One of my favorite topics, I find the topic of time incredibly intriguing. Everything regarding how the universe came to existence/ where it's going. I could listen to you for hours!
I love watching these conversations. Thank you for uploading them. Sometimes I feel like it's the only Intellectual stimulus I've gotten all week. Thanks again! 🖤
Like a “curtain coming up” - “pop psychology into physics until X” - Mr. Kinney I look forward to listening - may all those who feel a certain way about “timing” be well and may the knowledge of this new information bring many downloads and cognitive processes to the “booting up and jacking in” - of time and space.
The most intellectual discussion to date. Unraveling the cones at the allowed dimensions, you step back and perceive that the cones from the inflated point as well as the flat point.
*_"...you step back and perceive that the cones from the inflated point as well as the flat point."_* ...as well as the flat point _what?_ You didn't finish your sentence. {:o:O:}
Absolutely excellent. I loved this. Over the years I have developed my own theories about space, time, infinity etc. Professor Kinney speaks directly to the heart of my ideas. If nothing else, he has given me much food for thought. In my own theories I have uncomfortably accepted that the infinite universe has no beginning. Mainly because, to me, you can not insert a beginning into infinity. But he not only says that you can, he says that you have to. Ouch. Now I have to go take a look at what he has done on this subject. His idea goes completely against my way of thinking. But I am nowhere near to calling him out and arguing against his idea. Given who he is, I'm not about to just say poppycock either. I'm not giving up the ideas I have formulated. I've spent a long time contemplating infinity. But I definitely want to see an intelligent argument against them. Half an hour of a Saturday afternoon well spent. Damn, did I miss a football game?
"But I am nowhere near to calling him out and arguing against his idea." Even if you did, it would be meaningless without a theory that stands up to scrutiny. That is mathematically sound and doesn't conflict with observations. We can come up with our own models and ideas but one of the big problems here is that our models are at best very poor representations of reality and ideas can't justifiably be called theories until they've been tested. I actually learned a few things watching this interview and it's a long time since I've learned anything new in physics. It forced me to abandon some of my ideas but I like that - reducing the possibilites always feels like progress.
@@antonystringfellow5152 Do I detect an assumption on your part that my theory does not stand up to scrutiny, is not mathematically sound and conflicts with observations? If not, I am curious as to why you would even mention these very basic rules of science. You seem to assume that my ideas have not been tested and therefore lack the credentials to be called a theory.
At roughly 13:00 in, they talk about the universe being the size of a grapefruit. At this point in time, is the universe infinite, or really smaller than a bowling ball? If it is not infinite, does it transition from non-infinite to infinite at a specific point in time? I understand that the shape and size and scope of the universe is not settled physics yet, so I am asking within the constraints of what is currently thought to be likely.
The big bang inflation theory can suggest a bounded universe. We have an observable universe that is bounded, but it is also possible that there is a boundary beyond that that is expanding as well :) Expanding suggest toward some "infinite" size. But that expansion could also stop in the future, so we then have a new finite boundary.
When you hear references to the "size of the universe" in earlier times, always assume that the discussion is about the volume of space that the matter in the currently observable universe was squeezed into. Since the size of the universe beyong what we can observe is not known, and might be infinite, no one is in any position to postulate what the size of the unobservable universe has been at any time. If the universe is infinite, it has always been infinite. What would have changed is the density of matter in the universe.
@@greghall4836 I agree with this possibility, but remember it was a reference to the Big Bang, so you are introducing a different theory/concept to explain something on the Bing Bang. I don't think the big Bang suggest it as only observable. Anything I have ever seen states the singularity as the "Only" universe and not part of. So that is a "Bounded" or "finite" universe :)
I am not really concerned about what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence. The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics. Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial? Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses? Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism are moral? Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous? If so, then you are objectively immoral, and your so-called "enlightened/awakened" state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.
@@ReverendDr.Thomasсчитаете ли вы, что мир объединяет противоположности, если да, то человек вынужден ответить только на одну его часть. Человека вынудили ответить только на одну часть, а заставляют ответить за все на основании этой части. Вы путаете тело, душу и дух. А Господь прощает грехи и не воспомянет о них больше никогда.
