Assuming the dark energy, and dark matter quantum exponent between both universes is not equal to the quantum exponent of matter, then one universes would cancel the other out in time as space would differ. The Exponential nature between what was found during the findings of the Higgs Boson, a photon could travel between universes and the dark field would cancel out.
@Michael Lochlann Matt admits he loves physics jargon too much to simplify things for the average person. I think it makes this channel pretty unique, it's definitely not for the faint hearted. Like you said, physics books and conferences do a much better job at simplifying so if that's what you're after those are a great choice!
Anybody else love it when there’s an episode where Matt says “Ten to the power of ten to the power of..”? I always know it’s something mind-blowing when that comes up. Ok, PBS Spacetime is very often mind-blowing, but “Ten to the power of ten to the power of..” seems to be a special treat.
It's still less then infinite. Which is curious, when you know that our "bubble universe" itself should be infinite in size since the big bang, but still expands. When you end with paradoxes, you know you are wrong and some of your assumptions are incorrect or only a samll part of the picture.
*THE MAN OR THE WOMAN WHO MUST BREAK SOMETHING IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND IT'S PURPOSE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING* J.R.TolkinLoreMaster 21th century planet earth
Also, if bubble universes are generated when spacetime stops expanding in one place, how does a stop in expansion in an area change the laws of physics of that area?
Yes, the thinking that they r "inflating" Or expanding just like ours, at the same time as having different laws, just doesn't sound right, it could be that they r out of our human understanding? If they have different laws, how can u say that they r inflating?.... There might as well rightfully be no words to describe them.... This is rlly addicting stuff
If the laws of physics are so different wouldn't everything be and look different and Incomprehensible? A bubble would suggest it resides in the same space.
1:59 so it IS true: our entire universe is an oil bubble floating in a jar, placed on a shelf, in an alien's child room as a science fair project that got a C- 👽
It's kind of assumed that there is a "time" dimension (that may or may not be linear) that exists as a shared parameter in the calculus between all the universes. The inflaton field, where the bubbles expand inside and collapse randomly in, has it's dynamics, and I suppose that dynamic state can define time for all worlds. (Or you could just define time as the number of universes currently existing! Since the spawn rate is faster than our plank-scale theoretical limits of measurement, that would be more than good enough as a multi-universal clock.)
There would be time if these bubble universes are created in another bubble universe that is already expanding so quick that these universes can start popping up. And eventually more universes might pop in in these new universes when they olso expanded enought .
When I was in college we had this term that the professors would use called theory-territory or therotory. Basically most sciences will expand into their neighboring fields of study. For the softer sciences of human behavior you'd have psychology, sociology, anthropology, and biological behavioralism all trying to explain the same phenomenon within their framework. I feel like planetary scientists are telling astronomers to get off their lawn. I think there's a good chance that they probably have working definitions and classifications for planetary bodies. Kind of like there are classifications for stars. Like what is the difference between an astrophysicist, astronomer, and cosmologist. How much overlap are we talking about and how specialized do they get. Back to anthropology an archaeologist and a linguist can both be anthropologist. Maybe SpaceTime could do a theory-territory episode explaining all the branches of physics and an astronomy.
@Fedora Eagle I don't understand how a comment so irrelevant like this one can get so many likes and comments. The world is really turning into an idiocracy.
The truth is your mathematics is weaker than you wish, therefore you watch to escape the fact that you maybe in the wrong field. Or your just bored with your professors.
@DigitalDan As many infinite possibilities as your imagination, at least until we figure out a way to observe it and it settles to something relatively more mundane. Keep your mind open for all possibilities, but remember that science follows facts whole fiction follows dreams. It's always great when they overlap, but important to remember the distinctions between the two. Sounds like we're coming up on the edge of our current knowledge of inflation. Curious what the next major theme will be.
the many worlds theory has flaws there is a video that very constructively debunks not a fan of the MWT but I am a fan of time travel not our bodies but our conscienceness kinda like that wolverine movie where information is transported and we know the speed of light may be a constant but there is stuff out there that shits on the speed of light
The "Youngness Paradox" seems pretty transparent to me. Although it's true that the majority of sentient life would be in other bubble universes that should in no way interfere with the probability of a 2nd or 3rd sentient forming within the same bubble universe or even down to the scale of a single galaxy.
I think you're right. Couldn't you use this premise to argue just about anything that happens should statistically be happening for the first time? I mean, the number of universes in which someone is drinking tea for the very first time is almost infinitely larger than the number of universes in which tea drinking has been happening for thousands of years. Imagine how many new universes must have formed in that time! But here I am drinking tea, thousands of years after its invention.
That isn't really what the Paradox says. It's talking about the probability of us being in a newer bubble universe compared to an older one. I'll try to rephrase it a bit: There's always more first sentient races than second sentient races at any point of time in the 'multiverse', because there's always more new universes than old ones. Because of that it's simple probability that we're one of the first ones. The chance of a universe developing more sentient races afterwards has no bearing on the paradox.
It's also a thing on our galactic scale. Terrestrial planets and the heavy elements to make us are actually relatively new. Thus, wouldn't it be crazy if we were the first. Boy howdy we need to survive to help the others not be like us.
I think it’s just to differentiate between “planets” in our solar system and “planets” (exoplanets) outside of our solar system. It makes sense, but yes it is weird when even though something is technically a planet like Mars or Earth, it isn’t actually called a “planet” because it’s outside of our solar system
I agree. Exoplanet should just be a class of planet based on location. A way to specify, what you are talking about. It is like some islanders live on an island that has one kind of snake, but they refuse to call any other kind of snake that exists elsewhere "snake". "Those are not snakes, those are exosnakes". Silly.
@@ChessMasterNate That example is perfect, it also captures the pettiness of the definition; as though 'our planets' are different just by virtue of being close to us.
I don't understand how this argument is supposed to work. The Fermi Paradox is a description for the likelihood of life within OUR universe. This is still equally likely or unlikely across all stars and galaxies. That there exist multiple, independent, universes doesn't change this. The likelihood of life forming within any ONE of those bubble universes is still the same and still described by the FP. If anything, this just adds one more variable to the FP equation, assuming that it is even worth considering; as it is largely just academic as we lack any known method to travel to, communicate, or even observe these other pocket universes.
Poes Law Haha yes I agree. Contrails are quite real. Though if you notice, I typed Chem, not con-trails. But pretty sure you're joking. If so, good one.
Best reason is the FACT of how many worlds are in THIS smaller type galaxy alone. 400 BILLION if not much more star systems and there are billions of galaxies out there. To doubt we are alone is simply dumb.
@Chris Chu Supposedly trillions of galaxies, based upon the latest info. I have a video in my playlists about it, on another channel. And I think you meant to say "To think we are alone", the word doubt is to disbelieve which leads to giving up, wrong word. : ) @Winston Deleon I disagree, that's thinking small or "short - sighted", and having too much doubt. The way our emerging technology is coming so fast, and our good innovation, I do believe we will find some bacteria / micro - organisms, and maybe animal / plant life on other planets. You can never say for sure to the absolute.. that we won't find anything or even intelligent life. Because we don't know yet until we search, look at the moons around Jupiter and Saturn, oceans underneath one of them that could have bacteria that could be slowly changing over time "evolving" spoilers God does create different species of animals, other than humans. And there might even be aquatic life in the ocean underneath the moon's surface that is around the other planet, or just bacteria if nothing else, and Nasa is excited to find out. They also find new planets all the time, I think there are 4 to 19 new planets discovered every day in our Galaxy, and especially close to our solar system, in other solar systems nearby. They have noticed the little black dots that they thought were sun spots, going around other stars in other solar systems, were actually planets, so we are discovering a lot of new things all the time. Our space transmissions / communications are advancing with emerging technologies, look at Nasa's Mars CubeSats 1 and 2, they were able to transmit data from Mars to Earth in 3 minutes, for future "solar system" communication, and I think that technology will mature over time to be faster for wider ranges throughout our solar system. Look at Quantum Teleportation, Australia plans to build a Quantum Internet by 2030 with this emerging technology, to share with Europe, no word on the U.S. The Netherlands plans to expand their cities with their Quantum Internet, and share it with the world in 3 years. Now imagine using that same Quantum Teleportation for small things like Data transmission / communications for space communications. If you are wondering about everything said, you can find everything mentioned in playlists I have on another channel. And if you are curious about emerging technology and beyond, to get a really good idea on what we can do now, very soon "few years or less", or even a little later after that in the 2020's, also check my playlists. ------------------------------------------------ I was giving out helpful links, but it won't allow me to do that now, so I made playlists. 1. Check my channel, find a subscribed channel called Technology Research, go to the playlists there, and click "created playlists", that should show them all. 2. After that, click on the title / text of each playlist, not on the pictures. 3. Don't forget to click the "more" button in each playlist description for more articles and playlists.
