How I Invented Eternal Inflation | Andrei Linde on Brian Keating’s INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast (310)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июн 2024
- #andrelinde #inflation #cosmology
Andrei Linde is one of the main authors of inflationary cosmology. At present, it is the leading candidate for the theory of the very early stages of expansion of the universe and formation of its large scale structure. In this podcast Linde will describe some of the popular versions of this theory, as well as observational evidence it favor of inflationary cosmology.
We also discuss Andrei’s career, the big problems in cosmology, and how Andrei invented eternal chaotic inflation which can lead to a universe which is constantly inflating, where new universes are constantly being created.
Here are some of the key concepts discussed in the video:
Andrei's 1986 paper about it ETERNAL CHAOTIC INFLATION cds.cern.ch/record/167897/file...
Professor Linde’s seminal book PARTICLE PHYSICS AND INFLATIONARY COSMOLOGY is available in PDF format: arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf
Here are some videos that complement this one:
Anna Ijjas: Bouncing cosmology • Big Bang or Big Bounce...
Will Kinney: An Infinity of Worlds • Is the Multiverse REAL...
Neil Turok Endless Universes: • Why Neil Turok Believe...
Note there are a number of alternative theories to cosmic inflation. Some of the most popular alternatives include:
The ekpyrotic universe: This theory suggests that the universe began in a state of contraction, rather than expansion. The contraction would have eventually led to a singularity, at which point the universe would have bounced back into expansion.
The cyclic universe: This theory is similar to the ekpyrotic universe, but it suggests that the universe goes through a series of cycles of contraction and expansion.
The varying-speed-of-light universe: This theory suggests that the speed of light was not constant in the early universe. If this is true, it could explain how the universe could have expanded rapidly without violating the laws of physics.
The string gas universe: This theory suggests that the early universe was filled with a gas of strings. The strings would have interacted with each other, causing the universe to expand rapidly.
Leave a comment if you want to see part two!
Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 briankeating.com/list 📝
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @drbriankeating
00:00:00 Intro
00:04:06 Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology
00:11:56 Hawking's 1988 A Brief History of Time and the preceding Nufield meeting.
00:12:45 When did you first consider yourself a cosmologist?
00:14:29 Do you think that multiverse and Inflation theories are related and, if so, how?
00:18:55 Inflation backround
00:19:25 The history of the universe and Einstein’s dreams of a “final theory”.
00:24:23 Why is the universe homogeneous?
00:28:36 Problems with the Big Bang Theory
00:30:21 Inflation elucidated
00:44:00 Getting an ulcer and then finding “new inflation”. Circa 1981
00:50:24 The keys to the Inflationary Model
00:55:20 How to birth a universe
01:00:00 Quantum fluctuations and the anisotropies that result
01:05:00 Galaxies are the children of quantum fluctuations
01:08:00 Testing predictions of inflation
01:24:05 Observational experimental evidence for Inflation: Planck, COBE, BICEP/Keck, LiteBIRD
01:43:14 How do you know when to STOP looking for proof of inflation?
02:02:05 What have you changed your mind about?
Follow me to ask questions of my guests:
🏄♂️ Twitter: / drbriankeating
📝 Join my mailing list; just click here briankeating.com/list
✍️ Detailed Blog posts here: briankeating.com/blog.php
🎙️ Listen on audio-only platforms: briankeating.com/podcast
A production of imagination.ucsd.edu/
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Plays the Race Card!"
• Neil DeGrasse Tyson Hi...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~ 
Наука
![Is There a CRISIS in Cosmology? with Abhijit Chavda [Ep. 424]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YjoxHxQcF2g/mqdefault.jpg)
![Adam Frank: Are We About To Discover Aliens? [Ep. 425]](/img/1.gif)
What’s the greatest idea you ever had?
For lattice matrices, NOT for solids:
Four lines make a square as a line is a lower-dimensional representation of a square.
If you subtract a line from a square you get staple, three lines of equal length at right angles.
A cube is 12 edges so, as four lines make a square, four 3-edged staples go together to form a cube.
As we removed a line from a square to make a staple, we now take a square from a cube to make a table as a square with one line extending freely from each vertex, giving it eight edges.
The thessract, composed of 32 edges can be made from 4 of these 8-edged tables by connecting the "feet" of one table to the top of another so it is a cube with four free edges hanging below.