I do love this channel and this discussion. It makes me think of this quote. Terrance McKenna “Modern Science is based on one principle: Give us one free miracle and we will explain the rest.”
The issue is you cannot necessarily apply the theorem to the cyclic cosmology. The mistake made in penroses pucture is to assume these continueties in the metric picture, that is where the results come from. Always. If those degrees of freedome are wiped out completely then the theorem is just not applicable.
22:00 - Why does this sound like a heavily coded conversation about existential escapism? Yeah, infinite universes spreading infinitely, with no way of ending any of them. It suggests that suffering is a constant of this universe. Not just suffering, but isolated suffering (as we are unable to communicate between universes).
As I have always understood, it is not suffering that is constant, unending, and inescapable, but Awareness. The quantity of energy at 'awareness level'. It may well be invariable within and throughout universes. Some of it will be experiencing suffering, but that suffering experience is transient. At least it should be..
@onibordiciuc1986 Yes, that is why we created black-holes. Something of irresistable common interest across universes. Something they would be sure to think about! If they created them too, to establish a common point of communication, things will eventually start making a lot more sense!
@@FatherFractal Lol! That reminded me of this funny quote: " To love is to suffer, to be happy is to love. In order to be happy one must then love to suffer... or suffer from too much happiness!"
Im still stuck at the idea of universes being "pushed apart" faster than the speed of light. Is this "arena" a higher dimension in space? Is it just space? What conceptual framework is used to make sense of this, what is being inflated that separates these universes?
It's a difficult one. That's why they say many times the laws of physics appear to be different in the beginning. But what you can do is imaging *not* space (filled with energy that creates friction and slows everything down), but a completely empty void. That void may have no real physical properties other than eventual vacuum so may not be restricted by the limit of 'c' like our energy filled space is :)
It is a very important loophole. The assumption of continuity in those very time dilation effects and lenght scales associated with matter, is what breaks down to rescue us from a finite past.
I would like to know how Steinhardt responds (if he does) to Kinney's criticism at the end of the video. That said, I still don't know how Kinney responds to Steinhardt's best criticisms of inflation, since they weren't raised in this video, despite the fact that Greene recently interviewed Steinhardt. I generally like Green as a presenter/interviewer/conversationalist, but here I wish he had forced the issue more and been more specific about the criticisms. Sometimes he errs too much on the side of niceness.
Hi, can someone please eli5 what was meant by the quote “physics is a differential equation and religion is a boundary condition” -Allen Turing Thanks!
Our theory has a following explanation Classical universe of our theory is a differential equation and quantum universe is an initial condition that is bounded by our CPT(α,Φ) function as the boundary/limiting condition” Please feel free to read my comment for more details
I could be wrong about this, but the way I had interpreted it was: Physics is a differential equation, meaning that with context (initial conditions, the state of the system, etc.) physics can describe the behaviour of our universe. However, since we don't have the initial conditions and those conditions may be unknowable, it requires speculation (a leap of faith) for us to answer. In this sense, the quote uses religion as an analogy for the kind of belief (speculation of unknown boundary conditions) that are required to evaluate the differential equation that the physics provides us with. Again, could be totally wrong, I'm not a physicist. I would happy for someone to correct me if I've misunderstood the quote.
The concept of infinite beginnings is reshaping our understanding of time in cutting-edge cosmology. Traditionally, cosmologists have looked to the Big Bang as the ‘beginning’ of time, a singular event marking the universe's origin. But new theories suggest that the universe may have no true beginning, potentially existing in an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction, or even through multiple, parallel universes. In this framework, time as we understand it might just be one aspect of a far more complex, infinite structure. Some models, like those in quantum cosmology, propose that time is emergent, meaning it could arise from something more fundamental and timeless. These ideas hint that what we see as the beginning could be one of many phases in a cosmic sequence. If the universe has an infinite or cyclic nature, it challenges our perception of cause and effect, existence, and the concept of a "moment of creation." How might these theories influence our view of existence, or our quest to understand what (if anything) came 'before' time as we know it?