Thanks for covering the planet definition issue in detail at the end, and giving air (finally) to the biggest problems with the definition. Great show as always.
"Space is big-" Me-"You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.”"
This is a fine discussion, especially the perspective on Fermi's Paradox, but the most important thing I took from this was, we really need to talk about where I can get that t-shirt.
Can you use tetration instead of exponentiation in order to keep track of the number of bubble universes in the multiverse, as a function of time? I haven't yet seen a practical application for tetration, but if there is one then this surely must be it.
All these sounds nice but isn't multi-verse theories/ideas highly speculative concepts that borders on being like religion, fengshui, astrology &/or science fantasy?
So, bit late to the party, but this video has me asking a question: If bubble universes can meet (even if they have to start off absurdly close together to do so), wouldn't that allow for the creation of expanding regions entirely contained or "trapped" between a network of connected universes? In a simplified 2d version of this, you could imagine 4 universes, in a square pattern, so that the edges of all 4 bubbles meet shortly after the pop into existence. But if you timed it just right, and set them just the right amount away, there would still be a region of exponential inflation right in the middle of it. I have no idea what the implications of this would be, but it seems hard to imagine.
Perhaps such a structure would rapidly end up as something like a shockwave as the space inside expands, inflating the surrounding universes like the skin of a balloon?
In an endless reality, all possibilities for life would be realized, so even after everything we can see evaporates into radiation, life will carry on elsewhere. It is comforting to think that perhaps, in some distant but similar universe, I am having tea with you.
it's also a rather hellish prospect as it means infinite, eternal suffering. if you deal with mental illness or chronic pain you don't want it to go on forever with no way out.
@@mvmlego1212 Well, perhaps not. Still, the DNA of every living thing would end up randomly duplicated at some point, so it's nice to think that life itself is neverending.
the idea that we are the first intelligent life in the universe, because the amount of universes created each second is more than the last, and so the vast majority of intelligent life is the first, is ... phew. it shakes me.
If the universes do collide/join, don’t they have to follow the same laws of Physics? Not sure, but something about gauge theory. And what type of spacetime is in between the bubble universes?
There is no principle which states that bubbles that do collide must have exactly the same laws of physics (things like coupling constants). Assuming that the dimensionality of each bubble is the same (3 space, 1 time), then I would guess that what is called a domain wall would form between them, and it would move further into the bubble with the lower value of the inflaton field with a speed proportional to the ratio of the values of the respective inflaton fields of each bubble. The domain wall is 2 dimensional, so there would be nothing between each bubble except for the domain wall. Passing through the domain wall would likely be fatal to ab life doing it from either side of the bubble, and would likely drastically change the structure of any energy to pass through it.
New evidence supports the idea that we live in an area of the universe that is “just right” for our existence. The controversial finding comes from an observation that one of the constants of nature appears to be different in different parts of the cosmos. If correct, this result stands against Einstein’s equivalence principle, which states that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. “This finding was a real surprise to everyone,” says John Webb of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Webb is lead author on the new paper, which has been submitted to Physical Review Letters. Even more surprising is the fact that the change in the constant appears to have an orientation, creating a “preferred direction”, or axis, across the cosmos. That idea was dismissed more than 100 years ago with the creation of Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Read more: www.newscientist.com/article/dn19429-laws-of-physics-may-change-across-the-universe/#ixzz616H9gCH0
@@urinater That "New evidence" is almost 10 years old, and no-where near the 6-sigma needed to be considered "evidence" among scientists. "But, he adds, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: “That’s way beyond what we have here.” He says the statistical significance of the new observations is too small to prove that alpha is changing. "New Scientist" is a rag.
“Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.” D Adams...
The multiverse it never ends It just goes on and on my friend Some universes Started popping up not knowing what it was And now they'll keep on popping up forever just because!
Actually for me the solution of the Fermi paradox in our own universe is a lot easier. Let's suppose that every coefficient of the Drake equation is really low but not zero. So, a planet in the habitable zone with microbial life: rare, but not that much. A planet with multicellular complex life? Orders of magnitude less common. A planet with intelligent life? Even less common than the latter. We end up with a probability declining exponentially every time we add a condition to the equation (intelligent life, intelligent life + civilizations, intelligent life + civilizations + technology capable of interstellar travel). In the end, if we factor in the probability of 2 already extremely improbable civilizations capable of interstellar travel coexisting at the same time in a billion years old galaxy, it seems reasonable we haven't yet encountered aliens
I believe the timing is also important. It doesn't matter if 1 million years ago there was an alien civilization sending messages to the 100light-years-away sun. We wont detect them if they went extinct within 1 million years, and a civilization of a million years is a lot!
@@jvcscasio exactly, we have to consider distances between advanced civilizations in a 4D spacetime which could potentially span millions or even billions of years in time and millions or even billions of light years in space
I've been fascinated by this inflaton field and watching the last few Alan Guth episodes over and over. I also tried watching some of Guths lectures but this feels like it hits the homerun better in explaining what Guth is really talking about. I never knew that vacuum space had such high POWA!
Zsolt Donca OMG, I noticed that too. Almost evil or excited? Hos facial expressions are always very animated. Them eyebrows tho! ;) Wondering too, if he frequents the discord and how many are members now. It's all interesting :)
Bogdan Vera An excellent read, and I may have understood half of it. But after finishing it, I came up with two answers, either one or an infinite number as there is simply no logical reason for a finite number of universes.
They reserved word "planet" for bodies in our solar system? The future human galactic civilization will certainly come to think this was a totally smart decision
Any other RUclips video: reading comments while following along with the vid playing... PBS space time video: reading comments....erm... wait whaaaat? Rewind.....lol ^_^
I have conflicted feelings about the Youngness Paradox. On the one hand, I like it because I have been arguing for years now that the reason we don't see anyone else out there is that we're first (because someone has to be). On the other hand, it sounds suspiciously like the Doomsday Argument which I dislike but I don't know my way around statistics enough to properly articulate my intuition that it's a load of baloney.
I have the same problem with it. There is no reason to suspect that the rate of civilization generation in a single universe is dependent on the number of universes in total. It's not exactly like the doomsday argument, but it does have that same ab initio feel. What makes you think we are the first and only life? Or the first and only civilization? I am more of a late filter, doomsday tech guy. The doomsday tech is obviously Facebook.
@@davidhand9721 Given the conspicuous lack of evidence of any [interstellar] other civilizations out there, and given that the current age of the universe is about as young as it could be to give rise to concentrations of heavier elements (Fe in particular), I think it is not only reasonable to assume we're first (or at least, not significantly further behind in technological development than anyone else currently out there), but imperative that we act and plan as if we are [on the verge of being] first because if there are stakes to be claimed in the galaxy, it's important we plant those flags before everyone else beats us to them and we're stuck being the Alabama of the galaxy with only a single yellow dwarf to our name.
I have conflicted feelings about two-tiered comments. - On one hand it's a great way to join a band wagon. On the other hand, it's just a great way of feigning some sort of creativity you don't possess, at least not enough to do it without a huge blank waste of space that really means "prepare to have your mind blown... but not really"... and, also, "I don't know what a colon is for, like educated people".
@@willinwoods The actual quote he's referencing is, "“Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.” From (the late) Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy. It's a Science Fiction comedy series; originally a BBC radio show broadcast in 1978, then novelized by Adams, (there are 4 or 5 books in the "trilogy," as he jokes.), and adapted for BBC TV in 1981, and also an American movie from 2005. It's a modern classic. (It was also a popular early text-only PC game.)
My second take on my problem with the Fermi Paradox explanation: One of the ideas, that is often formulated together with the anthropic principle is the idea, that we are a totally normal, average species, and everything about us is totally normal, typical and average. So, our universe was about 13.8 billion years old, when humanity first appeared, and we therefor assume, that it takes an average universe about 13.8 billion years to produce its first technological civilization. The Fermi Paradox problem is, that according to all we know so far, and assuming, we are the first technological civilization ever, we don't really understand, WHY it took the universe so long to produce us. The circumstances, that we deem necessary for our existence should have occurred multiple times before, even in the time cone of our observable universe. So, the multiverse theory by far can't solve the Fermi Paradox, at best it shifts the question from: "Why did it take the universe 14 billion years to produce us?" to "Why does a given random universe on average need 14 billion years to produce its first technological civilization?"
