we focused on what we only knew to be possible then science wouldn't be done.
Roger Penrose Cyclic Cosmology
I would like to know what Penrose thinks of this idea. I could be wrong, but some aspects of it seem compatible with his concept.
same here, I was hoping they would bring up Penrose's ideas of CCC and how they compare.
I think the Universe is dynamic & animated, & pulses like a wave, producing a series of Big Bangs like a celestial sausage machine. There is no beginning and no end, except for the birth of consciousness which was needed to give meaning to all material existence.
Needed by us, maybe. But why would a human invention like meaning be needed for a physical process?
Remarkable, these concepts and their explanations. All potential Nobel winners
Will save the Nobel for after we find out how old is the observable universe and what is beyond PS these are thoughts of an amateur young astronomer! Thank you
Nice job 😅😮🎉
"Establishment Participation" cookies.
So amazing watching this ringside view of scientists trying to figure out - what do these observations mean for our theories? Brian works his magic of bringing the rest of us wondering human family into this discussion - the modern campfire!
WSF never disappoints :)
I remember when Brian Greene made gis pop sci debut on the discovery channel or TLC or something similar, PBS? I didn't care for his educational style at the time, but i have grown to LOVE Prof. Greene 🥰
Attended this live! Was a great show in NYC. Thanks Brian
Dude it just came out lol. U couldn't have been there
@@michael-4k4000they recorded this last month, go on their website you’ll see them advertising the live show. First set of live shows they’ve had since before Covid. 🎉
@@michael-4k4000 what??
I just love science programs like these. Hypothesis are postulated and then discussed until there is nothing left but facts close to be 100% true. Religions, in contrast, postulate theories that may not be questioned and are almost 100% false, yet people can't let go of it. Like a ship that kept one safe for years, but is sinking now, goes down with those that hang on to it, while those that accept the fact, start swimming and stay on the surface, at least for a while
Right now, Penrose's take on conformal cyclic cosmology makes more sense to me.
It should be the leading theory. Not necessarily Penrose, but if infinity is mathematically acknowledged, then who needs a beginning? The future and the past are infinite
Your videos are a constant source of inspiration, driving me to explore further into the mysteries of the universe. Thank you for kindling my inquisitiveness.
Erhhm thanks…How about a donation instead.
😅
💭 💭💭💭
If time in the whole universe stops for billions of years long then resumes, we wouldn’t be able to notice!
🤯🤯 🤯
Because time has no cause , effect and affect upon anything(s) physical existence , dynamics ( nor space its self ) . Time is not a true three dimensional dimension . Time can not change any movement by any physical thing(s) . Nor Life . A true three dimensional object could change the movement in and of themselves ; of three dimensional objects .
Time in the context of the Universe doesn't matter . It doesn't . Anyway , the stop in time would not be the stop of movement .
Movement is independent of time . But time is not independent of movement .
I am not sure about the 'Big Bang' but my mind is blown by this episode. Wow!
CCC is art. I just love it
Did they explain how entropy doesn’t ultimately WIN over accumulating cycles?! This was so interesting that it is worth a second watch. Many thanks for bringing such high quality content.
Have not watched yet, but isn't "the universe" pretty much the only perfectly isolated system there is? In that case, wouldn't equality satisfy entropic laws?
@@c-djinni If. But we just don't know what the universe is, what's beyond. So we just don't know. The speculation is interesting though
If considering entropy as a law is correct, then entropy follows a certain order (message). Furthermore, there is no such thing as chaos, just rearranging to a new order...which also does not follow the idea behind entropy. If entropy was a law, we wouldn't be here. The idea is flawed.
@@Mutation80 There's nothing "beyond the universe", as that would (by definition) be included in the universe.
@@c-djinni we don't know, maybe we can't know. We don't know how the universe was created, what was before. For example multiverse theory where bubbels of universes keep popping up. Or brane theory, were a collision of higher dimensional branes created our universe
amazing idea, and an amazing video. I need a second watch.. but still beautiful.