The universe began with Entanglement,that is how all universe’s began.all Entangled space is a universe unto its self.that is how you have a multiverse.
Anthony Aguirre and Steve Gratton appear to have developed a model, described in a paper titled "Steady-State Eternal Inflation", that would have dual arrows of time, each pointing in a direction of time opposite the other's, that was found to be acceptable to the writers of the BGV Theorem: The dual universes resulting would be separated by a Cauchy surface.
Question General relativity tells us that mass deforms spacetime and spacetime "tells" mass/energy how to move. If that's the case, why do we need gravitons (since mass deforms spacetime)?
That is the key thing, if you drop this continuity in these time dilation and lenght scale parameters/variables. Then the theorem just doesn't hold, so the over all universe doesn't need a starting point. To me the theorem, although not wrong given its assumptions, is sort of assumes to much in they way it assumes geodesics are continous through these phase transitions in a particular form relating to the intrinsic geometry associated with these lenght scales and time scales of matter. That is the real issue imo. If you just say, hey before inflation the metric was based on entierly different measures and if you trace it back you find another inflation like phase transition again, and again and so on, then you really do not have any such theorems anymore, that applies to the physics.
To me, a single universe starting 13.8 billion years ago sounds like creation. I’m of a thinking that we’re in a bubbling, roiling mass if universes. Like soap bubbles growing in hot water as more hat water pours in. Bad analogy but that makes more sense than this short one off universe is all there is.
When you use a word like universe, you are using the word for everything, so if there are other “universes”, they would be by definition a part of The Universe, as it is by definition Everything .
@@danielpaulson8838 WHYY is there an incessant need to complicate things exponentially with infinite universes, when we still have NO CLUE regarding > 90% of our OWN universe? Especially when they are unfalsibiable and entirely unprovable? All because a single universe "sounds like Creation" to you...!?🙄 Have you ever stopped and thought that maybe, juuust maybe, it might actually BE Creation??🤔 It's AS likely, if not MORE likely than "infinite universes" and that's a FACT.
@@axle.student Agreed. That's what Sabine would say too. It isn't even science to consider what cannot be observed. I figure since we know everything works through cause and effect, it's worth pondering what came before and it sure sounds like a one shot universe supports a silly creation story. We'll never find out. But it's more fun that sitting in Church being told to stop thinking.
You can take the Idealist metaphysical position when studying problems of physics and then you can say that maybe what physics really describes, metaphysically, is Nature's dream. In other words, the low energy physics that we study and have access to, which also includes space and time, is how the dream of Nature looks like. That's why gravity is also an observable in the dream - it only makes sense from an alter's point of view, together with other classical observables like positions, momenta, spins and so on. But if you were to go back to the Big Bang where high energy physics would describe the state of Nature, what that metaphysically means is that Nature was in another state - similar to an "awake state" - Nature was not dreaming, like it is now, at low energies. What we see as singularities is what that state looks like to us - they appear as singularities because the dream's state space and time stop, there - they make no sense in Nature's "awake state", only in its "dream state".
My question... The Big Question... is: "What is the name of that piece of music at the end credits?!" I've heard several versions of it in videos, and it feels super-familiar as if it's from classical, but I can't place it and I've never seen it credited. Any help?
Dear Prof Greene, Does this ring a bell? A modified field equation of Einstein, with no singularity or infinite outcome but includes the accelerated expansion of the universe as a natural properties such as you said, outward push gravity 🥰 0:19 Best Cleaning Lady Berlin/Germany
4:15 This very misleading. It wasn’t that the questions were “left open” intentionally; it was more that the fine-tuning implications themselves caused problems for the original model. At that point there was a frenzy to explain this. It was Guth’s creative imagination that was attributed with fixing the fine tuning problem. So, there was never any casual leaving open. Once these issues were recognized it was quite the opposite. Guth just happen to be the one bold and desperate enough to disregard known physics
I don’t quite understand this. The temperature variation across the entire universe as measured by the CMB is +/- 0.001 degrees either C or K, which should indicate a universe at maximum entropy, or do I misunderstand the significance of this minuscule temperature difference.