What you dont know how many universes there are? Obviously its ∞-x+¥/time since the beginning of time. All you have to do is fill in those incalculable variables and you have the answer of course until the next second passes and 11 to the 78th quadrillion universe's pop up and you have to add those in.
@@drawmaster77 it's, at least in its current progress is untestable (this is what i got so far from watching this vid), hence it's more like philosophy or tought exercise, although it's backed by mathematics
@@mgilangr9883 that's not really true. They come up with crazy theory first, then write some equations around the "what if's". If their theory is false, and it absolutely is, then all these equations are meaningless. Think of it like writing a sci-fi novel about space exploration and calculating how fast the interstellar spaceships are flying. If you come up with a number through some calculations, it doesn't make it any less of a fact that interstellar spaceships are science fiction. The entire string theory is nothing more but a really long sci-fi novel.
I'm still confused about how different physics from one universe to another universe manifests. Let's say we're comparing the strong nuclear force between two universes. Does "different physics" mean the strength of the strong nuclear force is different between the two? Or, does "different physics" mean the strong nuclear force will exist in one universe but not the other? Or, does it mean something else?
Physics rise from the 4 fundamental interactions or fundamental forces, are the interactions that do not appear to be reducible to more basic interactions. There are four fundamental interactions known to exist: the gravitational and electromagnetic interactions, which produce significant long-range forces whose effects can be seen directly in everyday life, and the strong and weak interactions, which produce forces at minuscule, subatomic distances and govern nuclear interactions. The physics of a universe with let’s say 7 or 3 fundamental interactions will be very different from ours and it’s impossible to visualize or comprehend because we’re so “fine tuned”for this one
@@nareshsahu565 Could even have an extra fundimental force or one less heck I think the most scientific way to explain magic in a fictional universe is basicly a manipulation of those fundimental forces useing a conduit that can properly condut them but he it's pusdo-science like that that's best saved for rpgs where it's a fun extra eliment to add to your world's setting.
@@valentinopopa1686 not just yet but never, anything beyond our universe can only be theorized about, even the big bang itself can only be theorized about U could say that the argument "god created the universe" has the same credibility as the multiverse theory with all it variants
Make me laugh out loud for a bit. But while I completely agree with the Anthropic Principle, the take on the Fermi Paradox seemed off to me... isnt the paradox supposed to be on the scale of galaxies and not on whole (not just observable) universes? I dont see how additional bubble universes that are likely to never even cross out own would effect the paradox... it's not like life has a hard limit of one sapient species per universe.
My problem with the youngness paradox is that it assumes a heck of a lot. Who says we were in the first universe (or one of the first) to form? If anything, in an infinitely expanding multiverse, there's an infinite number of intelligent lifeforms in an infinite number of universes older than us. So, shouldn't intelligent life be an inevitability?
You say a infinite number of life forms that would mean life is common 😐buts it’s not any life form you see was forged a planet like this 😐we are nothing but monkeys with iPhones if you have and intelligent life forms you need to evolve start from bacteria and they evolved a backbone then how they evolved eyes a spine the list goes on 😑and this planet hold the perfect planet to have complex life you think we were formed from aliens ?no we were in a state of darkness for who knows how dam long if anything your experience determined who you are and will be it’s not called determined but super determination 😐I could have Ben bone in any point of this planets history I could have Ben a bird a peacock anything 😐you could say i maybe was one of those things but that’s not how it works 😐before this planet before the Milky Way their was no dna no nothing 😑so what’s the nature of self ? Why do we see the world from first person? It means your built the way you are their is no randomness to it 😑once your a human you will always be a human and their is nothing you can do that will change it even if your atoms are completely destroyed you will still see the world from first person view just like before the only difference is you won’t be aware that your even dead 😐and depending if the universe is finite or not does not matter in s finite universe you still need cause and effect on what created everything and if the universe is infinite that means their is not beginning or end 😐
"Space is big, really big. You just don't believe how vastly, hugely, mind bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think its a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to Space, listen" and so on.
The question is, What happens when they collide? I understand the theory that universes infinitely create in space time, but it sounds as if there’s constant collisions between universes. What happens when that occurs, other than the creation of new universes, because in our own universe, just for a reference. When black holes collide there’s an incredible amount of energy released. So, in space time, the collision of universes simply leads to a never ending creation of further universes? I feel there could be more, and the video briefly touched on it when they talk about dark energy
There is a great idea! For the dark side of the Universe - suppose that it consists of short-term interactions in long-lived fractal networks, the smallest quantum operators - Spherical «rosebuds», consisting of a large set; 1 - rolled into a sphere, 2 - half rolled into a sphere and 3 - flat, vibrating quantum membranes relative to their working centers in the sphere.
Question: When you were describing the universes colliding, their edges seemed to be made of some energy that was denser than space itself, and if so, what is the edge of the universe made of?
@@Bitchslapper316 why do I suddenly feel I've been bitch slapped by physics :) EDIT: makes you appreciate the true greats when you realise just how humble you are :)
It would be a sharp gradient (an abrupt change) in the energy density. Therefore, as seen from the inside, the edge would be an abrupt shift in natural physics (weird shit would happen). And if you could touch that edge, it would probably inflate your hand into oblivion.
Sir Isac Newton: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Quantum Mechanics: For every action there is an infinite number of reactions. Weeeee... in another parallell universe I am a yellow stone with eyes...
There is certainly something 'off' about calculating probability across spaces that are not causally connected. Prob( A|B ) is meaningless if event B cannot be said in any sense to have happened at all. Also - how do we calculate that all universe bubbles must expand at the speed of light? (the same value of c for our universe?) surely they could all have different values for c? I don't see anything intrinsic about the inflaton field that sets this value.
Our planet is a part of our solar system. Our solar system to our galaxy. Our galaxy to our universe. Our universe to our multi-verse? Our multi-verse to our...?
So if the rate of expansion of our universe is in some way a remnant of primordial exponential expansion and that expansion is ever accelerating would we expect that latter-born universes, on average, would have a faster rate of expansion even at the time they reheat? And if that’s so, would there be an ever increasing proportion of universes expanding too fast for all our lovely complex chemistry to ever arise? A sort of multiversal senescence?
@@niemandkeiner8057 Yes, it would imply that, if it is true. Now, to answer his question, it is important to know whether the inflaton value tends to drop to a fixed value, a random value, or a fraction of its current value. If it drops to a fixed value, or a random value, there will always be more universes spawning every next instant. If it drops to a fraction, we would expect for bubble creation to essentially cease very early, since newer bubbles would have too high a constant and wouldn't slow down all that much.
After listening to Kip Thorne explain how there’s no matter whatsoever in a black hole, I really needed my mind completely blown again, and voila! Good stuff!
His statement had nothing to do with simplicity it had to do with assumptions. The idea could be very complex and require less assumptions and therefore be the one more likely.
Define "Universe"... Once it meant: “all things, as a whole, the universe” (Wiktionary)... As in - Everything there is. What exactly does the word mean now? A part of a "multiverse"? Linguistically... that doesn't make sense. How can "all things, as a whole" - be only a part of something other than 'itself' in its entirety? It doesn't make sense. It kinda reminds me of a certain movie quote: "... 60% of the time... It works every time!" ;-P
@@madyluvsanime1248 True... Good point. :-) But I'd still say there is a fundamental difference. "Everything" cannot mean anything else than that. We are discovering that there is more to the Universe than we once thought... But it's still "The Universe"... Everything in existence. Semantics I guess... And a matter of scale perhaps :) Can "Everything" be infinitely subdivided into smaller parts? Perhaps. But can "The Universe" be multiplied? And by what "factor"? I doubt it :)
@Real Donald Trump I Kinda like that... "Biverse". I believe it is very much 'bi-polar' in nature. Balancing between 'something' - and 'nothing'. But i still say there is only one "everything" :) ... And it doesn't care about "good" or "bad"... Those are human inventions... Human values... imop ;)
One possibility which would make a difference to the physics is that any given bubble exists completely in isolation to others: its 'space' cannot collide with that of any other. Also we cannot lay out these bubble universes in the topography of some 'meta-space' since they absolutely cannot share coordinates: Universe A is not any given distance from Universe B. Each exists only within itself.
