33 Subatomic Stories: Does the multiverse exist?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 ноя 2020
- One of the great unanswered questions of science is why the laws of the universe seem so carefully tuned to allow for the existence of stars, galaxies, and even humans. Scientists, philosophers, and even theologians have long mulled over this mystery. In this episode of Subatomic Stories, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln talks about the multiverse, which is a highly speculative possible answer to the question.
What the heck is a multiverse?
• What the heck is a Mul...
Do we live in a multiverse?
• Do we live in a multiv...
Big Mysteries: The Higgs Mass
• Big Mysteries: The Hig...
Fermilab physics 101:
www.fnal.gov/pub/science/part...
Fermilab home page:
fnal.gov 
Наука
Probably the best series on youtube right now. The fact that we can ask a noted physicist any question we want for free doesn't get nealy enough appreciation.
PBS Space Time, Sean Carrol, just two people here on YT who also give their views on astronomical and scientific subjects.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 I don't like being this guy.. But he was talking about this being a series with a q&a
@@seionne85 Both I mentioned have had many Q&A sessions after the lecture. And they go way deeper into the subject too. Sean Carrol even made seperate videos after his episodes with 30 minutes of Q&A.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 i watch both those channels and neither has this format
@@seionne85 Space Time dedicates at least the last one-third of a video for Q&A of the previous episode, Sean Carrol did a 26 part series about different subjects, each with it's own accompanying Q&A video. Look them up on his channel. Extremely captivating, at least most of them were for me. The format may be different, but Q&A is Q&A.
"High energy means small sizes" This is best demonstrated after Thanksgiving dinner, where your mass has increased but your energy is near zero
That is more of a corollary. Large sizes means low energy.
Seems people may have some problem with understanding jokes... ;-)
How about saying "your personal energy potential is near zero"? :-D
Is it though? Your potential energy has to skyrocket to maintain Gravy-symmetry.
@@paineoftheworld and don't even get started on so called "dark stuffing"
Hysterical.
How refreshing that a scientist can humbly and honestly discuss intelligent design without bias or prejudice. He presents the theory, shows how it would fit/solve the observed data, but then provides the caveat that it's inherently unverifiable with science and so the truly "scientific" thing is not to dismiss it, ridicule it, or reject it, but simply to move on and focus on applying the science where we can. Science is an incredible and powerful tool but is impotent and useless in the face of moral, philosophical, or religious questions. It's like praising the success of you axe, which truthfully has helped you to achieve a great deal, to the point where you insist on using it to drink water with. It's just an entirely different form of thinking/reasoning.
Totally agree, and it is also refreshing to see the more speculative scientific theories discussed rationally rather than hyped by "science" channels seeking youtube views.
Someday show us your t-shirt collection. It is always the first thing I look for.
Plot twist, he only has 1 shirt but it reverts to a quantum superposition after every video and the next time it gets observed gives a different result than before.
Each shirt exists only in another universe and he just jumps between universes
@@grahamrankin4725 so then we have evidence of the.... multi-t-shirt?
I swear he must print them specifically for each episode 😂
The second thing I look at is if the books have been rearranged.
Thanks for the lesson Dr. Don ❤
The Mr. Multiverse shirt gave me a chuckle. 😄
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'
If the hole is in a cup, the puddle is correct.
@@Captain1nsaneo The universe is God's cup of tea? But seriously, physicists who object to religious 'grand design' and then proceed to make the same simple philosophical mistake are just inventing a new 'grand design' and a new religion. Just because you can frame a question, doesn't mean it's worth answering
@@Simbosan This analogy is to explain the adaption of human in accordance to the environment of earth, it tells nothing about the "finely tuned" universal constants. For all we know, these have remained constant since the beginning of the universe and have not adapted to allow life. As Dr Don pointed out, a slight variation in these constants would break the physics of this universe, add we know it, to either result in the universe collapsing within itself, or expanding at such an incredible rate that it wouldn't have allowed any stars, galaxies, or planets to form.
@@Simbosan "it's turtles all the way down"
These episodes are so wonderful to watch.
I am SO sold on the Anthropic Principle... if things weren't the way they are, we wouldn't be here to ask why they are the way they are.
Or you live in a simulation....