My guess is ... entropy can decrease in a local bounded system if it increases more across the global system under the 2nd Law. If that still holds here, then our bubble universe having near the minimum entropy means the multiverse as a whole has to have increased in entropy by as much or more than that amount. Edit: You mean close to the minimum entropy. Entropy counts the number of degrees of freedom to fully describe a system, so a cosmological singularity at the time of the Big Bang with one or a handful of properties will have the lowest entropy, and evolution away from that singularity will still have a very small entropy that's increasing over time. This discussion is adding the entropy of the full surrounding multiverse to that equation.
In CCC with a Hartley-hawking state separating the bangs, each bang each cycle would have no temporal relations with each other , hence they could all be be banging together concurrently as in an entire multiverse occurring at once concurrently?? - Jaime Tan
So yeah the fundamental loophole in the argument is the transition represented by inflation reseting the scale at finite time in the past and the future for any particular vacua, pardon the pun
If there is infinite time -space -energy then if we are in the middle of infinity then everything would be already infinitely expanded . The infinite between 0 and one is simply a hare/ torus race. Belief is a string delusional quality. Even if there are multiple universes even so our universe seems to have had a beginning.
If everything in the universe moves away from each other in every direction, the universe HAS to be spherical too and CAN NOT be flat. Spheres are the norm in the universe: stars, planets, moons, asteroids, comets. I'd like to add that if galaxies, suns, planets, moons, asteroids, and likely comets too, rotate... the universe probably is rotating too.
Okay, so when a cooling universe contains only photons, the lack of mass deflates spacetime into a new big bang, with CMB radiation the only remnant of the last cycle. Brilliant. I always forget that a photon moves across space without experiencing time at all. I still have questions about photons, at the concept level. For example, what property of 'vacuum' facilitates lossless co-induction between electric and magnetic fields, and what on Earth does c represent? A coupling co-efficient of some sort?
Most excellent discussion :) I am not a physicist or cosmologist. The following are just my educated thoughts on the discussion points. > 3:45 I thought Inflation was the Big Bang? What? 6:11 This is confusing. inflation started with a hot infinitely dense (singularity) primordial soup, but it also was empty and cold? That make no sense to all of the explanations of the Big Bang at all :/ > An empty void expanding is completely different to any explainer of the bib bang that I have ever seen :/ I considered this concept as a thought experiment as an alternative to the Bing bang explanation that I had always seen and got raged of YT for suggesting it :/ In that thought experiment you can create a universe from nothing and ultimately the energy that emerges in it. The driver is time, not time as a measurement or clock, but something more fundamental that drives the universe from one moment to the next. That same driver that I loosely call time also continues to create potential energy after the inflation period (call it dark energy if that works). 8:12 Exactly. It has "potential" energy. Exactly what converts that potential energy into kinetic energy I am unsure of at the moment. 8:22 I am more inclined to think that the potential energy is a result of inflation/expansion and there is a more unsentimental driver related to time/progression. In this way you can have a universe from nothing that exist nowhere. 9:269:30 to 9:41 *YES, someone gets it* :) Yes, the potential energy comes out of the vacuum. The original driver that is time like inflates the universe in all direction from nothing. As the boundary of that bubble (an event horizon) expands it creates a void in its wake, a void that has potential vacuum energy. At some point that potential vacuum energy snaps or gives way to kinetic energy in the primal universe. It's not difficult to do as a thought experiment. It does have issues about that primal driver such as what initiates it from a dormant state or if universes just infinitely keep initiating/spawning etc. 12:41 to 13:00 "At some point that potential vacuum energy snaps or gives way to kinetic energy". There an issue with the expansion rate from what I have said above. The only work around that I can think of would be a longer initial period of inflation, or that concept of time does not have the same restriction as 'c'. 13:40 Yup, that's it :) 14:42 I am not sure which direction to look for this initiation, but I am following down a path that is analog in nature where we have a balance between infinite degrees of certainty and infinite degrees of uncertainty. It is possible that a complete state of quiet/nothingness could still have an infinitesimal amount of uncertainty. Enough that one in an infinite possibility could introduce noise into the nothing and initiate a change. From that moment the primary driver begins. 