Truly, lol. These modern scientists, possibly just hungry and looking for funding, really and truly overplay their hand. Big bang requires that 68% of the universe is made up of yet to be observed or clearly defined "dark energy" and 27% of yet to be observed or clearly defined "dark matter".
It would be interesting to hear your alternate explanations that are a better fit for observations, if you don't think current theories / hypotheses are satisfactory.
It’s crazy that while half the planet still believes in an invisible creator tha created the world we have people who are capable of working out and theorising these things.
It depends: did you define universe as "everything in existence", "everything we can affect or be affected by", "everything that follows our laws of physics", or something else?
some make a difference betweend lowercase u and uppercase U, where the first describes our cozy little patch of spacetime 93 billion lightyears across (wich we are kind of sure exists) and the second describes everything after that, including multipverses (really the upper limit of everything, but like donno if it's really there). Not that this is an english oddity. In german for example, all nouns are uppercase by definition and this wouldn't make much sense.
Math is useful and cool, Im sure that your time spent actually studying GR is vastly more useful than listening to a dude that has. Keep it up, the future needs more scientists :-)
@XY ZW I've seen your replies on other comments and if you are going to continue being a pessimistic and completely useless douche why are you even bothering to reply/comment in the first place? lmao
There are infinite reasons why one could argue GR is bull. Few would go as far as bull, but the infinite problems with GR means it is incomplete or incorrect despite all the ways it is correct.
"Some questions spring to mind: - I mean, besides 'What?!?'"
I guess he reads the comments after all.
The answer of course is.. ........42
Funnily enough of all the topics on here, the graphic accompanying that statement painted a completely clear picture for me, for once!
I mean I know what a Big Bang is
@@oldman2800 I disagree. I think the answer is aliens.
Has got to be the best one yet:
Some questions spring to mind. I mean, besides: “What?!?”
no such thing as best or not or that, say, think any nmw and any s ok
0:41 "Bubbles that are continuously appearing and growing within a vastly large, *spacetime* ."
*video ends*
Lool
yes
Yeah, I automatically thought it ended, so I quickly zoomed out, locked the screen, crashed my phone on the ground, and detonated a nuclear bomb.
now i am curious as to what two "Universes" colliding might potentially look like. how might it effect physics within the area of overlap?
Vacuum Decay maybe?
Bootes void
@@valjean76 The Great Attractor
I'm guessing that the universe with a lower-energy vacuum state would win out.
Assuming the dark energy, and dark matter quantum exponent between both universes is not equal to the quantum exponent of matter, then one universes would cancel the other out in time as space would differ.
The Exponential nature between what was found during the findings of the Higgs Boson, a photon could travel between universes and the dark field would cancel out.
I love this series but I was admit it is forever over my head. I lack the technical knowledge to grasp these subjects but they fascinate me deeply.
Yay progress though keep at it!
@Michael Lochlann Matt admits he loves physics jargon too much to simplify things for the average person. I think it makes this channel pretty unique, it's definitely not for the faint hearted. Like you said, physics books and conferences do a much better job at simplifying so if that's what you're after those are a great choice!
This stuff really breaks my brain, but I love it
Even though my mind can't comprehend everything they're saying, I like this channel lol
Fb: #lock3dinthesh3d
Your minds cant comprehend something that does NOT exist.
Lol
I take solace in the thought that an alternate version(s) of me in another bubble universe(s) knows exactly what Matt is saying.
Anybody else love it when there’s an episode where Matt says “Ten to the power of ten to the power of..”? I always know it’s something mind-blowing when that comes up. Ok, PBS Spacetime is very often mind-blowing, but “Ten to the power of ten to the power of..” seems to be a special treat.
Tree(3)^Tree(3)^Tree(3),,, where the power tower is Tree(3) high... granted that is a finite number... but it is somewhat big...
It's still less then infinite. Which is curious, when you know that our "bubble universe" itself should be infinite in size since the big bang, but still expands. When you end with paradoxes, you know you are wrong and some of your assumptions are incorrect or only a samll part of the picture.
Power towers are just the stepping stone to higher orders or operations found among knuth arrowed notation.
*Somewhere, Something Incredible Is Waiting To Be Known*
_Carl Sagan_
becouse that is what magicians do...
I wear that on a t-shirt 😊
Carl Sagan didn't say this. Sharon Begley did when she interviewed him.
*THE MAN OR THE WOMAN WHO MUST BREAK SOMETHING IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND IT'S PURPOSE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING*
J.R.TolkinLoreMaster 21th century planet earth
@@realpeacemaker7038 Ivan Drago
If bubble universes could potentially have different laws of physics, what laws would describe the bubble universes that form from their collisions?
could that multiverse be a bubble universe in an other multiverse ?
If there is infinite possibilities there’s a uni where i got a stando and a uni where your theory is true.
Also, if bubble universes are generated when spacetime stops expanding in one place, how does a stop in expansion in an area change the laws of physics of that area?
Yes, the thinking that they r "inflating" Or expanding just like ours, at the same time as having different laws, just doesn't sound right, it could be that they r out of our human understanding? If they have different laws, how can u say that they r inflating?.... There might as well rightfully be no words to describe them.... This is rlly addicting stuff
If the laws of physics are so different wouldn't everything be and look different and Incomprehensible? A bubble would suggest it resides in the same space.
Again, my brain is currently melting down while simultaneously expanding at an insane rate!
I feel the same...and somewhat intellectually inadequate
All these universes, and I'm still single.
*Ooof*
Not in the many worlds interpretation
Me too
I'll be your gurlfriend.
@@wraithofsolidarity mine too plz?
1:59 so it IS true: our entire universe is an oil bubble floating in a jar, placed on a shelf, in an alien's child room as a science fair project that got a C- 👽
Yes. I strongly believe that.
That just makes me think about it even more
Yours maybe, mine got an A.
The whole time he was talking about seconds, I kept wondering how seconds would be measured on a multi-universal scale.
Jacob Opstad time dilation has this flipped over completely
It's kind of assumed that there is a "time" dimension (that may or may not be linear) that exists as a shared parameter in the calculus between all the universes. The inflaton field, where the bubbles expand inside and collapse randomly in, has it's dynamics, and I suppose that dynamic state can define time for all worlds. (Or you could just define time as the number of universes currently existing! Since the spawn rate is faster than our plank-scale theoretical limits of measurement, that would be more than good enough as a multi-universal clock.)
There would be time if these bubble universes are created in another bubble universe that is already expanding so quick that these universes can start popping up.
And eventually more universes might pop in in these new universes when they olso expanded enought .
I like seconds coz I like pudding and you can never have enough pudding.
When I was in college we had this term that the professors would use called theory-territory or therotory. Basically most sciences will expand into their neighboring fields of study. For the softer sciences of human behavior you'd have psychology, sociology, anthropology, and biological behavioralism all trying to explain the same phenomenon within their framework.
I feel like planetary scientists are telling astronomers to get off their lawn. I think there's a good chance that they probably have working definitions and classifications for planetary bodies. Kind of like there are classifications for stars.
Like what is the difference between an astrophysicist, astronomer, and cosmologist. How much overlap are we talking about and how specialized do they get. Back to anthropology an archaeologist and a linguist can both be anthropologist.
Maybe SpaceTime could do a theory-territory episode explaining all the branches of physics and an astronomy.
It would be an interesting episode.
I like this idea for a video!
Perhaps, but there is a channel that is already specialised in this: ruclips.net/user/dominicwallimanvideos
LoL softer
"Some questions spring to mind ... I mean, except "What?!" made me laugh so hard, I had to rewatch that part a few times
I spend more time watching videos like these than actually studying
You probably learn more here than in school
Fedora Eagle I’m from the United States but I’m studying abroad until university. doing my a levels currently
@Fedora Eagle my exam grades when I do my homework vs when I don't do my homework beg to differ.
@Fedora Eagle I don't understand how a comment so irrelevant like this one can get so many likes and comments. The world is really turning into an idiocracy.
The truth is your mathematics is weaker than you wish, therefore you watch to escape the fact that you maybe in the wrong field. Or your just bored with your professors.
These videos used to go way over my head but now I can at least hear the wooshing sound they make.
p r o g r e s s .
Keep looking up and it will be looking up
Hear hear!
Jerry Rupprecht They probably got slower
You're literally one of the coolest dudes I've ever seen in my life. Your wealth of knowledge is awe inspiring.
And I love your narration lol.
Q: How many universes are there?
A: All of them.
The answer to your question is yes.
@@Gr3nadgr3gory That would've been too obvious.