Now connect those "feet" to the "underside" of a third table so its feet point up. Situate the fourth table so that three of its vertices extent out of the downward-built structure but one passes through it.
Now attach the final set of "feet" to the "underside" of the first table and there is a tesseract.
A penteract has 80 edges and as we removed a line from a square to get a 3-edged staple, 4 of which went together to build a cube, and as we removed a square from a cube the make an 8-edged table, four of which went together to form a tesseract, we now remove one whole cube from a tesseract.
This leaves us with a cube of 12 edges that has one line extending freely from each of its 8 vertices.
Four of these 20-edged objects go together to form an 80-edged penteract.
See video: *How To Build A Fifth-Dimensional Square (penteract)*
And 1, 3, 8, 20, the number of edges for each next-dimensional building-block, are the numeral solutions to each step of Bernoulli's Triangle, so it matches the output of an existing theorem and it is therefore probably valid as a guidepost to each next dimension following this formula.
Hi, cant wait to see this amazing talk, have ideias is easy, if they are practical, possible, that is another history, one day i think if its possible guide thunderstorm whit laser, dont know how to do it, but already see that someone did it. ...
Energy is the transition from order to disorder. The universe began as ordered and is approaching entropy. Why can't we look into space and the galaxy as it previously was? For example, why can't we look a billion years away where our solar system should have been 1 billion years ago and see ourselves? i.e. the earth 1 billion years ago ... please explain light cones and the aperture effect ... this is a calibration question.
The Dielectric VORTEX Technology by Ronald Frederick Sykes delivers superior Levitation for your personal spacecraft Super GREEN eco FRIENDLY Technology that's SUPER FAST TOO just google it and learn more
The Dielectric VORTEX Technology by Ronald Frederick Sykes delivers superior Levitation for your personal spacecraft Super GREEN eco FRIENDLY Technology that's SUPER FAST TOO just google it and learn more
Andrei provided some nice historical context. Had to view twice. Great IV.
🙏
These kind of dialogues are very important. This is how the theoretical physics enter the world
interesting isn it?
The video of the BICEP member showing up at Professor Linde's door to inform him of the "6 sigma" result was a joy to behold even if the joy did not last. Nothing like having your life's work verified.
Too bad that this joy was premature: BICEP results obtained a decade ago may have a different interpretation. Fortunately, there are many other observational results supporting inflation, most notably by the Planck satellite, and the new results of BICEP are at the frontline of this exploration.
@@andreilinde8126 the problem basically is that we IGNORE what Influence the structure of our own galactic plane has on both our inward (sag A*) and outward view of the cosmos. It ought to be disturbed in the exact same manner. We know we get a 90 degree rotated image of our centre (courtesy of EHT telescope and Shep Doeleman) so expect our outward view to be the same. Also: expect a red shift what actually ought to be a blue shift. But likewise we may expect many of the light polarization effects we see on Simons observatory be applied to the EHT images of our galactic core as well. I hope andrei would throw his immense experience solely at the EHT team and look for simularities. It is much more promising to get new insights because we dont know the structure of our big bang event, but we do know the actual distortion of our sag A* picture…
Many thanks for an informative, and witty, discussion! Great guest, great interviewer.
I just want to say his book cover is my favorite so far of all the covers 🎉
This was amazing. I loved hearing Dr. Linde's story and understanding. He makes me understand this Inflation idea far better, thank you.
Excellent! Glad you enjoyed it! Please share the channel and videos with your friends!
To a layman such as myself, Andrei's very last answer to Brian's question, in regards to Arthur C. Clark's statement, was so cool!!!
It reminded me of a comedian that tells a story, goes off on many tangents, and comes back to the original story later on in the show.
Thank You 🤩😍🥰
I swear I just thought of Andrei a day ago!?! wishing to hear more from him he is such great fun 😉
This is so beautiful 🎉❤
Top favorites on RUclips that was great.
Glad you enjoyed it! Please share the channel and videos with your friends!