20:10 "... initiates it from a dormant state or if universes just infinitely keep initiating/spawning etc." It's problematic, but if we just focus on our universe then that's all that can really matter to us for now :) I work from an ultimate state of nothingness (no void, no medium) so the other universes would not be reachable and a separate universe. 21:10 No, I personally disagree with this concept of an external view of multiple universes because non of them would exist from an external perspective. there is no external perspective/view to the universe described above :) 22:04 As I hinted above the possible others likely have no relevance to our universe. 23:01 No, no external medium required other than that initiator. All possible universes including ours would have a beginning, but there is that prior initiator problem, but it doesn't need to be defined as a universe, just random noise in the nothing. 26:15 I disagree with much of this. There is an ambiguity at the core of relativity that fails at the boundaries. The same problem seems to give a false view of the CMBR against other objects due to the expansion problem. 27:48 As I said above. There is a fundamental ambiguity that fails at boundaries. It can be circumvented and the weird boundary paradoxes will appear to dissipate. The ambiguity exists within the fundamental concept of universal time, and also in the speed of light and 'c'. It appears to be a false boundary condition created by the mathematics and convention of the speed of light and the default speed of time. It's difficult to find as it is an infinitesimally small value that can be rounded as an error. 28:31 This is what I hinted to above in the illusion created by the CMBR. We appear to have 2 boundaries moving in different directions. In reality we would have 3 boundaries close together if we include the moment before the big bang. This is 3 separate past light cones as a spherical shells in m/s with 2 possibly overlapping. 36:43 Nothingness-uncertainty, time1-void, populated space-time2. > Thanks :)
Slow roll is fine, but the change in the potential can still do the same job so to speak with a bump. The mass scales of particles before inflation is locked into a sort of stick potential, and the dynamics that set up this heyristic potential changes, so there is a potential curve for the vacua itself that looks like slow roll, and a potential curve with a bump as well for the properties of the higgs field. Very handwavy description, but the potential curve can itself change in various ways as the previous vacua decays. A little bit like a heavy ball on a soft surface that leans over and drops off, the change of the balls position deforms the potential. And so the slow roll is there even though there is a potential barrier stopping a sudden transition in a sense. Once tha ball climbs over the edge so to speak the potential barrier for going back grows in a very imprecise sense.
The issue is as i said, the continuety of geodesics, but not in a simple way. If we just do a transformation into coordinates where the geodesics are otherwise defined, as to be euclidian, the problem of a change of the scale factor of the metric becomes a problem of changing measures locally. And again if the evolution is continous then those measures will indeed blow up in the finite past in some sense. But not if the time dilation and lenght scales are in some sense replaced along the way with new fundamental scales, then the theorem just doesnr apply and you can expand for as long as you damn well please without worrying about finite time singularities. That is a mathematical fact, if you then try to apply the theorem to this sort of cosmology then you are in trouble, that isn't appropriate, because rhe assumptions are broken.
How did they get around constraints on quantum foam and dark matter? Also why FTL inflation when FTL in a vacuum has never been seen. Also artifacting that shouldn't exist. Like super voids and super structures. Also they can use natural cutoffs for the universe.
Phase change? So the whole universe is a massive refrigeration cycle? And it's capable of moving more [heat] energy than it requires to move it? Am I grasping this right? The quanta of gravity ends up being really big, and serves as sort of the 'compressor' that regenerates the cycle in such a concept.
I got the impression from the guest that empty space was supposed to pre-exist, hence the source of the "force" that was supposed to start everything off. Would this have happened infinitely long ago? There's an awful lot of conjecture in this presentation. Perhaps that's the purpose
When time passes by infinitely fast, you freeze in place, even if you move, correct me if I'm wrong :) Conversly, when time stops, traversing space is instantaneous, as if this space didn't exist. All depends on the perspective. So... what's the problem, really ?
In relativity, time has a maximum limit equivalent to 'c' called 'ct' Casual time, so cant have infinite velocity. . Nothing can accelerate from 0 m/s to a velocity of 'c' m/s. At best 99.999...% the speed of 'c' so time can't appear to stop, it just appears infinitely slow in SR. In GR under gravity it gets a bit more messy but is still the same, time just becomes infinitely slow, but doesn't stop. So traversing space would appear to take an infinite amount of time, but in reality the clock traversing space just shows normal time at 99.999% speed of light.