@DigitalDan As many infinite possibilities as your imagination, at least until we figure out a way to observe it and it settles to something relatively more mundane.
Keep your mind open for all possibilities, but remember that science follows facts whole fiction follows dreams. It's always great when they overlap, but important to remember the distinctions between the two.
Sounds like we're coming up on the edge of our current knowledge of inflation. Curious what the next major theme will be.
All of them...ALL of the universes
the many worlds theory has flaws there is a video that very constructively debunks not a fan of the MWT but I am a fan of time travel not our bodies but our conscienceness kinda like that wolverine movie where information is transported and we know the speed of light may be a constant but there is stuff out there that shits on the speed of light
The "Youngness Paradox" seems pretty transparent to me. Although it's true that the majority of sentient life would be in other bubble universes that should in no way interfere with the probability of a 2nd or 3rd sentient forming within the same bubble universe or even down to the scale of a single galaxy.
I think you're right. Couldn't you use this premise to argue just about anything that happens should statistically be happening for the first time? I mean, the number of universes in which someone is drinking tea for the very first time is almost infinitely larger than the number of universes in which tea drinking has been happening for thousands of years. Imagine how many new universes must have formed in that time! But here I am drinking tea, thousands of years after its invention.
I agree.
That isn't really what the Paradox says. It's talking about the probability of us being in a newer bubble universe compared to an older one. I'll try to rephrase it a bit: There's always more first sentient races than second sentient races at any point of time in the 'multiverse', because there's always more new universes than old ones. Because of that it's simple probability that we're one of the first ones. The chance of a universe developing more sentient races afterwards has no bearing on the paradox.
It's also a thing on our galactic scale. Terrestrial planets and the heavy elements to make us are actually relatively new. Thus, wouldn't it be crazy if we were the first. Boy howdy we need to survive to help the others not be like us.
@@Spheniscus_ Aren't low probability odds attained all the time ? Somebody has to win the lottery.
“Planets only orbit the sun. Other stars have exoplanets.”
Well gee. That’s a really heliocentric definition.
Yeah I hate the term 'exoplanet' too, but that's what we're stuck with for the time being.
I think it’s just to differentiate between “planets” in our solar system and “planets” (exoplanets) outside of our solar system. It makes sense, but yes it is weird when even though something is technically a planet like Mars or Earth, it isn’t actually called a “planet” because it’s outside of our solar system
I agree. Exoplanet should just be a class of planet based on location. A way to specify, what you are talking about. It is like some islanders live on an island that has one kind of snake, but they refuse to call any other kind of snake that exists elsewhere "snake". "Those are not snakes, those are exosnakes". Silly.
@@ChessMasterNate "Exosnakes" oh my god, I can't breathe :D
@@ChessMasterNate That example is perfect, it also captures the pettiness of the definition; as though 'our planets' are different just by virtue of being close to us.
I don't understand how this argument is supposed to work. The Fermi Paradox is a description for the likelihood of life within OUR universe. This is still equally likely or unlikely across all stars and galaxies. That there exist multiple, independent, universes doesn't change this. The likelihood of life forming within any ONE of those bubble universes is still the same and still described by the FP. If anything, this just adds one more variable to the FP equation, assuming that it is even worth considering; as it is largely just academic as we lack any known method to travel to, communicate, or even observe these other pocket universes.
PBS Space Time: "How Many Universes Are There?"
Inflation: Yes
"Ancient astronaut theorists say yes."
Please do not trivialize such important matters. Go on some Chemtrail bull shit page to do that.
Best possible joke for this video!
Poes Law Haha yes I agree. Contrails are quite real. Though if you notice, I typed Chem, not con-trails. But pretty sure you're joking. If so, good one.
@@Skylancer727 hahaha...you surely often watch ancient aliens
Best reason to believe in alien forms of life:
We exist.
Best reason is the FACT of how many worlds are in THIS smaller type galaxy alone. 400 BILLION if not much more star systems and there are billions of galaxies out there. To doubt we are alone is simply dumb.
@@303storm To believe that 400 billion is a huge number in the grand scale of things is also pretty dumb.
Whether or not alien life exists is really not a very relevant question, though. What matters is whether we will ever possibly interact with it.
@Chris Chu
Supposedly trillions of galaxies, based upon the latest info.
I have a video in my playlists about it, on another channel.
And I think you meant to say "To think we are alone", the word doubt is to disbelieve which leads to giving up, wrong word. : )
@Winston Deleon
I disagree, that's thinking small or "short - sighted", and having too much doubt.
The way our emerging technology is coming so fast, and our good innovation, I do believe we will find some bacteria / micro - organisms, and maybe animal / plant life on other planets.
You can never say for sure to the absolute.. that we won't find anything or even intelligent life.
Because we don't know yet until we search, look at the moons around Jupiter and Saturn, oceans underneath one of them that could have bacteria that could be slowly changing over time "evolving" spoilers God does create different species of animals, other than humans. And there might even be aquatic life in the ocean underneath the moon's surface that is around the other planet, or just bacteria if nothing else, and Nasa is excited to find out.
They also find new planets all the time, I think there are 4 to 19 new planets discovered every day in our Galaxy, and especially close to our solar system, in other solar systems nearby.
They have noticed the little black dots that they thought were sun spots, going around other stars in other solar systems, were actually planets, so we are discovering a lot of new things all the time.
Our space transmissions / communications are advancing with emerging technologies, look at Nasa's Mars CubeSats 1 and 2, they were able to transmit data from Mars to Earth in 3 minutes, for future "solar system" communication, and I think that technology will mature over time to be faster for wider ranges throughout our solar system.
Look at Quantum Teleportation, Australia plans to build a Quantum Internet by 2030 with this emerging technology, to share with Europe, no word on the U.S.
The Netherlands plans to expand their cities with their Quantum Internet, and share it with the world in 3 years.
Now imagine using that same Quantum Teleportation for small things like Data transmission / communications for space communications.
If you are wondering about everything said, you can find everything mentioned in playlists I have on another channel.
And if you are curious about emerging technology and beyond, to get a really good idea on what we can do now, very soon "few years or less", or even a little later after that in the 2020's, also check my playlists.
------------------------------------------------
I was giving out helpful links, but it won't allow me to do that now, so I made playlists.
1. Check my channel, find a subscribed channel called Technology Research, go to the playlists there, and click "created playlists", that should show them all.
2. After that, click on the title / text of each playlist, not on the pictures.
3. Don't forget to click the "more" button in each playlist description for more articles and playlists.
This is absurd, “humans exist, therefore aliens exist”? This is logically invalid.
Omg when he started talking about 10 the power over and over I started to smell copper now my head hurts 🤢
Your iron is low. When your body has low iron, you'll get that metal taste in your mouth.
Tony Solar LoL I was making a joke about how confusing that part started to get
Blood tastes coppery. Perhaps he bit his tongue?
Or residual memories of past cannibalism were stoked.
I was doing fine. Then the numbers came. My god. The numbers. They're everywhere, especially over my head.
The numbers Mason, what do they mean?!
Man those over your head numbers are the worst
Thanks for covering the planet definition issue in detail at the end, and giving air (finally) to the biggest problems with the definition. Great show as always.
Wow, that was quite a workout. I think I can feel the burn of my brain consuming calories. It'll be sore tomorrow.
D.o.b.s.
Delayed onset brain soreness.. Wait two days before you watch another one or you'll risk over training..
Fermi paradox is about aliens in our own universe, not across the multiverse. What am I missing here?
You are not missing anything, he is talking about fermi paradox exactly in our own universe.
I absolutely adore this channel, I'm often amazed by the content. However, this particular video blew my mind.
"Space is big-"
Me-"You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.”"
I love Douglas Adams. Just ‘heard’ HHGTTG in audio book.
@@TheTwick See if you can track down the original radio series, that's the original version.
If _only_ I could have been the 42nd upthumb.....
Well best you don't panic ! Just put a fish in your ear
@@DavidBeaumont BBC series is damn funny, too...
This is a fine discussion, especially the perspective on Fermi's Paradox, but the most important thing I took from this was,
we really need to talk about where I can get that t-shirt.
How many ways do you want to experience yourself ?
Universal consciousness: *Yes*
@Greg Jacques Lucifer's Jizz Gargler In one where the Nazis won, and order is restored
I cut my finger chopping vegetables.
A hasty healing to your wound, my friend!
@@jeffreysaker9528 Thanks mate, it seemed to magically disappear
Look at you my dude, first person to see another’s prayers come to fruition!