So let me see if I've got this straight: the first inflation theory was that all of spacetime started out with an inflaton field that caused inflation but all of it at the same time slow rolled down to the present vacuum energy. But eternal inflation is where most of spacetime is still exponentially inflating except in pockets like ours where a small bubble of false vacuum fell to the present true vacuum energy, and that bubble expanded to our presently observable pocket universe, right? If so, this begs the question, what is the big bang? Is it the beginning of the eternally inflating universe? Or is it the beginning of our small pocket universe? Is the picture of the time line of our universe starting from a point, inflating, and then slowing down as it develops not correct? Should it be more of a picture of an eternally inflating universe with a bubble off to the side that is constantly expanding at the speed of light (so that our pocket universe never exponentially inflated, only grew linearly from a bubble of true vacuum)?
Yea, a lot of good questions, so there was a small big bang for our bubble, and an infinite big bang for the multiverse, that brings us back to God. All this leads to nothing
Greatly interesting!
i'm thinking he's a multiverse guy
he's got that multiverse look
The most prudent way to explain the combination of a ‘flat’ universe in combination with an excellerated expansion (both are mutually inconsistant if not mutually excluding), is to first examine the possibility at least one of these two observations is not correct, i.e. the cosmic images we are seeing are distorted. The most likely of the two is our INTERPRETATION of the redshift doppler effect of furthest galaxies. If we look at the centre of our galaxy, the recent sag A* image is rotated 90 degrees from its actual image we know it should present. So the fabric of our galactic plane has this 90 degree distortion effect apparently. If so that our outward view may also be 90 degree rotated, meaning our own galactic rotation would be causing the seeming redshift of furthest galaxies as they have the same arc speed but furthest position. This means a flat unverse is correct. And our notion of current accelerated expansion may not be. As a consequence inflation is a non needed explanation.
Alternatively, and maybe even additionally; There is also the fact that looking through our galactic plain towards the core of our own galaxy, we see it yellowish. This might be related to suggested older age of these stars or (alternatively) it might actually be related to a 'cut off' in the arrow of time that comes with the 90 degree rotated view of SGA A*. If so, this explains the blueish Doppler effect in our spiral arms relative to the red shift of the centre. Likewise, our outward view would also hold such a cut-off, meaning the observed redshift of furthest galaxies is actually a blue shift, restoring the working of gravity and nullifying the need for dark energy. Either way, we need to be very very careful to just extrapolate our observational conditions of our nice and comfy solar system towards the rest of our universe. We may be fooling ourselves, in which case we are trying to come up with extremely complex phsycics for phenomena that are in fact not even real to begin with, but just a visual distortion.....Our galaxy is not a simple extrapolation of our local spacetime!
@@RWin-fp5jn so do you think, Computer-Simulations is a better way to validation than investigate observables?
@@Thomas-gk42 You hit the nail on the head Thomas! In general, observations are more valuable than computer simulations. But this is a special case! Yes, our outward view of the cosmos is marred with the observed redshifted of furthest galaxies. But based on this, should we simply jump to the conclusion of accelerated expansion? We then violate the law of gravity and need to insert epi-cycles like dark energy. How different is that from promoting the Geocentric cosmology view which was likewise based on very strong supporting observations, yet requiring epicycles to make it stick. How well did that play out? Are we so sure we are not making the same mistake again? Or will we realise we might be on the brink of a Copernican style revolution in cosmology? I would suggest the latter. Why?
Enter the Event Horizon Telescope, displaying the image of our Sag a* inverted. Yes, it is a computer aided extrapolation image of 4 separate individual retrieved images. However, all 4 roughly presented the same shape of our Sag A* black hole. What convinced me is the ‘inconvenient’ inversion of the image. It was not expected by mainstream cosmologists, but it was PRECISELY what is expected if we see light coming out from a Quantum Physical phenomenon we call ‘Fraunhofer of ‘single slit’ effect. The very fact we see this, suggests we are actually ‘in the belly of the Sag A* beast itself’, looking out. Our local emergent ST bubble (courtesy of our Sun moving though the energy as the grid dominated galactic plane) would in fact be ‘cut off’ from the spacetime outside of our galaxy, in which case we would indeed see the inversion and polarization of incoming photons, potentially even in a reversed arrow of time. I wish Brian and Andrei would forget about proving ‘Big Bang’ inflation and instead re-focus the capability of the Simon Observatory towards our galactic centre. I am quite sure THERE he will find what causes the refractions, polarisation and diffractions.