I'm not sure I fully understand this stuff, but thanks for producing such great content!!!
Don't worry, the point is, even these giant brains don't understand it all either. That's pretty much the point of discussing and trying to understand all of this.
@@LordLOC they don't , true .
And discussing other theories of the Universe . ( Presented by those that know the alternative theories such as Cosmic Plasma and Electric Universe theories best ) . Not just from mainstream understanding of both theories .
@@philharmer198 There are "theories"/hypothesis and there are ideas/suggestions. "Main stream" or not.
If you cannot produce a model, much less mathematics, you're just day dreaming and perhaps coming up with a theme for a science fiction movie.
@@readynowforever3676 Agreed .
@@readynowforever3676 true .
Amazing - Thank you Brian Greene/Team .. amazing content
I've latched onto this theory since we first heard of it
Never latch on to any hypothesis (it's not a theory yet as we have no strong observations of its predictions and wouldn't yet expect to have any evidence that would falsify it, so we can't say that we have ruled out the things that would falsify it).
@@truhartwood3170 Why assume something negative about this comment? People should "latch on" to hypotheses and consider them as they see fit. "Latch on to" doesn't have to mean "rigidly adhere." If you never latch on to a theory and pursue it, you get no where. More likely it's time to "latch off" from the standard theory of inflation.
@@mattmiller4917 just important to be as dispassionate as possible when considering various hypotheses so that we don't cherry pick data or have confirmation bias or unduly neglect or ignore other hypotheses. That's all. Even theories should only be loosely held as "the best explanation we have right now."
@@truhartwood3170 Certainly, but at the same time, we all "latch on" to ideas all the time, and becoming interested in something does not necessarily imply a lack of skepticism. There is nothing in the original comment that merited your criticism.
A "multi"-verse remains a SINGLE UNIVERSE composed of multiple universes (like ours, which could be inside a black hole), ETERNAL and INFINITE that is continually TRANSFORMED and manifests itself in many, infinite ways, whatever they are called: Human beings, Galaxies, Quasars, Black Holes, Dark Matter, Singularity, etc...
The Universe or Multiverse only transforms: It is PURE ENERGY....
It is impossible to prove it, but it makes no sense to have a Beginning, or an END in time, or any Space LIMIT:
What could be BEYOND the Space "limit" of the Multiverse? Well, ANOTHER Universe...
And what could have been BEFORE the BIG BANG? Well, another Universe or Multiverse... And once ours cools down and perhaps COLLAPSES into a SINGULARITY, perhaps it will give rise to another Big Bang... ETERNAL...!!!
And most importantly: That Universe-Multiverse is GOD!
A God who does not reward, punish or monitor anyone. That he is not looking out for anyone. So ENJOY your life!
So fascinating and inspiring.
Engaging conversation. Thank you. 👍
Great respect for the skills of the facilitator here.
Brian Greene is absolutely the best science presenter of our time. We're lucky to have him in the here and now.
Salesman of the decade.
Always like B Greene and much appreciation for finding Sir Roger Penrose and his C3 theory decades ago of cyclical big bang and his MC Escher inspiration.
Muito obrigada queridíssimo Professor Brian Greene, abraçãoo ! Amooo demaaiiss este Planeta Terra Universo Magníficos e Fascinantes ! 😊👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻♥️♥️♥️🌍🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲⛰️🏔️🌋🌳🌴🌲🌴🌲🌴🌳🌎🪐🌕🌍🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲🌏🌕🪐🌍🌕🪐🌏🌎♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️
Dang Brian what a great interview and interesting perspective. Also great questions you asked a lot of stuff that I hadn't thought about yet 👍
I like the Roger Penrose theory, way more elegant!
It's nice to see such brilliant people laugh at pure nervousness when there is not a shred of humor. Eases my anxiety.