@Howard Pym It doesn't answer all questions, of course. And I admit it can't even answer the most fundamental question: Why is there anything at all? But, there's no denying things exist unless you believe we're a hologram....which is one hypothesis. In fact, that one makes the most sense - as you said, something can't come from nothing.... so obviously nothing exists, right? We're nothing but ethereal consciousnesses and everything is just a product of our imagination.
@Howard Pym Actually, we DON'T know if something can come from nothing. It appears to be the case in the space-time we inhabit, but we have no idea if space-time itself needs to come from something.
@Howard Pym Nope, you're making the classic mistake of thinking that the rules that apply to everyday life applies to more extreme situations.
AFAIK the total energy budget of the universe is pretty close to zero due to gravity acting as negative energy. If it is in fact exactly zero the universe is, viewed from the "outside", nothing. In this case the universe has no problem starting to exist from nothing at all with just the assumption that quantum mechanics exist (QM says "nothing" is an unstable state).
Infinite existence is also fine. In fact the only choice you have is infinite of nothing - either the universe is infinite, or there is nothing outside the universe (or you have an infinite number of universes).
@Howard Pym Nope, the quantum foam is a phenomena *in* our universe (caused by the non-zero energy density of vacuum).
What quantum mechanics says is that you can't have all parameters stay the same forever (for any time at all, in fact). Since "nothing" is defined as "everything is zero" and quantum mechanics says "things won't stay zero", "nothing" ends up being unstable.
BUT, and I stress this, we're only talking about an unevidenced hypothesis here. It follows from what we can observe in our universe, but as with all other hypothesis that examine the origin of the Big Bang it's real hard to know if it's correct.
I would very much wish for you to continue this format after the covid situation. 🙂
Of course I still look forward to more normal editions also. 👍
It's going pretty good, thanks for asking!
Dr. Don, during the Q&A section of your videos, would you pick one book from the shelf behind you and give us a 30 second review? Great videos, keep up the great work!!
Thanks Doctor Lincoln, informative funny and a cool t shirt. What more can one ask for? Keep up the good work.
Hi Don, great video as always. You often say that physics is everything. Do you think that one day we will be able to explain the origins of consciousness and subjective experiences using particle physics?
Yes physics is everything. Consciousness isn’t some strange phenomenon that only exists in a strange realm outside physics. We might never be able to explain it fully but that doesn’t mean it’s no based in ground physics principles. It’s also possible that we need to adjust our physics to explain it but everything can be explained by physics
Another great tutorial! Keep up the good work!
Very good and informative, look forward to more videos..
Thanks for another great video Brian.
Brilliant explanation.
Thanks again, very nice video as always
Hi, thanks for your great channel. I was under the impression that the idea of a multiverse was first proposed by Eugene Wigner as a possible interpretation of the wave function collapsing and the measurement problem in QM.
Currently watching these backwards, so to speak. Fantastic series. I love speculative science because it frees the mind to imagine pretty much any situation. For a sci-fi writer, if only for a small group, this is fantastic 'fodder'. Having said that, I only write it if I think I can use any scenario within acceptable parameters. I really appreciate your clear explanations, as much as any speculation can be clear!
Love this series, and love this episode on the multiverse. I noticed that you didn't mention anything about the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics. Is that a deliberate omission, because they're very different ideas? Are there ways that MW and the multiverse are related to one another?
I think it’s possible for MW to also be imbedded in multiverse theory. It would only make sense to me
If there TRULY was symmetry in the universe, there'd be a Don Fermi doing RUclips videos for Lincoln Labs!
I noticed you have a copy of Parker's "The Roman Legions" on your shelf. It's one of my favorites!
In Hawking et. al.'s paper "A Smooth Exit from Eternal Inflation," Hawking mentions that the early inflationary period might have been part of a cluster of similar expansions of several other universes, and that we could detect evidence of this in the CMB. If so, what sort of evidence would we look for? Something like the Cold Spot, or another feature that's more subtle?
I never took a physics class so most of your videos are over my head, but the curiosity is still there. Are there any web sites your might recommend to get a more basic understanding of physics, more specifically, particle physics?
Look up Leonard Susskind's "The Theoretical Minimum"
Any of Feynman’s lectures are great as is his six easy pieces book
Thanks for your detailed explanation of where we’ve been and where we’re headed...all on a time scale which is beyond us mere mortals!