@@RWin-fp5jn thanks for your interesting explanation. Well, expansion is verified clearly by galaxy redshift, CMB, chemical elements frequency a.s.o. Acceleration is another point, although a noble price was given for the 1A-supernova measurement, called 'discovering DarkEnergy'. I was sceptical from the beginning. Data is so fragile meanwhile, useable for a lot of approaches. It's not even really understood, how these supernova exactly work. Same for cosmic inflation. I'm just an interested layperson, but read 'LOST IN MATH' last year, that opened my thoughts to the problem. Had a conversation with Andrej Linde personally here on these comments about these standstill-problems of research, you can find it, if you scroll a bit. Dr Keating, I think, is just too polite, to contradict the great professor
@@Thomas-gk42 That's not how science works Thomas. You cannot come up with a theory (accelerated expanding universe) to match an observation (unexpected redshift) and next claim in retrospect the observation is evidence your theory is correct. In science you FIRST have to make a theory and only THEN have a matching observation. NO ONE predicted an accelerated expansion BEFORE observing the redshift. So no, observed redshift is NOT evidence the theory of accelerated expansion is true, even less so the needed fix of dark energy to be real. As for the CMB, the more logic explanation is that the CMB has NOTHING to do with the birth of our cosmos. Rather it would mark the birth of our Sagittarius A* black hole, and as such the start of our distorted (arrow of time inverted) outward view of any light coming in from the cosmos. This is a KNOWN quantum effect akin to a quantum eraser! We are seeing the light in reverse, starting from our galactic birth 13,7 billion years ago. As such we have NO time limit when exactly our cosmos as a whole was born, which is what Webb ST is hinting at anyway. I would say, let's accept the inevitable are re-draw cosmology. First over cosmologists have more to gain then to lose.
At 56.30, what a cop out. ‘where did the scalar field come from?”, ….”well it was always there!”. There is only one component to the Universe we are told and that is Energy. Can you not dream up a method where by everything including the scalar field (which is a form of energy) derives from the same energy source? Can you not consider that the matter energy (kinetic energy) and scalar field (inertial energy) are two states of the same original energy that would have most likely arrived at the Universe Origin point in near infinite form? If a source of near infinite energy spontaneously disintegrated to create an amount of Inertial energy which limited the speed of the kinetic energy to the speed of light there would spontaneously be every condition that the Big Bang speculates.
he "invented" it man
patent pending
please explain, if its eternal how could it have been invented ?
"eternal inflation" like the eternal flame
of the eternal gaslight
any inflation that continues after cosmological constant expansion starts would also then be outside cosmos?
energy of inflation from time produces virtual particles in space? which then expand at cosmological constant?
virtual particles might bring about cosmological constant expansion of space from inflation?
there is something before inflation starts (at 10 power -37), likely time? that something might continue outside inflation?
I watched this theory demonstrated on stage by John Morris in 1970. When he was asked if there was any way to reconcile biblical chronology with the measurements of the universe made by astronomers.Morris pulled a Ballon our of his pocket,blew it up, and said that maybe space expanded like an inflated balloon.
It was Henry Morris,not John. My memory is old and bad.
any antimatter particles produced would remain below planck length, while matter particles go above planck length in cosmos?
Omniverse?
The Title is hilarious!!
time builds up energy for inflation?
could inflation produce virtual particles from time? continues beneath planck length, and above time? when and where cosmos again goes below planck length, maybe like in black hole, could start inflationary expansion of new cosmos?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but during inflation, there was no matter, but only the inflaton field. This was kind of a false vacuum which later decays into the matter particles, right? If so, and all there was during inflation was a vacuum energy, then isn't that by definition below the then uncertainty principle. In other words, it was not energy that could possibly be measured, in which case it's not applicable to the conservation of energy principle.
The inflaton field is a physical field, which, just like the electromagnetic field, has energy. This energy is responsible for the curvature of the universe and for the speed of its expansion. Thus it is measurable. After inflation, the energy of the inflaton field is transformed to the energy of usual matter surrounding us.