My mind wasn’t ready for this on a Monday afternoon 🤯
Too sober for this
Can you use tetration instead of exponentiation in order to keep track of the number of bubble universes in the multiverse, as a function of time? I haven't yet seen a practical application for tetration, but if there is one then this surely must be it.
You would likely need several more degrees of higher math functions than that to keep track of all potential universes out there.
Fry: So there are an infinite number of universes?
Professor Farnsworth: No no, just the two.
Those were the only two within 10^-50m of each other, so were the only two to merge within Fry's universe.
Yet they had an episode with Multiple Universes in boxes
@@LORDTHUNDERX that's cuz it was only the two that you could visit like that
All these sounds nice but isn't multi-verse theories/ideas highly speculative concepts that borders on being like religion, fengshui, astrology &/or science fantasy?
@@user-DongJ Or the Democrats' pie-in-the-sky "New Deal" for a kinder, gentler world.
As long as vacuum energy is enough to suck up the dust bunnies under my couch, I'm happy.
So, bit late to the party, but this video has me asking a question:
If bubble universes can meet (even if they have to start off absurdly close together to do so), wouldn't that allow for the creation of expanding regions entirely contained or "trapped" between a network of connected universes?
In a simplified 2d version of this, you could imagine 4 universes, in a square pattern, so that the edges of all 4 bubbles meet shortly after the pop into existence. But if you timed it just right, and set them just the right amount away, there would still be a region of exponential inflation right in the middle of it. I have no idea what the implications of this would be, but it seems hard to imagine.
Perhaps such a structure would rapidly end up as something like a shockwave as the space inside expands, inflating the surrounding universes like the skin of a balloon?
After taking a deep look into strings theorie i thing there are approximately 7 universes in existence
Nice
nice
The other 5 were destroyed by Zeno-Sama
In an endless reality, all possibilities for life would be realized, so even after everything we can see evaporates into radiation, life will carry on elsewhere. It is comforting to think that perhaps, in some distant but similar universe, I am having tea with you.
it's also a rather hellish prospect as it means infinite, eternal suffering. if you deal with mental illness or chronic pain you don't want it to go on forever with no way out.
I don't think personal identity carries across parallel universes. I appreciate the sentiment, though.
@@mvmlego1212 Well, perhaps not. Still, the DNA of every living thing would end up randomly duplicated at some point, so it's nice to think that life itself is neverending.
How Tsundere of you
If using the current limited laws of physics, it may be a very big number but events can only replicated so many times.
the idea that we are the first intelligent life in the universe, because the amount of universes created each second is more than the last, and so the vast majority of intelligent life is the first, is ... phew. it shakes me.
That same logic seems to make a pretty solid argument against that infamous simulation hypothesis too.
Hi, thank you for a most interesting segment. I understood EVERYTHING you said up until you said "welcome to PBS Space Time ...."
Me: I need to shut off my brain and relax for a bit
PBS Spacetime: How many universes are there?
So as far as aliens go, it's basically: "Thank you Mario. But our princess is in another universe."
If the universes do collide/join, don’t they have to follow the same laws of Physics?
Not sure, but something about gauge theory.
And what type of spacetime is in between the bubble universes?
There is probably just normal space time in between the bubble universes
I would have bet for no spacetime at all if someone is a property of a bubble universe
There is no principle which states that bubbles that do collide must have exactly the same laws of physics (things like coupling constants).
Assuming that the dimensionality of each bubble is the same (3 space, 1 time), then I would guess that what is called a domain wall would form between them, and it would move further into the bubble with the lower value of the inflaton field with a speed proportional to the ratio of the values of the respective inflaton fields of each bubble.
The domain wall is 2 dimensional, so there would be nothing between each bubble except for the domain wall. Passing through the domain wall would likely be fatal to ab life doing it from either side of the bubble, and would likely drastically change the structure of any energy to pass through it.
New evidence supports the idea that we live in an area of the universe that is “just right” for our existence. The controversial finding comes from an observation that one of the constants of nature appears to be different in different parts of the cosmos.
If correct, this result stands against Einstein’s equivalence principle, which states that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. “This finding was a real surprise to everyone,” says John Webb of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Webb is lead author on the new paper, which has been submitted to Physical Review Letters.
Even more surprising is the fact that the change in the constant appears to have an orientation, creating a “preferred direction”, or axis, across the cosmos. That idea was dismissed more than 100 years ago with the creation of Einstein’s special theory of relativity.
Read more: www.newscientist.com/article/dn19429-laws-of-physics-may-change-across-the-universe/#ixzz616H9gCH0
@@urinater That "New evidence" is almost 10 years old, and no-where near the 6-sigma needed to be considered "evidence" among scientists.
"But, he adds, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: “That’s way beyond what we have here.” He says the statistical significance of the new observations is too small to prove that alpha is changing.
"New Scientist" is a rag.
“Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.” D Adams...
Perhaps it is oscillating and we are in a period of positive expansion, and the harmonic depends on the size of the universe.
The multiverse it never ends
It just goes on and on my friend
Some universes
Started popping up not knowing what it was
And now they'll keep on popping up forever just because!
Throughout the multiverse, 'bout anything could be true
Might as well make up anything to believe in
It's made inside of you
@ danwic
It’s a Lambchop Universe
Twenty seconds into the video and I'm already hyped af
I like that Hitchhiker's Guide reference at the beginning
I just watched dragonball super and i dont want to spoil the amount of universes😅
Makes you wonder where will Goku next have to go for a worthy challenge?
Over nine-thousand?
Actually for me the solution of the Fermi paradox in our own universe is a lot easier.
Let's suppose that every coefficient of the Drake equation is really low but not zero.
So, a planet in the habitable zone with microbial life: rare, but not that much.
A planet with multicellular complex life? Orders of magnitude less common.
A planet with intelligent life? Even less common than the latter.
We end up with a probability declining exponentially every time we add a condition to the equation (intelligent life, intelligent life + civilizations, intelligent life + civilizations + technology capable of interstellar travel).
In the end, if we factor in the probability of 2 already extremely improbable civilizations capable of interstellar travel coexisting at the same time in a billion years old galaxy, it seems reasonable we haven't yet encountered aliens
If you think about it, alien explorers could have visited us in the Cambrian, collected some samples and just moved on and we wouldn't even know
I believe the timing is also important. It doesn't matter if 1 million years ago there was an alien civilization sending messages to the 100light-years-away sun. We wont detect them if they went extinct within 1 million years, and a civilization of a million years is a lot!
@@jvcscasio exactly, we have to consider distances between advanced civilizations in a 4D spacetime which could potentially span millions or even billions of years in time and millions or even billions of light years in space
I've been fascinated by this inflaton field and watching the last few Alan Guth episodes over and over. I also tried watching some of Guths lectures but this feels like it hits the homerun better in explaining what Guth is really talking about.
I never knew that vacuum space had such high POWA!
That look on his face when he says "aliens" in the intro 😂
"well it gets clicks sigh"
Zsolt Donca OMG, I noticed that too. Almost evil or excited? Hos facial expressions are always very animated. Them eyebrows tho! ;) Wondering too, if he frequents the discord and how many are members now. It's all interesting :)
Max Tegmark's "Our Mathematical Universe" is a great book covering all of these topics in a lot more depth while still being pretty approachable.
Bogdan Vera An excellent read, and I may have understood half of it. But after finishing it, I came up with two answers, either one or an infinite number as there is simply no logical reason for a finite number of universes.
Tegmark is a mad platonist
@@zverh what's Platonist?
@@yojiviriak675
Someone who adheres to the philosophical position called *platonism.*
@DigitalDan
I am myself skeptical of any position that claims absolute truth. But being skeptical about maths/logic is not easy.
Thanks for making me feel even smaller than I did when there was just 1 universe.
They reserved word "planet" for bodies in our solar system?
The future human galactic civilization will certainly come to think this was a totally smart decision
Haha, when he began with "sun" in the definition I thought "No, they could not have made *that* mistake" but this way it is even worse :D
Isn't it weird? :) Planet seems like a generic category not a specific case for our solar system. Exoplanet is just a subcategory.
wrong video
aurell we maybe considered the Mayan calendar .
The definition will change eventually when we get to that point in our history.
Any other RUclips video: reading comments while following along with the vid playing...
PBS space time video: reading comments....erm... wait whaaaat? Rewind.....lol ^_^
Yes so true
I have conflicted feelings about the Youngness Paradox.
On the one hand, I like it because I have been arguing for years now that the reason we don't see anyone else out there is that we're first (because someone has to be).