Time stops is not a technical, but metaphorical term, but why do you say that nothing can travel with the speed of light ? Light can ! As any other massless particles for that matter. I'm pretty sure there are some.
@@TomekSamcik69 Yup, they do appear to (technically in relativity they do), but also in relativity they don't have any time dilation as they have no rest state. A particle has to have a rest state of zero m/s such as a particle with mass to be able to calculate against its different velocity to get time dilation. Photons are always at 'c', so there is no time dilation calculation for it :) That is stated somewhere in SR.
@@TomekSamcik69 It is a bit of a weird problem in the middle of relativity and even ol Albert was a bit puzzled over it. It's one of those weird things that breaks relativity at event horizons.
@@axle.student Yes, there is no frame of reference in which photons are at rest as they always travel at the speed of light, so that doesn't make things any clearer :) It's a bit fat-fetched to speculate what happens when you're a photon. But I've read somewhere that time diation is either undefined or infinite depends on how you want to calculate it.
My theory of gravity: All atoms interfere - essentially refracting - with themselves, and that causes gravity. Specifically, other universes are being scattered because they undergo vacuum decay, which causes the intensity curve of gravity. One real-world event that supports my theory is the super, super fast cosmic ray - that came from a cosmic void. It is currently unknown to scientists how the particle could have been accelerated to such an extreme speed. My idea says that multiple copies of that cosmic ray turn into energy by the vacuum decay in other universes, but since the particle is going at a speed so close to the speed of light, the influence from other universes piles up in front of it, pulling it forward as it travels in otherwise empty space.
Refracting?? How And how they causes the gravity , We do have a Einstein equation which tell us how gravity works in bigg masses but problems comes when we went to quantam levels
@@sohailasghar8684 When photons, or even single atoms, are sent through the two slits, they interfere with themselves. With the countless atoms from the multiverse turning to energy in those universes, matter (which equals energy) and light are refracted in this universe by some of the mass from the multiverse. Matter can be refracted because it is basically moving energy.
The beggining theorem is not quite right. Imagine for a second that the more inflation vacua had its own particles and so on, but at a different scale, with different much lower entropy associated with it through the unifying dynamics of both vacua. The average positive expansion then does not have to close of at a finite time in the past. Because the transition involves a kind of reset of scales. The easiest way to put this is that the measures associated with the scale of matter in a different representation has a singularity in their scale in space, rather than talking about geodesics of space. So we transform a problem of geodesics meeting at a point in the past. To geodesics being identical at all times, but scales of matter become infinite in a finite past, tgese matter degrees of freedom are wiped out going back in time in inflation, and so the scale dissappears there, and can be seen as picked up again at some finite scale at some finite rate of change in the vacua before inflation. Think of it as analogous to zooming into a fractal, there is always more details there to be found, and they can be expanded eternally just fine without asserting tgat there must be a finite time in the past where the patter just stops, it is kind of like zooming out eternally from a starting point of infinite zoom into the mandelbroth set for instance, you will never get to a sort of clean starting point, when going that way.
Inflation has never been observed and there is no empirical basis to have faith in it. The empirical evidence is the thermal equilibrium seen in the cosmic microwave background; inflation is just one possible explanation of how that empirical evidence got there. What if instead of everything having been in the same spot in a hypothesized inflationary period, What if instead the CMB arrived at thermal equilibrium because the same process warming up the universe in one area is the same process warming up the universe everywhere else? Black holes have a cycle of absorption and emission which would account for how the CMB got there. Trillions of blackholes traveling through empty space constantly creating and destroying matter for all of time would have the same CMB that we see today. The empirical evidence is just as likely indicating an infinite universe with constant creation & destruction of matter by black holes as it indicates inflation. I hope more people start to study & use Steady State cosmology to fix the last few decades of creationist cosmology known as the inflationary big bang model.