Except for watching the opening 6 minutes of Baby Driver every day, this is my favorite viewing on RUclips. Thanks, and Happy Thanksgiving, Dr. Don🦃🦃.
In the multiverse hypothesis, does the multiples universes share the same big bang ?
_
By the way, I discovered this channel recently and I love it. Thanks for your work and your attention to random questions people like me ask every time.
@Hilmar Zonneveld Thanks for the answer Hilmar !
Hey, a new one... and a cool topic too!
Hi Don, thanks for the video! If travelling time was not a problem - which place in the universe you'd want to visit? Or which event to observe?
The word universe meaning "everything" is kind of analogous to how "atom" originally meant "uncuttable". As our understanding becomes more subtle, sometimes words take on new meanings that are in conflict with the old meanings.
Yay, new vid!!
Where does gravity fit on the 'Increasing Strength' v Log(Energy) graph?
I think the multiverse is probably real. I can't say for sure of course but the fact that particles behave like a wave and the fact that our universe was once smaller than a particle, it should be that the universe is smeared so to speak and exist in multiple locations simultaneously.
Funny, you made the same comment in Universe 23956673294587408
Well, everything seems to be circles and spheres and waves... So any theory giving the universe some sort of sphere-wavey-circle shape would be interesting in my book.
I have a few questions....
1..... Why would it take an intelligent designer to make fine tuning.... What if there was no fine tuning and no multiverse...... There was a one in a million lucky draw and we won!!! And can make video thinking it can't be pure chance???
2.... What make scientists assume that the rate of change of physical law can be different in other pockets of universe???
3..... why the physical law and/or constant will change just because it stem off from different point of different layers??? Can not the daughter universes have the same property of mother universe in inflation theory??
Thanks for the educational videos.... Huge fan....
What does it really mean for the laws of physics to change? If particles go over a sort of boundary, would they suddenly act differently? Or do different particles exist that always act the same no matter where they are in space? In that case, why would they exist somewhere else but not here?
Is something like the space between electron orbits and the nucleus of an atom also dark energy?
Question: if I understood it correctly the multiverse has been proposed to explain why our universe has certain settings (fine tuning), by hypothesizing that there’s a lot of universes all with different “settings” and we found ourselves in one of them.
My problem is: based on what principle the other universes are different? In our universe we postulate that the laws of physics are the same everywhere, why should they be different in the other universes? If I have a bubble bath that produces bubbles, they may differ in size but for the rest they are the same.
Very cool. One thing about "fine-tuning". There is a paper Adams, F. Stars in other universes: stellar structure with different fundamental constants. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2008, (2008). that shows that the space for three constants is relatively large for stars (as we know them) to form. So, it may be likely that fine-tuning isn't quite as fine as some thing.
The other point is that humans exist because our universe is the way it is. The universe isn't the way it is because we were destined to exist. This is simple evolution. Life evolves to best survive and reproduce in the environment it exists in, not the other way round.
Wait, what about branes? And what do you think about the Arecibo news? Thanks for doing this series.
Hi Don,
String and superstring theory are very interesting ideas you have mentioned. What are the strings made of though? Spacetime, energy, math? Is there an allegory of string theory using mathematical knots and braids to model the particle zoo?
@Hilmar Zonneveld Good point. Strings would be simple and knots and braids maybe the interactions between them. Or results of interaction.
What makes something fundamental then? How do you know when you hit bottom?
I always had a problem with fine tuning, there is implied in there that the constant of the universe could be any other way. I mean, we don't have a second universe to test against ours, and check if the constants are the same, so even implying that changes in the constant would bring an another non-life permitting universe seems unscientific to me.
Dr. Lincoln, two questions (sorry about that). In mentioning 'a fine tuning' or perhaps I should say a fine tuned universe among a multitude of universes (to stay off 'intelligent design') that is fined tuned enough for us to exist. Assuming our universe is fine tuned throughout wouldn't that rather imply that life should exist elsewhere in our universe too? You did say that you didn't believe in MU hypothesis does that include the idea of a 'parallel universe' too?
Hi Dr, hoping to find my question in the next section. Can you explain in an easy way, maybe with some maths, how scientists have deduced black holes or the expansion of the universe from GR?