@@andreilinde8126 njet. There was and always will be an equal amount of mass and energy prior to big bang compared to know. The only difference is that pre big bang mass appeared solely in its ‘inverse form’ as clock. And likewise energy in its inverse form as grid. So each of the 4 measures (energy, mass, time, space) have a dual function, both of which are set up orthogonally. So the in-product of all is always the value of 1. No matter prior or post the big bang. No matter the change at ANY level. It does not matter. Penrose was right to claim that in the subatomic realm mass equals inverse time ( he substitutues E=hf into E=MC2). But equally so does energy equal inverse space. Can we please now see the equilibrium? Why is it so hard to see that duality of functions and measures is the answer. How else would anybody design a universe able to come out of nothing yet keep the equilibrium. Is the number of 1 so complex for us?
inflation could happen separately a number of times? from a universe of infinite zero point time? with energy from uncertainty principle?
To start a RUclips channel😊
an inflation that keeps going (from and in an infinite universe) does not necessarily produce infinite numbers of cosmos / multiverse?
with observable, homogenous cosmos expanding at cosmological constant through dark energy, inflation would happen outside cosmos? maybe inflation stop inside cosmos, and start up again where cosmos reach something outside, perhaps in black holes or other?
in an infinite universe of zero point time, inflation can happen over and over with energy fluctuations?
In Pearlman YeC SPIRAL we find 100% of the entire universe gravitationally bound and 99% we see from prior to that hyper-cosmic expansion epoch 4/365.25(SPIRAL LY radius i ) a fraction into history. As explained in/by Pearlman YeC volume II.
Main issues with anything Multiverse, is we are Helping ourselves to facts and theories that are not in evidence, and will never be in evidence. It is not scientific. So it is a "just so" story to help support other issues in current theories.
Unfortunately, I was able to show only the first part of the slides, which does not really describe the multiverse and evidence in its favor. Even this first part took about 2 hours; hopefully we will return to the rest of the slides, about the multiverse, in a separate podcast in the future. As for the inflationary universe, which is what was actually discussed in the podcast, it is supported by many well established observational data, so watch it carefully before claiming that it is a "just so" story.
@@andreilinde8126 A very interesting talk indeed.
Just on a curious thought: Could different universes have radically different fundamental laws of physics? I mean, not only just different effective laws as it is usually said in inflationary models, but actually changing the most fundamental laws between universes?...
@@bautzemanbiba6700 Our understanding and interpretation of the multiverse is still very premature, we gradually expand the boundaries of what is possible. In the simplest interpretation, we have a single fundamental theory, like string theory, but it has many possible vacuum states, and we live in one of such states, in our part of the universe. But I suspect that at the level of quantum cosmology much more possibilities may emerge.
@@andreilinde8126 The multiverse is the large scale conceptual alter ego of the idea of non locality in quantum physics…to explain: in the QP scale world we say a particle can be at multiple places at the same time. The error is that our eyes and sensors dont see ‘the particle’ everywhere. Our eyes see its ENERGY everywhere. Big difference. So we see its energy as the point-like particle property of potential in spacetime AND as the property of grid around it in the QP world. So the particle is not at multiple places all at once, its energy is. Likewise it is a MISNOMER to speak of a multiverse. What we mean is that prior to big bang our universe was dominated by ENERGY as the grid, hence non local in spacetime terms. So the term Multiverse is just a linguistic error. We mean the universe in energy terms. Simple.
@@andreilinde8126 Are you referring to your ideas presented in some of your papers related with quantum cosmology, baby universes and the observer being fundamental in fixing the parameters of the universe by making measurements (akin to Wheeler's "Law without law", "It from bit" and "Participatory universe" ideas)? Will you write something about this topic in the future?
personally I think "long before" inflation occurs the fabric of greater reality is busy entropically compactifying itself due to simple axiomatic necessity and other resulting emergent processes far grander/subtler than some relatively mundane field shenanigans that emerge later. as a byproduct...
What is the outer wall of space made of?
Some kind of Platonic type of matter
@@Anton_Sh. Elastic?
@@Kenneth-ts7bp I'd say, "abstractic".
If the universe is infinite, it is not surrounded by any walls. It is also possible that the universe is closed, has a topology similar to the topology of a sphere. One can run around the sphere many times; it does not have any boundary. But just like the Earth, it may consist of many parts with different properties, each of which is surrounded by a boundary. They are so large that for practical purposes one may call each of them a universe, and a collection of them a multiverse.