On the other hand, it sounds suspiciously like the Doomsday Argument which I dislike but I don't know my way around statistics enough to properly articulate my intuition that it's a load of baloney.
I have the same problem with it. There is no reason to suspect that the rate of civilization generation in a single universe is dependent on the number of universes in total. It's not exactly like the doomsday argument, but it does have that same ab initio feel.
What makes you think we are the first and only life? Or the first and only civilization? I am more of a late filter, doomsday tech guy. The doomsday tech is obviously Facebook.
The Great Filter gets them all in the end
@@davidhand9721 Given the conspicuous lack of evidence of any [interstellar] other civilizations out there, and given that the current age of the universe is about as young as it could be to give rise to concentrations of heavier elements (Fe in particular), I think it is not only reasonable to assume we're first (or at least, not significantly further behind in technological development than anyone else currently out there), but imperative that we act and plan as if we are [on the verge of being] first because if there are stakes to be claimed in the galaxy, it's important we plant those flags before everyone else beats us to them and we're stuck being the Alabama of the galaxy with only a single yellow dwarf to our name.
I have conflicted feelings about two-tiered comments. - On one hand it's a great way to join a band wagon. On the other hand, it's just a great way of feigning some sort of creativity you don't possess, at least not enough to do it without a huge blank waste of space that really means "prepare to have your mind blown... but not really"... and, also, "I don't know what a colon is for, like educated people".
0:00-0:02
"space is big"
you lost me already.
He was also referencing/paraphrasing, The Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy.
[citation needed]
@@willinwoods The actual quote he's referencing is, "“Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.”
From (the late) Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy. It's a Science Fiction comedy series; originally a BBC radio show broadcast in 1978, then novelized by Adams, (there are 4 or 5 books in the "trilogy," as he jokes.), and adapted for BBC TV in 1981, and also an American movie from 2005. It's a modern classic. (It was also a popular early text-only PC game.)
@Michael OchoaRomero As I understand it, that is still debated.
"Space is beak."
This video has more hypothesis than there are atoms in the observable universe.
My second take on my problem with the Fermi Paradox explanation:
One of the ideas, that is often formulated together with the anthropic principle is the idea, that we are a totally normal, average species, and everything about us is totally normal, typical and average.
So, our universe was about 13.8 billion years old, when humanity first appeared, and we therefor assume, that it takes an average universe about 13.8 billion years to produce its first technological civilization.
The Fermi Paradox problem is, that according to all we know so far, and assuming, we are the first technological civilization ever, we don't really understand, WHY it took the universe so long to produce us. The circumstances, that we deem necessary for our existence should have occurred multiple times before, even in the time cone of our observable universe.
So, the multiverse theory by far can't solve the Fermi Paradox, at best it shifts the question from: "Why did it take the universe 14 billion years to produce us?" to "Why does a given random universe on average need 14 billion years to produce its first technological civilization?"
Listening to Valasse Eruva's album Ascending Phoenix and thinking about multiple universes is an ideal combo
I love how the Titles of these videos have questions, No one can answer.
What you dont know how many universes there are? Obviously its ∞-x+¥/time since the beginning of time. All you have to do is fill in those incalculable variables and you have the answer of course until the next second passes and 11 to the 78th quadrillion universe's pop up and you have to add those in.
@@Sentient.A.I. which simplifies to 42.
@@Sentient.A.I. Thanx, lol
Answer: Just the one.
I am now not a no one! I'm a somebody!
*@F*
You took me waaaay too seriously.
I'm so glad that this guy is telling everybody what I have been thinking for twenty or more years...
never been lost so early when watching pbs spacetime series T_T
I wouldn't worry too much dude, I doubt any of these theories are remotely true.
@@ChantelStays yep, same here
@@drawmaster77 it's, at least in its current progress is untestable (this is what i got so far from watching this vid), hence it's more like philosophy or tought exercise, although it's backed by mathematics
Then there are plenty that you haven't seen.
@@mgilangr9883 that's not really true. They come up with crazy theory first, then write some equations around the "what if's". If their theory is false, and it absolutely is, then all these equations are meaningless. Think of it like writing a sci-fi novel about space exploration and calculating how fast the interstellar spaceships are flying. If you come up with a number through some calculations, it doesn't make it any less of a fact that interstellar spaceships are science fiction.
The entire string theory is nothing more but a really long sci-fi novel.
I'm still confused about how different physics from one universe to another universe manifests. Let's say we're comparing the strong nuclear force between two universes. Does "different physics" mean the strength of the strong nuclear force is different between the two? Or, does "different physics" mean the strong nuclear force will exist in one universe but not the other? Or, does it mean something else?
Probably the fundamental constants would have different values than they have in this universe.
Physics rise from the 4 fundamental interactions or fundamental forces, are the interactions that do not appear to be reducible to more basic interactions. There are four fundamental interactions known to exist: the gravitational and electromagnetic interactions, which produce significant long-range forces whose effects can be seen directly in everyday life, and the strong and weak interactions, which produce forces at minuscule, subatomic distances and govern nuclear interactions.
The physics of a universe with let’s say 7 or 3 fundamental interactions will be very different from ours and it’s impossible to visualize or comprehend because we’re so “fine tuned”for this one
@@nareshsahu565 Could even have an extra fundimental force or one less heck I think the most scientific way to explain magic in a fictional universe is basicly a manipulation of those fundimental forces useing a conduit that can properly condut them but he it's pusdo-science like that that's best saved for rpgs where it's a fun extra eliment to add to your world's setting.
Daedalus This is a huge philosophical question.In general it’s not a scientific question..yet because we have no way of testing our answers
@@valentinopopa1686 not just yet but never, anything beyond our universe can only be theorized about, even the big bang itself can only be theorized about
U could say that the argument "god created the universe" has the same credibility as the multiverse theory with all it variants
I hate it when universes collide. It makes my hair look bad.
Then stop the universes from colliding! Pretty simple...
I love how happy he is at 8:41, ready to make some folk uncomfortable.
Make me laugh out loud for a bit.
But while I completely agree with the Anthropic Principle, the take on the Fermi Paradox seemed off to me... isnt the paradox supposed to be on the scale of galaxies and not on whole (not just observable) universes? I dont see how additional bubble universes that are likely to never even cross out own would effect the paradox... it's not like life has a hard limit of one sapient species per universe.
2:21 That's exactly what I thought while watching the first episode in this mini-series!
1:21 choo choo
When ever I think I've got a grasp on a subject I like to watch your videos to humble myself. :P
My problem with the youngness paradox is that it assumes a heck of a lot. Who says we were in the first universe (or one of the first) to form? If anything, in an infinitely expanding multiverse, there's an infinite number of intelligent lifeforms in an infinite number of universes older than us.
So, shouldn't intelligent life be an inevitability?
That’s another thing we don’t even know if the universe is even finite or not 😑
You say a infinite number of life forms that would mean life is common 😐buts it’s not any life form you see was forged a planet like this 😐we are nothing but monkeys with iPhones if you have and intelligent life forms you need to evolve start from bacteria and they evolved a backbone then how they evolved eyes a spine the list goes on 😑and this planet hold the perfect planet to have complex life you think we were formed from aliens ?no we were in a state of darkness for who knows how dam long if anything your experience determined who you are and will be it’s not called determined but super determination 😐I could have Ben bone in any point of this planets history I could have Ben a bird a peacock anything 😐you could say i maybe was one of those things but that’s not how it works 😐before this planet before the Milky Way their was no dna no nothing 😑so what’s the nature of self ? Why do we see the world from first person? It means your built the way you are their is no randomness to it 😑once your a human you will always be a human and their is nothing you can do that will change it even if your atoms are completely destroyed you will still see the world from first person view just like before the only difference is you won’t be aware that your even dead 😐and depending if the universe is finite or not does not matter in s finite universe you still need cause and effect on what created everything and if the universe is infinite that means their is not beginning or end 😐
It doesn't assume we're in one of the first universes, in fact it assumes (or strongly suggests) the opposite.
@@dububro well we don’t know if thei Big Bang even happen to begin with 😐and 2 we don’t know if the universe as a whole is finite or not 😐
@@jettmthebluedragonall evidence points to the Big Bang having happened. There is also no reason to believe the universe just stops at some point.
"Space is big, really big. You just don't believe how vastly, hugely, mind bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think its a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to Space, listen" and so on.
Eventually, the style settles down and tells you things you really need to know, like how many universes there are.