@Boodysaspie A British astronomer, John Michell suggested the existence of black holes first in the late seventeenth century, seeing them as a consequence of Newton’s gravity. He did not of course call them black holes, and the idea was based on Newton’s corpuscular theory of light. The assumption of a particulate nature for light came with a corollary assumption of mass. So maybe not the modern theory, but the core idea, gravitation too strong for light to escape.
there are few other explanations. Intelligent design is testable. Look for the creator signatures of the structures and processes that s/he controls to make the universe fine tuned. Or perhaps there are other explanation that some new science can come up with. Stay tuned.
Hello!
So glad to ask my first question here. Here it goes:
At some point' right after the big bang shouldn't the density of the matter released be so great that it had to instantly form a black hole? Like when the universe was the size of a grapefruit shouldn't it be enaught to become a black hole? I know that the forces were all united and that gravity split first. Maybe that is the cause?
Yes *BUT* - the universe was expanding at an insanely rapid speed, even after inflation ended, much much faster than today. The universe went from a few dozen light years at time = 1 second to the size of the Milky Way (10^5 light years) in 3 years. That rapid expansion rate gradually slowed. I've asked this question on various physics forums and haven't really gotten a good answer. They gave technical answers dealing with Einstein field equations. Another thing I'll point out is you don't get a black hole unless s there is a concentration of density. If the density is uniform you don't get a black hole. A block of lead that is infinite in size won't form a black hole.
@@IntraFinesse I'm paraphrasing here and probably and quite poorly but Sabine Hossenfelder, ruclips.net/channel/UC1yNl2E66ZzKApQdRuTQ4tw,
explained that the Schwarzschild equation, describes the formation of black holes in stationary space. At the big bang space was expanding somewhat.
Try this: math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html
@@3rdrock Sabine has many videos, which one? Your link takes me to her page with many videos.
@@IntraFinesse Sorry it was pretty recent but I can't remember which one.
Hello Dr. Don, you explained the our universe might just be the "one" of countless that happens to be finely tuned to support life, but is this the strong or weak anthropic principal? and what is the difference between the two?
In the previous episode, you talked about the speed of light and of gravity.
Light is related to electromagnetism. Its speed is related to the electric and the magnetic constants.
Why the speed of gravity is the same?
Does it mean that gravity is also related to electromagnetism?
Hi Don!
Could you elaborate on why some physicists think that the existence of more universes makes the existence of ours with "life-supporting" fine tuning more plausible? Are those other universes necessarily expected to produce constants "all over the place" and so to get it just right once in a while?
I am thinking about throwing dice here, expecting a "6-6" scenario. But underlying is the asssumption that that scenario can and will be achieved.
@Hilmar Zonneveld Thanks for your answer, appreciate it :)
I don't see, however, how the evocation of such a principle (the generating of a range of constants) is really reducing non-understood complexity. Now you have a mechanism at your hands whose workings are in itself to be explained. While we can observe other planets and understand the external factors that may or may not lead to life on a particular planet, the multiverse idea strikes me as somewhat similar to the first-cause-argument for the existence of god - The un-explainable complexity of the system is atrributed to a larger system behind it.
What are your views about Strange matter in cores of neutron stars?
I like getting more technical so to put more technical Q&A at the end seems a fair deal to not loose the majority at the beginning of the videos.
hey don @fermilab, what is your favorite book? any book, not just physics or science, what book has effected YOU the most?
Dr.Don what is your stance on QM and its interpretations?
I'd be interested in hearing a talk about microwave energy. In particular, can light energy become microwave energy if the distance traveled is multiple times the distance of the observable universe?
The CMB is thought to be the remnant of radiation from the Big Bang. As it has crosses an expanding universe it has cooled and the wavelength has gotten longer until it is microwaves. Light and microwaves are both electromagnetic radiation. Strictly speaking when something emits em radiation it does so over the whole spectrum so some was gamma rays and all the way down to radio waves originally
Hi Don, does Godel's incompleteness theorem suggest to you that the universe is computational (e.g. Wolfram cellular automata) or that human beings can think in ways that computers cannot (e.g. Penrose microtubules)?
Besides intelligent design or the multiverse, what other explanations can explain the fine tuning of the universe?
Is there a higher energy of gravity and if so, does it also appear to unify with the other forces?
A question: if before electoweak symmetry breaking all particles are massless, does that mean there are no neutrino oscillations in the unbroken phase, and no oscillations between left- and right-handedness? If so, how does the proposed leptogenesis work again, doesn't it depend on neutrinos changing handedness?