@@andreilinde8126 the universe cannot be infinite. If we postulate it started as infinitely small, whilst claiming it now is infinite, then you must be able to indicate where in between it switched from not infinite to being infinite. You cannot by definition, hence it isnt infinite. What you can say is that the inproduct of its energy as a grid and its space as a grid is always the constant of 1, as both are each others inverse.
Wow, I admire Dr.Keating's patience, and thanks a lot for his politeness, BUT: Although Linde is a friendly man, he talked way to much. Tough he wasn't good to understand for a 'non-first-english-speaker', though translation tool didn't work, even an interested layperson like me could notice, that the professor had not much relevant to add since the beginning 90s. Since these decades we've seen an Inflation of inflation-theories and quasi-religious multiverse-theories. After reading 'LOST IN MATH' recently, this talk confirms me, that Sabine Hossenfelder, the author, is totally right with the theses in her book.
It is indeed true that my English is not perfect, and that the main concepts of inflation go back 40 years ago. However, the main experimental evidence for inflation is related to Planck data and BICEP/Keck data obtained during the last 10 years, which were discussed in 10 slides of my talk. And if these data continue to agree with our basic ideas proposed 40 years ago, does it mean that what we are doing is bad?
@@andreilinde8126 Dear professor Linde, I feel very honored to get your attention! I'm just a layperson and I know your name since decades, by working through the foundation of physics, my passion, without cognitive access to math. Didn't want to insult you, my english isn't better, it's just that the undertitle tool didn't work because of pronunciation. I apologize, my comment was a bit egoistical, too, not everyone in the audience has my background knowledge, I assume, so for most it's good, to get an overview. But since 15years I have a kind of 'feeling', that in cosmology nothing new is happening but more and more theories becoming more crazy. In the 90s I learned, that inflation is a good solution for isotropy/homogeneity problem. Then it became part of the standard model, without a chance to be verified, but spreading out in a lot of new approaches. The interpretation of CMWB goes in different opinions, Roger Penrose uses it for his approach. For laypersons not to verify. Of course, I don't understand the math. But then I read this book LOST IN MATH, that told me, that my 'feeling' was exactly right, written by someone who, I'm sure, understands the math, but treated like a 'black sheep' in the physicists community for her criticism. Smells a bit like inquisition for me. So I would be interested in your opinion about that book and the author. Anyhow, l'm thankful for your and all the other great scientist's work to illuminate the universe for people like me. All the best for you
@@Thomas-gk42 Dear Thomas, it is indeed true that in this information game the laypersons come at a disadvantage. To explain it: I am one of the authors of inflationary theory. I know that it can be verified and in fact several times it had a near-death experience suggesting that it is all wrong beyond repair, but then the experimental evidence improved, and inflation turned out right, whereas competing theories did not fair as well. Thus, do not believe those who said that what we are doing cannot be verified, or that science in general is in crisis. I promised to write a popular book describing inflation, but I never did so because science here develops so fast and is so exciting that you cannot just drop your research and do popularization. So when some people claim that modern science lost its way, be very careful about such claims. Quite often such claims say more about the people who make them rather than about the real situation in science.
@@andreilinde8126 I'm really happy about our talk, thank you for the information, and, of course, I'll be careful, but critical in all directions. Wish you luck and success.
This is wonderful. But I think that physicists would benefit much from thinking in terms of what the logical foundations of any world might be. That is, to begin with a modal logic which is a logic of possibility or possible worlds. I like where Nicolas of Cusa started: that is, with the recognition that possibility itself must be the LOGICAL foundation for anything at all to exist. The connection point of Cusa with us today is quantum field theory. So, since decoherence cannot explain the reduction of the wave function (there are very good reasons to say this but those reasons deserve a fuller account than I can even hint at here) I suggest that there is another quantum field we must introduce; that field would be Consciousness (I also assume the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM must be rejected because it violates Occam's razor to a schizophrenic degree ).. This Consciousness would be extremely simple as it would have one and only single property, i.e., awareness. This awareness has nothing to do with intellect or anything complicated at all. For instance, even a fish or an ant probably has the property of feeling. The QM field of Consciousness (FOC) must have a particle associated with it but it is not a particle we will ever detect (such a particle could be observed upon the decay of the field of Consciousness but that is impossible since the FOC is always observing itself and so cannot decay by reason of the quantum Zeno effect).
aaand don't interrupt, he's hoping to land a Nobel prize for inventing eternal inflation.