Grow some hair on your chest nerd
what they fail discuss is the causal mechanism for the expanding universe (currently reported with a large time lag) to reverse to a contracting universe in the observable space. Otherwise an excellent presentation.
This is really good. Im always sceptical of things that seem bolted on to fix problems - inflation, dark matter etc
Only it's not, unlike this idea those ideas are based on actual physics and observations
I was born yesterday and I have never thought the Big Bang was 'the beginning'. There was the " 1st Bang", "2nd, 3rd etc etc and now were here.
It hasn’t even been a day since my birth and already I completely agree with you
More likely there are many bangs and many universes. They don't return to a singular state, but drift apart and ultimately evaporate.
@@D1N02I don’t think so. Is there any Evidence to your claim? You would have to demonstrate the process, where materia has been created from absolute nothing. No materia equals no action imo..
Kids these days.. 😬
How can I do that when there is obviously no complete understanding of physics. It is just ockhams razor that nothing is singular, so why should a universe be. We are part of it so we cannot look beyond or before it.
There's a concept of cyclical time and the universe in Hindu scriptures, especially Rig Ved . It talks of eternal creation and destruction of the universe and time. Shiva is the entity that drives the time and Vishnu controls the space. Shakti is the energy that gives birth to matter. Time dilation , which has been proven, the Mahabharata says 100 years of Brahma is 311.04 trillion years, which is roughly the life span of our universe.This concept given in these scriptures make me see everything with a scientific eye and encourage my curiosity to know more and more about our universe.
" There was neither non-existence nor existence then;
Neither the realm of space, nor the sky which is beyond;
What stirred? Where? In whose protection?
There was neither death nor immortality then;
No distinguishing sign of night nor of day;
That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse;
Other than that there was nothing beyond.
Darkness there was at first, by darkness hidden;
Without distinctive marks, this all was water;
That which, becoming, by the void was covered;
That One by force of heat came into being;
Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
Gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?
Whether God's will created it, or whether He was mute;
Perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not;
The Supreme Brahman of the world, all pervasive and all knowing
He indeed knows, if not, no one knows. "
--- Nasadiya Sukta, Rig Veda
Thank you for bringing this up. Ppl are too quick to brush off ancient writings, unless is Christian. I appreciate you.
science is awesome! :)
Не может ли быть так, что расширение вызвано самим квантовым явлением, которое нарушило суперсимметрию энергии и вернуло её в так называемое состояние со вновь возможностью квантового явления в этой суперсимметричной энергии?
I was thinking something similar last night. Extreme symmetry at the start, yet a quantum particle tripped out of balance somehow.
QFT - Quantum Field Theory supports this idea, exactly as you say. I feel a little less alone in the Universe now. Thank you for making this profound remark! Спасибо
this talk sheds a lot of insight into how the scientifice oligarchy works to stifle new, emerging, and innovative ideas.
What idea's do they stifle? Otherwise you just left a logical fallacy.
Here’s the thing: we live in a 3D reality and we simply don’t have the sensory capacity for X(we don’t know what we don’t know) so we can’t possibly understand higher dimensional information that is absolutely necessary to know this equation, much less solve it
Love your confidence
Even if true, this doesn’t necessarily preclude us from discovering it. We just might take a really, really long (unpredictably long) time to stumble upon it.
Please don’t discount our species’ ability to understand/create/destroy things that are still nearly inconceivable in 2023.
interesting. I need to re watch so I can better understand, but their idea does make sense.
It's clear that there was rapid expansion and that the universe is much bigger than the tiny piece we can observe. What is this space stuff were all waving in anyway?!
Something that doesnt react to matter, forces or light. Its black just because our eyes recieve no photons from thier. There might be more colours or other kinds of matters in it.
Here is the thing about the expanding Universe theory . Expansion looks the same . Everywhere in the Universe . They all cancel each other out . Imagine a Life being looking out into the stars , then galaxies etc . Then come advanced enough to have telescopes , as Advanced as ours . Their Thinking is as Advanced as Ours .