In your Forces Graph when you added Supersymmetry, why did the lines get that little 'curve' at the start of the curve?
Totally agree with Dr. Don about the supposed multiverse. I recently watched a video whereby two Astrophysicists were discussing a galaxy that apparently was devoid of dark matter. So, how is that possible when the existence of dark matter is still just a theory? Any thoughts on that? Thanks....
Question: What would the impact be on our current model of physics be if dark matter/energy violate parity symmetry as recent research from Minami-san & Komatsu-san, regarding β not being zero due to a polarisation in the CMB, might suggest? (only "suggest" as not yet considered "evidence", apparently)
Hi, I am curious why speaking of multiverse ideas you seemingly avoid the topic of multiverse interpretation of QM. Was it intentional? Why?
If a particle of mass rebounds back in the opposite direction, it has to come to a complete stop before going back in the opposite direction. For that moment it is stopped, is it experiencing the maximum amount of time any mass can experience in the universe? For that matter, can a photon be reflected back in the same way in which it would have to come to an absolute stop before reversing direction and would this give it a momentary rest frame?
Let's assume that there is a pair particle-artiparticle created. Is it possible for the detector to be located inside light cone of one but not the other one? Would that mean the detector will be able to register more and more particles or antiparticles (depending on type of the detector) but not the other one when they are showing up from nowhere?
The main issue with Intelligent Design is how did it come about...did it have an Intelligent Designer as well? Nah. The universe/reality fields have always existed and always will exist. We are just in its current iteration. There were an infinite number of universes before our current one. Sobering thought.
Hi Dr. Lincoln, Do you mind to please explain why putting a high potential electric field across a cloud chamber produces more visible particle tracks than without the field? There are differing explanations floating around for this, but nothing very clear and certainly no consensus. Thanks.
The major problems with the *Intelligent Design* solution is that it is far from a minimalistic solution, and it is in essence not testable. If an intelligence designed the universe, what natural laws does it obey, or does it? Who created that intelligence? What existed before that intelligence?
Do quantum fields continue outside universe, such as before big bang and beyond particle horizon of universe?
So does the multiverse that you described in today's episode have a relationship to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Why do physicists refer to density as a "parameter"? Density is a calculation (mass / volume). The parameters would be mass and length of the radius of the universe (as volume in calculated by the radius). In other words, you can't just assign density a new value, but rather the mass and/or the radius would have a new value. I'm not sure if I am missing something here, or if "parameter" has a slightly different meaning in the lexicon for physicists.
Do gravity waves interfere with the Dune or the particle accelerator experiments?
The waves have been measured by VIRGO and LIGO, which use huge tracks many kilometres in length to sensitively measure. Changes in length of about a millionth of a centimetre. So the waves have very small, virtually immeasurable effects. But yes they affect everything they radiate past.
AFAIU, multiverse is a shape of universe in which bubbles are expanding along space axis, but what about a multiverse in which bubble are along time axis? What would it mean? I'd guess either having physical constants changing across time, but far slower than "our universe" lifetime if we're not able to bring it out; another guess would be that multiverse could be identical to "bouncing universe", in which universe would bounce and we are located in a rebound which is suitable for life, which is consistent with anthropic principle?
Maybe there was the last big bang where the most of particles grained to the smallest equal size. The rest of particles varying in size...Infinity is
possibility in between and is possible or impossible speed (unreal space) I don't know but phisic is awesome
Hi Don.. does this multiverse idea has somehow to do with quantum mechanics (wave function) many worlds interpretation?
This is a very different idea from the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
How do you define “small change in parameters “? Regardless, you could divide any amount of change an infinite number of times , so you can have many values that would still make this universe work. That’s assuming of course we have it right in the first place.
Can we detect other dimensions by measuring the time a beam of light takes to pass through some space.
Example: If a beam of light takes 1 sec to travel from x1y1z0 to x2y2z0, it would take longer if we manipulate it in such a way that it also takes some time traveling in the Z dimension, and then returning to z0. (hard to explain without diagram)
So if we make light beam travel in extra dimensions before returning, and it takes longer travel time, that could prove it had been roaming around.
I found this, would like some explanation :)
"The universe is getting hotter, a new study has found.