The question is, What happens when they collide? I understand the theory that universes infinitely create in space time, but it sounds as if there’s constant collisions between universes. What happens when that occurs, other than the creation of new universes, because in our own universe, just for a reference. When black holes collide there’s an incredible amount of energy released. So, in space time, the collision of universes simply leads to a never ending creation of further universes? I feel there could be more, and the video briefly touched on it when they talk about dark energy
What's fun about this is that we're basically still grappling with the implications of Einstein's theories.
He was in the top 10 smartest people .....ever
What about the cold spot in the CMB?, is that not evidence for a bubble collision?
It is not.
There is a great idea! For the dark side of the Universe - suppose that it consists of short-term interactions in long-lived fractal networks, the smallest quantum operators - Spherical «rosebuds», consisting of a large set; 1 - rolled into a sphere, 2 - half rolled into a sphere and 3 - flat, vibrating quantum membranes relative to their working centers in the sphere.
2:21 Is exactly how I feel with every single one of these videos.
That's the purpose of this channel, to confuse you, not to inform you.
Question: When you were describing the universes colliding, their edges seemed to be made of some energy that was denser than space itself, and if so, what is the edge of the universe made of?
Was confused about that too, thought collision assumed 2 physical edges so felt baffled lol.
Nothingness
Short answer: No one knows, this is all highly hypothetical.
@@Bitchslapper316 why do I suddenly feel I've been bitch slapped by physics :) EDIT: makes you appreciate the true greats when you realise just how humble you are :)
It would be a sharp gradient (an abrupt change) in the energy density. Therefore, as seen from the inside, the edge would be an abrupt shift in natural physics (weird shit would happen). And if you could touch that edge, it would probably inflate your hand into oblivion.
I don't know how but theses videos started making sense to me.
Sir Isac Newton: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Quantum Mechanics: For every action there is an infinite number of reactions.
Weeeee... in another parallell universe I am a yellow stone with eyes...
That is oddly specific...
There is certainly something 'off' about calculating probability across spaces that are not causally connected. Prob( A|B ) is meaningless if event B cannot be said in any sense to have happened at all. Also - how do we calculate that all universe bubbles must expand at the speed of light? (the same value of c for our universe?) surely they could all have different values for c? I don't see anything intrinsic about the inflaton field that sets this value.
If you flip 2 coins, their results aren't causally connected. Yet you can still aggregate probabilities. Is that different?
I guess we're assuming a God's-eye view that CAN simultaneously observe spaces that are sufficiently far apart to be causally disconnected
Our planet is a part of our solar system.
Our solar system to our galaxy.
Our galaxy to our universe.
Our universe to our multi-verse?
Our multi-verse to our...?
14:07 Need more of that existential awe on the wonder And weirdness of the universe? Got burning questions on the nature of reality?
So if the rate of expansion of our universe is in some way a remnant of primordial exponential expansion and that expansion is ever accelerating would we expect that latter-born universes, on average, would have a faster rate of expansion even at the time they reheat? And if that’s so, would there be an ever increasing proportion of universes expanding too fast for all our lovely complex chemistry to ever arise? A sort of multiversal senescence?
An excellent question! Do you happen to know the answer yet? Also, wouldn't it imply that we are in one of the early Universes?
@@niemandkeiner8057 Yes, it would imply that, if it is true. Now, to answer his question, it is important to know whether the inflaton value tends to drop to a fixed value, a random value, or a fraction of its current value. If it drops to a fixed value, or a random value, there will always be more universes spawning every next instant. If it drops to a fraction, we would expect for bubble creation to essentially cease very early, since newer bubbles would have too high a constant and wouldn't slow down all that much.
After listening to Kip Thorne explain how there’s no matter whatsoever in a black hole, I really needed my mind completely blown again, and voila! Good stuff!
@dan parker many worlds theory says indeed there are many exact or nearly exact replicas of you in the multiverse.
As Occam's razor states: the simplest solution is the best, so: the answer is 42, of course! ^^
no,0
But sometimes, things aren't just that simple, so his statement is untrue.
His statement had nothing to do with simplicity it had to do with assumptions. The idea could be very complex and require less assumptions and therefore be the one more likely.
A good example of this is god verses big bang... God requires a lot more assumptions but is simpler.
Define "Universe"... Once it meant: “all things, as a whole, the universe” (Wiktionary)... As in - Everything there is. What exactly does the word mean now? A part of a "multiverse"? Linguistically... that doesn't make sense.
How can "all things, as a whole" - be only a part of something other than 'itself' in its entirety? It doesn't make sense. It kinda reminds me of a certain movie quote: "... 60% of the time... It works every time!" ;-P
contemplatico I mean “atom” in Greek means the smallest possible division but then we found what makes up atoms
@@madyluvsanime1248
True... Good point. :-) But I'd still say there is a fundamental difference. "Everything" cannot mean anything else than that. We are discovering that there is more to the Universe than we once thought... But it's still "The Universe"... Everything in existence. Semantics I guess... And a matter of scale perhaps :)
Can "Everything" be infinitely subdivided into smaller parts? Perhaps. But can "The Universe" be multiplied? And by what "factor"? I doubt it :)
@Real Donald Trump
I Kinda like that... "Biverse". I believe it is very much 'bi-polar' in nature. Balancing between 'something' - and 'nothing'. But i still say there is only one "everything" :) ... And it doesn't care about "good" or "bad"... Those are human inventions... Human values... imop ;)
Even theorists need to repackage and rebrand concepts to get attention and funding.
@@Zach3---Sure... It could mean... ? ... "A bag of potatoes"?... Or whatever? but that would be confusing I think. :)
One possibility which would make a difference to the physics is that any given bubble exists completely in isolation to others: its 'space' cannot collide with that of any other.
Also we cannot lay out these bubble universes in the topography of some 'meta-space' since they absolutely cannot share coordinates: Universe A is not any given distance from Universe B. Each exists only within itself.
11:58 where is that link? i think you forgot something :D or i'm blind
Ok I'm not the only one, I was really upset cause I wanted to see it
Ok before we disappear up our own arses let’s produce evidence for even 1 bubble universe...
Truly, lol. These modern scientists, possibly just hungry and looking for funding, really and truly overplay their hand. Big bang requires that 68% of the universe is made up of yet to be observed or clearly defined "dark energy" and 27% of yet to be observed or clearly defined "dark matter".
It would be interesting to hear your alternate explanations that are a better fit for observations, if you don't think current theories / hypotheses are satisfactory.
Winston Deleon you show me yours I’ll show you mine
@@Dan53196 I don't think that's how publishing in peer-reviewed journals works.
Winston Deleon point me in the direction of peer reviewed literature that proves bubble universes exist
It’s crazy that while half the planet still believes in an invisible creator tha created the world we have people who are capable of working out and theorising these things.
Did the term universe get redefined while I wasn't looking?
It depends: did you define universe as "everything in existence", "everything we can affect or be affected by", "everything that follows our laws of physics", or something else?
some make a difference betweend lowercase u and uppercase U, where the first describes our cozy little patch of spacetime 93 billion lightyears across (wich we are kind of sure exists) and the second describes everything after that, including multipverses (really the upper limit of everything, but like donno if it's really there). Not that this is an english oddity. In german for example, all nouns are uppercase by definition and this wouldn't make much sense.
No.
Imagine solving a whole ass universe theory just so you can win a shirt that was made in China for 10 cents
lol they did it for fun not for the shirt
I want my shirt!
lol 2nd only to the Nobel prize
Haha I love the HHGttG references. Don’t forget your towel when traveling the multiverse!
i love how i spend hours watching these videos yet i totally failed my ap physics 1 kinematics test 💪🏻😪
Which might he, because at least this episode had nothing to do with physics or science.
i wish my comology class was this fun , my brain hurts from all the general relativity math in it.
Math is useful and cool, Im sure that your time spent actually studying GR is vastly more useful than listening to a dude that has. Keep it up, the future needs more scientists :-)
@XY ZW I've seen your replies on other comments and if you are going to continue being a pessimistic and completely useless douche why are you even bothering to reply/comment in the first place? lmao
@@levaniandgiorgi2358 this is a fair question
XY ZW ?
There are infinite reasons why one could argue GR is bull. Few would go as far as bull, but the infinite problems with GR means it is incomplete or incorrect despite all the ways it is correct.
If you are single in this dimension it only mean one thing that you have already got your true love waiting for you somewhere in the universe
Never seen youtube say something was posted only seconds ago
You’ve been blessed my son..