Since both inflation and string theory are mathematical models that can always be fitted to observations after the fact and make no real predictions that help us understand the universe or develop new technologies. Progress and solutions will have to come from the fringe.
Actually, the theories they are talking about directly affect everything from GPS positioning to satellite communications to how computers and cell phones work- genius. Ppl like you know just enough to make an ass of yourself.
@@stoneysdead689 "the theories they are talking about directly affect everything from GPS positioning to satellite communications to how computers and cell phones work- genius". Zero theories discussed in this video impact any of that. It is true that relativity is used for GPS corrections. And that quantum mechanics is used for cell phone technology. I don't appreciate the needless hostility and supposed corrections when u are incorrect. I am a big fan of Brian Greene, he even corrected the guest here when the guest said that the higgs gives mass to "ALL" particles. Brian later said "MOST". Cuz it doesn't give mass to the neutrino. Brian takes accuracy seriously, and that is great cuz it matters.
It is not true, duration of these cycles over and over could be anything. When you change from a global geometric language to a local language of changing measures aka emergent matter scales and so on. You would not say infinity in a oenrose diagram is a finite distance away just because of a representation of it rhat puts it like that, it is the same thing here, the issue with the finite past thing, is the assumption that the metric in a geometric language provided by the formalism of gr is somehow continous between phases, when in fact, it might require a higher order extension of GR to say anything about it.
As interesting as it sounded the last part, I didn't understand it. Does he think our universe began 13.8 billion years ago, or even earlier? Because he says that particles in an expanding universe go faster in the past, to a point where they sort of reach light speed. If he means particles had to continue moving before the inflation, how could that be if they moved that fast and the universe was so small? Else why he thinks our universe is older than 13.8 billion years old? Didn't get it.
Yeah, I agree. That all seamed like a bit of a fruit salad. It didn't make a lot of sense. I think it was an attempt to explain a problem with the conflicting age of objects near the CMB.
Inflation is NOT settled science - Penrose pointed out there’s no reason to believe it was smooth - let alone infinitely differentiable. How much cosmology have you studied exactly??
I have a question, if someone can answer to me , The Einstein field equation tells us how the gravity works , but the tricky thing is we have neutron stars and blackholes in the universe, so when i star collapse undergravity and mass amount remains the same , and it collapsed undergravity , so some how gravity becomes more dominant at the atomic scales or even at the scale of quarks , which causes this shrink possible, so some times gravity works and form black holes or neutrons stars but usually it remains silent at atomic scale and effects nothing ,
Is it possible that the universe is in a time loop where the big bang keeps happening and collapsing almost instantly, each bang and collapse counting as a very minuscule segment of time for us? This might explain the odd behavior of light and other particles, they are always being slightly shifted or displaced by a constant big bang that’s just nearly instantaneous, if you could figure out how far apart each bang was it might be easier to determine what a particle will do, it might also give off the impression that we are a hologram? I realize the universe is expanding so fast that there’s not enough gravity to pull it back together but if it expanded faster than light then there is a chance it could start to move backwards in time and then you would not need gravity. Additionally, the big bang could have been caused by itself, time can be strange. what if it was going to bang and it preemptively collapsed in on itself first, causing the bang, sort of like a man getting in a time machine and going back to a time to meet himself before he gets in the time machine.
The 'larger structure which probably has a beginning' may be a higher dimensional being made of (star)light (and blackholes?), just as cells make up parts of a whole organism orders of magnitude above their cognitive lightcone (as well as size, time, etc.). Also, the beginning and the end are the same, that is to say their meeting - when spacetime meets itself - results in infinity.
Brian Greene does a good job of explaining science to the curious mind. Thanks Brian!!
One of the best :)
Will Kinney, great teacher.
An outstanding discussion! Loving this whole series! Thank you Dr. Greene and Dr. Kinney!
One of my favorite topics, I find the topic of time incredibly intriguing. Everything regarding how the universe came to existence/ where it's going. I could listen to you for hours!
Thanks for doing this series! I find each discussion intriguing and thought provoking.