The study, published Oct. 13 in the Astrophysical Journal, probed the thermal history of the universe over the last 10 billion years. It found that the mean temperature of gas across the universe has increased more than 10 times over that time period and reached about 2 million degrees Kelvin today -- approximately 4 million degrees Fahrenheit."
What is the tensional strength of space? How much 'give' is there before it pulls on the next consecutive location when space is warped? With the space between 2 close blackholes, does something about space stretch or is new space created between the blackholes to keep the amount of space there to maintain distance and then spacetime curves towards each blackhole to their curvatures saturation point? Why would space be smooth when everything else in the universe is quantized?
Excellent episode. I see the argument for the Multiverse and the Anthropic Principle as a direct counter to theologians like William Craig Lane who use the Finely Tuned Universe to argue the case for a creator. I have spent some time pondering this dilemma because the fact is you cannot trivially dismiss Craigs argument even if it does not follow that a creator (of some description) implies the existence of a personal God as most monotheistic religions dictate.
I've come to the conclusion that the hypothesis of a Multiverse, even though seemingly unprovable, is justified and warranted, in the context of it being a legitimate foil to Intelligent Design, which I think theologians like Lane exploit in order to engage in Jesus smuggling.
Brilliant video which I think I mostly understood.
My view:
It is fascinating to see a Super Sys graph showing the E & M, Weak and Strong forces merging as energy increases. I need ponder if Gravity would join them too as the energy increased to the singularity. I assume it would, this is fascinating because it explains how the four known forces split apart as the energy density in the early universe lowered from the singularity beginning.
Regarding the multiverse, I did not realise it is a hypothesised theory to explain the seemingly intelligent design of this universe. This theory allows for those that don't believe in a creator (or whatever is the correct word for it, I don't like the word God) to understand how this universe is just right for matter to coalesce into all we can see in this uncomprehendingly gigantic universe.
I don't believe in the multiverse after this video, I believe there is one universe. I believe in intelligent design of this universe.
I would love to know more of the testing of higher dimensions. I have a feeling our universe is layered and lower dimensions cannot see the higher dimensions. I believe there are clues from the study of 'out of body' patient experiences, coma patients. Spirituality, has some interesting concepts of higher dimensions but I have not fully embraced the concept.
Do gravitational waves propagate with the constant c speed no matter the medium, or do they behave as electromagnetic waves exhibiting different speeds in different media?
If the 2nd case is what describes the reality, is it a gravitational shock wave possible to happen and how would it affect the matter nearby?
Question:
Could the "many worlds" theory solve the fine tunung problen or do these paramateres have to be fixed before we can us the "many worlds" theory?
The multiverse and many worlds have some overlap, although it is possible to imagine examples of either of them with zero overlap too.
Ideas are easy. Correct ideas are not.
I have a question that I can't seem to get a clear answer from. If you are traveling at the speed of light, in a ship for instance, and shine a light ahead of you, does the light from your flashlight travel twice the speed of light? for instance, if a particle is traveling at the speed of light and splits (or I should say the halves repel each other) where one half goes forward and the other goes backwards, wouldn't the forward piece travel faster than the speed of light?
Hi Dr. Don!
One of the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics is called "Multiverse"
So is that the same Multiverse that you explained in this video?
If you’re referring to Everett, I feel like they are vastly difference ideas, but could be rooted in the same physics. For instance, Everett’s interpretation is that every single time there is a quantum event, the universe splits into two branches, where both outcomes of the event occur; one in each “branch.” If this is true, we’re talking an unfathomably large number of new branches every single moment. This ends the observation issue, as the wave function does not collapse when observed, but instead the observer becomes entangled with the particle, and has now eliminated future possible branches they could both exist on. The multiverse dr. Don is talking about refers to many universes that all have different forms of physics, but, if we view it with along the lines of of evolution, there could have been early “branches” many of which spawned universes incapable of forming structure and eventually life, and a few that were capable, and the. Building in that branch, it evolves... so one single branch ends up viable, but then that branch splits into near infinite child branches, where everything that is possible does happen in at least one branch. Using the anthropology principle, we’re observing the universe on a branch that feels finely tuned, because we could have only evolved in a branch with the “finely tuned” parameters we observe.