They would conclude that the Universe is expanding as well . Put together , expansion theory has a problem ; it can be cancelled out .
Wait, I was told space bends around mass , mass I think is usually made up of matter , but your saying it doesn't react to matter ?
@@rewar5870 Consider a spring with a load, now increase the load dynamically.
Could it be the whole universe on the palm of GOD
Personally I think the event of the big bang has happened multiple times in different regions of space creating different "universes"
How about this man, if the big bang went off and expanded in all directions, where is the opposite force of the bug bang? Could we be in a 2 universe system? Where there exists an opposite universe with the laws of physics turned 180°. Seems plausible to me.
Can there maybe be superluminal blast waves in the vacuum? Maybe much much larger than the visible universe?
The answer depends upon your definition of 'superluminal blast waves'. Sounds like a made up Star Wars term, IMO.
@@TheOleHermit Where the vacuum itself is compressed by an external event. Maybe an intense gravitational wave from somthing that's unprecedented on the scale of our visible universe.
@@kx4532Nonsense.
@@TheOleHermit I mean, I'm just a schmo online I can't back this up.
@@kx4532IOW, your comments have no integrity and are meaningless. Don't you think the world already has more than enough online disinformation schmos? /smh
My belief is that the big bang was a somewhat localised event in a much larger universe. Like a rock dropped into the ocean, its effect is localised when compared to the whole universe.
Maybe black holes collapse even further when they reach a critical mass, they implode more then explode
Galactic localization . Galactic creation . Not the Universe .
Black holes are mathematical concepts . They don't actually physically exist .
@@philharmer198we have pictures of black holes. Well, at least the event horizon. They do in fact exist and are extensively studied. Eg we've captured the gravity wave signatures of back holes merging.
@@truhartwood3170 Other theories think differently . Cosmic Plasmas and Electric Universe Theories for example . Show that black holes don't actually exist . Who Interprets the information matters .
Are these waves moving out from this " black hole " or inwards ( towards the center of the , source ) ? Or Outwards ?
Pictures of black holes , remind me more of currents of plasma . Like Ocean currents . A whirl pool of plasma .
@@philharmer198 The 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three scientists for groundbreaking contributions to Science. 1. Roger Penrose: Received half of the prize “for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity” - 2/3 . Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez: They jointly shared the other half “for the discovery of a supermassive compact object at the center of our galaxy”. Not only is it scientifically proven, the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT), photographed the supermassive black hole in M87* or Virgo A, as well as Sagittarius A*, central to our home in the Milky Way galaxy. They both physically exist and are 100% REAL, proven phenomena.
@@mrhassell Now take that information upon which they base their truth of black holes and give this information to the Plasma and Electric Universe theorists , make it public , this information and find out what they have to say , about this information . Do they come to the same conclusion as they do ? I doubt it .
I love how sure everyone is of themselves in the comments❤😅👹
They make money teaching this narrative. 😮
There is a mathematical description of the universe by a man called, Sotade Olusegun. His research publications are so insightful to explain the nitty-gritty of the Universe. I will suggest that you get his RUclips videos as you search through RUclips by his names. He usually puts the links to his research publications in the description sections of his videos on RUclips.
According to the bible:
First there was nothing
Then there was light
And according to your Bible the earth and universe is 6000 years old.
I do love The World Science Festival, amazing discusions. I do not understand all they say, but still.
My cats breath smells like cat food.
I'm wearing a bathrobe, and Im not even sick!
I think this is more relevant than the video to my life. 🤣🤣
- did your cat eat another cat ???
The us these comments need redacting😁😁
That’s not cat food
fantastic panel.
Dear aliens 👽: what should I do if I live on a planet where the reasoning of the physics community is cracked?
What reasoning is cracked ? ( I'm not an alien by the way . I'm a Human asking this question ) . What reasoning is cracked ? To you .