I love writing books. I've written 42 books now in less than 2 years.
I'd love to know what Andrei Linde thinks of the 3M views viral video on Stanford: _Stanford Professor Andrei Linde celebrates physics breakthrough_ which turned out to be incorrect later on.
It is indeed true that the BICEP team was overly optimistic. Fortunately, there are many other observational results supporting inflation. I listed about 10 of them in the talk, please take a look at the slides, there are about ten slides discussing inflation vs observations. Good thing about science is that in the end all (or most) of us are trying to find what is true. In particular, the strongest constraints on inflationary models, helping to rule out many of them and concentrate on investigation of what remains, are based on the combination of the latest results by Planck and BICEP/Keck, shown in one of the figure in the talk..
@@andreilinde8126 we are not trying to find out what is true. We are just trying to hold on to human theories no matter how many increasing fixes and epicycles they need. Although at one point likely, We don’t have any proof for an expansionary universe. The observed redshift doesn’t count. You cannot postulate a theory AFTER an observation and next claim that the observation proves your theory in reverse. Goes for dark energy goes for dark matter, goes for inflation goes for almost all we have done past 100 years. We havent learned ANYTHING. Just produced endless theories in ever more need of fixes to which ever more students and professors kept circling like a growing ant mill.
Not trying to give prof Linde a hard time. But I just think its a shame if the coming years he doesnt focus on the alternative of what redshift of galaxies could mean. Our idea of accelerated expansion was an understandable trial. But with mounting issues and complexities it is time to call it a day . Now we have seen Sag A* inverted, we need to appreciate this picture for what it is: the rosetta stone of our times. The light reaching our eyes is polarised refracted and distorted courtesy of our galactic plane. We have the proof right in front of it. And it was deductable: I published 3 year before the production of the EHT image that we should expect to see it inverted. If that doenst count, then where are we heading? It is up to you guys that made a name for yourselves To now venture this observed alternative ..its never too late to wise up…
He makes sense but your subtitles don't!
I thought this interview was going to be about the Federal reserve.
Dr. Keating, if I hear that you are writing 42 books in 2 years then I know your question was bait so you can steal our good ideas😁😅😂🤣
I can't believe no one's made an inflation pun in the comments :)
Here is mine: we live in an inflation of infaltion-models, not including financial infaltion
@@Thomas-gk42😂
There is no multiverse.
Agree
The universe is collapsing inward. Not expanding outward.
The universe is a dual 3D. Not a multiverse.
The big bang model is completely wrong.
Amazing, good luck whit that smoking gun. ....
Do you mean gravitational waves? Yes, it would be great... Fortunately, criminalistics evolved a lot since the old times when a smoking gun was required to send a man to prison. Think about DNA evidence, video surveillance, etc. Modern cosmology evolved as well, see my talk where evidence in favor of inflation is presented at 10 different slides.
Hi, yes, i understand, but gravitational waves, prove, other theorys wrong, in that case, inflation dont have oponents i guess all the best.
@@nunomaroco583 Well, the string gas cosmology claimed some time ago that it can do the same. I believe that this statement is incorrect. But it could be correct. If gravitational waves are found, it would be great independently of which theory wins. You are right that it would be especially good for inflation. But the way it was presented by some that inflation will remain unproven until gravitational waves are discovered was very misleading.
Hi, again, thanks for clarification, i m just a lay person, realy apreciate Dr.Brian, like you say (you are neutral. ..), try to solve the big questions we face all. ....
I hope you realize that I love u by this point. My question that i ask with all due respect is, do u have tourettes? My opinion of you won't change either way. I'm just curious.
Whom do you mean, Dr. Keating, Prof. Linde or any other? I'm just curious 😊
Yes, great ideas are coming like this suddenly when an apple hit your head. ha ha ha ha!
So true! Glad you enjoyed it! Please share the channel and videos with your friends!
@@DrBrianKeating I always do dr. Keating, even when I disagree with you. You see, Socrates teach me, that when you come to the front of the cave and with the dialectic tool you discover truths about the world, you do not go outside alone, but you return inside the cave, and you try to untie the rest people which are tied in there!