Im also not a scientist and just an armchair enthusiast, so, grain of salt :)
If the constants are zero, then the equation would give a Higgs mass of zero as well; supersymmetry disproved again?
Is the speed of light constant only in the current size of universe and faster in an expanded universe ? Or is it an absolute constant ?
I have a question.
If the Higgs Mechanism disappears at high temperatures. It would mean particles move at the speed of light.
But it is always stated that would require infinite amount of energies. However if we can reach that temperature with a finite amount of energy, then lightspeed would be possible below infinite energies.
So does that mean speed of light is possible (even though still difficult)? Or even... what happens if we spend more energy then? Would past light speed be possible?
No. The Higgs mechanism disappearing means that particles no longer have mass. Its a quantum thing: At one energy they have mass, and move slower than light, at anther higher energy, they don't, and move exactly at lightspeed.
Without the Higgs Mechanism a certain subset of the elementary particles would become massless. A particle without mass has no option but to travel at the speed of light. Removing the Higgs Mechanism isn’t bypassing the infinite energy rule for a mass traveling at the speed of light, it’s just removing the mass restriction for those specific particles (and destroying the universe at the same time). And 99% of the mass (non-Higgs mass) in the universe would still remain to defeat your intention.
@@ozzymandius666 so then they do move at lightspeed. But in this case we achieved that "accelleration" with less than infinite energy needed. Doesn't that contradict Einsteins theories?
@@davidgreenwitch No, they don't accelerate. They change from massive to massless, without passing through any intermediate stages.
I'm still not clear what's meant by "at higher energies" when referring to the universe (or space) rather than individual particles. I know that individual particles can have higher or lower kinetic (or relativistic) energies. But what does it mean when you say that in the past, the universe (or space) itself had a much higher energy? Are you still referring to the energy of the particles, that is, good old thermal energy? Or something different? Can space itself have different levels of energy at different times, even after excluding dark energy and any (real) particles within it?
Hello,
I was wondering something...is the speed of a photon limited by the 'speed' of Gravity Waves? Or are Gravity Waves the 'carrier' mechanism of photons?
I hope my questions naked sense.😊
The multiverse is also just a logical conjecture of potential statistical outcomes. I would have thought quantum mechanics would have had something to do with it. As for the tuning of things, it is maybe too early to deduce why the Universe is how it is. The main concepts would be the intelligent design or somehow a requisite of sentient outcome as a forming factor. When you look at the formation of solar systems it is weird how gravity and basic elements finally form some potentially habitable worlds.
so if the wave function that shrodinger talks about is unique to our universe, could the constants, and other universal traits be 'fine-tuned' to a different wave function, making a different conceivable universe? or, more importantly, is our universe the one that 'materializes' upon conscience will and/or observation? so the other ones can be there and not be there simultaneously, up until consious being or some other way of collapsing the wave function finally comes about?
im sure none of that makes sense, thats why im asking. i apologize for my ignorance
How do we know a particle doesn't encounter a minute quantity of loss in energy in its trajectory through space? Assuming it's not light in an event horizon or a collision with mass as normally defined, but with space itself. Any known equations covering particles say tachyons encountering some negating effect through space itself? Same question 3 times :)
*Is there any is for many worlds interpretation in future?*
Could a multiverse / megaverse and fine tuned constants of nature come from quantum and inflation fields? Probability distributions of inflation / quantum fields develop variations of the constants of nature which grow into multiverse or megaverse?
Is there anything we know of where there is exactly 1 of it? I don’t mean the last of something, but only one ever made. Before watching, that was a reason a multiverse was plausible to me
Never understood why some say that intelligent design and having all possible universes can not exist together. Would it not take a much more intelligent design to create every possibility than only one finely tuned possibility?
#question Dr. Don, this is a bit off topic, but when a black hole evaporates, wouldn't there be a point when it ceases to be a black hole? That it no longer has enough mass and light is able to escape it?
When we say quant field already existed and fluctuation in started Big Bang... it is still hard to perceive “what is the source of these field “ what started it ?
Multiverse - not to be confused with Everetts many-worlds idea to sidestep the measurement problem in QM. The term multiverse is being (mis-?)used for the latter, too.
2nd question:
Does dark energy demonstrate any push on actual matter from one space to another, or does it only effect space itself? Alternately asked: is or isnt dark matter a "force" in the qm standard model sense of the word?