@@philharmer198I actually see this weird state of unnecessary confusion in the current scientific interpretation of important science experiments such as those supposedly "proving" the loss of "realism" in the violation of Bell's Inequality. The assumptions that he made were simply not consistent with a determinatistic reality. He therefore assumed nondeterminism to prove nondeterminenism.
@@philharmer198 The mechanism that causes physics to exist is a sphere that expands at the speed of light. There are many hints of that. The big bang began as a point that expands. Light cones are really just expanding spheres. Huygens Principle of wavelets. The wave function of the two slit experiment. I don't know why we're talking about superstrings when expanding spheres of wave functions seems to be more accurate a description.
@@davidletsch3198 Spooky action at a distance (entanglement) must be creating confusion. Isn't the most reasonable explanation that there is something between entangled particles, something that we can't detect?
@@wulphstein a sphere of what exactly ? Why does the sphere expand ?
Amazing talk, great theory strong again. ....
Great show
Consider, the universe itself is living. If it is, we can surmise that it was "born" from the interaction of other pre-existing universes like our own with an endless number of other related universes filling the proverbial night sky beyond the realm of our expanding universe. All of it is alive and growing.^
If you see a pile of broken glass on the floor, you don't know what it was until it is all put back together. In a broken state it could be a bottle or a glass. Our universe is the pile of broken glass, how can you think it was a bottle when it could have been a glass?
I was probably happy being nonexistent before I was so rudely interrupted.
Tuer words have never been spoken haha
Why would the observable universe expand at a rate any different from the rest? What we can observe is a function of distance from our location, no? But if you take a location at the edge of what we can observe, there is causal connection from that location to an equal distance away from that point? Am I thinking about this wrong?
As an East Indian, great contributions to such thought experiments is practically genetically engineered into our blood. My mind can't help but feel compelled to try and further understand the cosmos and essentially, everything we could possibly one day come into to contact with or observe. Like a child trying to figure out, on it's own, how a car functions. What wonderous conversations this festival has bestowed upon us so that we can contribute and maybe one day, one will bring us closer to understanding the meaning of life and our origins..
thank you so much.
how did they get to be the same temperature? gravity on the PODE. the PODE itself would be extremely close to uniform and the mechanism that actually made the big bang expand is still not yet understood. so that could also play a part.
The universe won’t ever end
The idea of a cyclical universe was popular in antiquity. Many Greek philosophers propounded this idea. It was particularly common in stoic philosophy. The idea fell out of favor however with the advent of Christianity. Writing in 400 CE, St. Augustine argued that if the universe were cyclical, Christ would have to die an infinite number of times in cycle after cycle. The Idea was then abandoned in the west for centuries. It reemerged in the 18th and 19th centuries, perhaps most notably in the works of Fredrick Nietzsche. This idea of a cyclical universe is commonly call eternal return.
When I was in high school, I thought that a universe and its energy would dissipate beyond its event horizon in akin to hawking radiation, but only after achieving entropic equilibrium; returning its energy to the environment that birthed it.
I was dead serious and fascinated by this idea. It's been my dream to chase that question. But now I know to bite my tongue and question without assumption.
As described, it seems that slow contraction and ultralocality are not terribly sensitive to the form of the scalar potential field (provided it is negative). But I would like to know much more about how "hands on" the modeller must be in creating a temporally varying potential that transitions from slow contraction, into a bounce, and then on to a phase of expansion. In a robust theory, one would want that transition to happen as a result of model physics and not solely because the modeller had prescribed it to occur.
This really needed to start with what their positions were. It was a constant stop/start on their opinions.
What positions do you mean? Nobody here has any positions. People are discussing logical possibilities.
This planet Earth's civilization is still quite primitrive and this is why:
1- The Earth human beings ¨believe" that the Infinite Universe STARTED with a ¨bang" and they call it ¨Big¨.
2- Most of the human beings believe that ONE being created the whole infinite Universe, they call it ¨god¨.
3- Earth beings believe the Infinite Universe isn't infinite and has a measurable SIZE.
4- Scientists here on this mediocre planet ¨believe" that ¨light speed" is the highest speed possible.
If ytou want to wonder about fast speed, start with ¨light years per second" and go on from that.
Dr. Stephen Hawking was once asked by Larry King in a CNN interview many years ago whether he, Stephen Hawking, believed there was intelligent life "out there".
Dr. Hawking said YES, there is definitely intelligent life in other places, but it is very rare and still HASN'T happened on Earth.
Now upgrade your brains and understand the Universe is INFINITE, both in size and age. ¨Big Bangs" are happening everywhere in the infinite Universe, they are localized phenomena, not something singular and unique.
This is surely interesting. But what got the cycle going in the first place? What started the first expansion/contraction?
Zero entropy is a weird way to look at anything, as you can simply assume just limiting space/time to a point could be all entropy at the same look. It doesn't have to make sense that way of looking at entropy. Entropy is a deceiving concept. Personally it's always bugged me. Why isn't a singularity entropy anyway you look at it? Gr8! Peace ☮💜
also, if we run with this Einsteinian dream that all relations are self defining in a sense, the size of the universe changing isn't actually what expansion means, expansion in that sense means the changing of relations inside the space. in that language the notion of a singularity just doesn't exist anymore or it changes into a different kind of statement which can just as easily have a past as any other point or volume.
My only question to esteemed panelists is--If speed of light is constant in vacuum then is that vacuum devoid of space and if scientists actually created vacuum devoid of space for experiments then what space is made up of? The answer is simple-time doesn't exist. There's no arrow of time as such rather there's only arrow of entropy which spreads at lightspeed and even slows down if we travel at higher speeds and there's simply no time or time dilation or time dimension as such. There are only spatial dimensions.
No vacuum is devoid of space . Without space the vacuum would not exist . The vacuum is based on the physical dynamics .
And Space can not be grasped a hold of by vacuum .
There are only spacial dimensions . Therefore physical dimensions Time is irrelevant to these spacial dimensions and physical dimensions . Both would exist without time included .
Vacuum has space .
For the first time, the programme takes into consideration the initial point of supposed big bang expansion might have taken place in the back ground of space-time already present.
Nothing begin and will never end...
This theory actually makes sense: how the universe was once in a condensed ball of mass and energy and the world sort of like "exploded", giving birth to the universe.
Great Great question! I bow to you Profesor Greene. Like a great book you open our minds and I thank you daily.
Question: one implies a God if pre bang didn't exist. And time may be man made but pre big bang may of been a plate of gasses that came from even mutation and or evolution where and how did they start.?
And think that the universe is still forming and it will expand as it cools it may slow and retract and effect gravity as the stars burn out billions and billions Of years from now; note new Suns are being born so this may take eternity.
?
I propose mini big bangs. When black holes go critical because they grow so large they split their atoms and in the process lose their gravitational attraction. Could you imagine what would happen then!
I'm convinced from a philosophical and meta physical view that it's cyclical and infinite not necessarily in space but in cycles. Your multiverse is one in cycles not in dimensions.
This talk disappointed me. I was hoping for a discussion of CCC (Conformal Cyclic Cosmology) as well, not just a new idea that sounds like it hasn't been vetted yet. Even after this discussion, I'm still more of a fan of CCC. The "bounce" idea just doesn't seem plausible to me.
Please consider doing a talk on CCC. I know Penrose isn't a fan of string theory, but if that's a sensitive topic, just try to avoid that sticking point.
Exactly. I was quite surprised that Penrose and his CCC were not even briefly mentioned. Penrose even discusses using polorization observations of the CMB as a way to support his theory, just as this audience was describing. It's just crazy that Brian didn't bring it up.
There is no beginning and no end other than,
The Eternal Now. (universe in T.E.N. dimensions)
Twelve.
“CMB was discovered in the last decade”.
True if this program was recorded in the 1970s which it wasn’t.
It wasn't .