What about taking a shotgun into space
I love watching these conversations. Thank you for uploading them. Sometimes I feel like it's the only Intellectual stimulus I've gotten all week. Thanks again! 🖤
Like a “curtain coming up” - “pop psychology into physics until X” - Mr. Kinney I look forward to listening - may all those who feel a certain way about “timing” be well and may the knowledge of this new information bring many downloads and cognitive processes to the “booting up and jacking in” - of time and space.
“Record”
Has the sun been used to light a barbecue or bowl?
Really cool stuff - “all ai you say?” - lol ;)
“I can’t believe it’s not Folgers”
The first CD
“Point of religion”
The most intellectual discussion to date. Unraveling the cones at the allowed dimensions, you step back and perceive that the cones from the inflated point as well as the flat point.
*_"...you step back and perceive that the cones from the inflated point as well as the flat point."_*
...as well as the flat point _what?_ You didn't finish your sentence.
{:o:O:}
Meaningless dross.
judgmentcallpodcast covers this. Time and Cosmology Discussed
Thank you world science festival
For all your videos shared
Absolutely excellent. I loved this. Over the years I have developed my own theories about space, time, infinity etc. Professor Kinney speaks directly to the heart of my ideas. If nothing else, he has given me much food for thought.
In my own theories I have uncomfortably accepted that the infinite universe has no beginning. Mainly because, to me, you can not insert a beginning into infinity. But he not only says that you can, he says that you have to. Ouch. Now I have to go take a look at what he has done on this subject.
His idea goes completely against my way of thinking. But I am nowhere near to calling him out and arguing against his idea. Given who he is, I'm not about to just say poppycock either. I'm not giving up the ideas I have formulated. I've spent a long time contemplating infinity. But I definitely want to see an intelligent argument against them.
Half an hour of a Saturday afternoon well spent. Damn, did I miss a football game?
"But I am nowhere near to calling him out and arguing against his idea."
Even if you did, it would be meaningless without a theory that stands up to scrutiny. That is mathematically sound and doesn't conflict with observations. We can come up with our own models and ideas but one of the big problems here is that our models are at best very poor representations of reality and ideas can't justifiably be called theories until they've been tested.
I actually learned a few things watching this interview and it's a long time since I've learned anything new in physics. It forced me to abandon some of my ideas but I like that - reducing the possibilites always feels like progress.
@@antonystringfellow5152 Do I detect an assumption on your part that my theory does not stand up to scrutiny, is not mathematically sound and conflicts with observations? If not, I am curious as to why you would even mention these very basic rules of science. You seem to assume that my ideas have not been tested and therefore lack the credentials to be called a theory.
At roughly 13:00 in, they talk about the universe being the size of a grapefruit. At this point in time, is the universe infinite, or really smaller than a bowling ball? If it is not infinite, does it transition from non-infinite to infinite at a specific point in time? I understand that the shape and size and scope of the universe is not settled physics yet, so I am asking within the constraints of what is currently thought to be likely.
The big bang inflation theory can suggest a bounded universe. We have an observable universe that is bounded, but it is also possible that there is a boundary beyond that that is expanding as well :)
Expanding suggest toward some "infinite" size. But that expansion could also stop in the future, so we then have a new finite boundary.
Imagine a small bubble (bounded) expanding toward infinity (infinite).
When you hear references to the "size of the universe" in earlier times, always assume that the discussion is about the volume of space that the matter in the currently observable universe was squeezed into. Since the size of the universe beyong what we can observe is not known, and might be infinite, no one is in any position to postulate what the size of the unobservable universe has been at any time.
If the universe is infinite, it has always been infinite. What would have changed is the density of matter in the universe.
@@greghall4836 I agree with this possibility, but remember it was a reference to the Big Bang, so you are introducing a different theory/concept to explain something on the Bing Bang.
I don't think the big Bang suggest it as only observable. Anything I have ever seen states the singularity as the "Only" universe and not part of.
So that is a "Bounded" or "finite" universe :)
Two geniuses in the same room
Two Brain boxes.
I am not really concerned about what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence.
The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics.
Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial?
Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses?
Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism are moral?
Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous?
If so, then you are objectively immoral, and your so-called "enlightened/awakened" state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.
@@ReverendDr.Thomasсчитаете ли вы, что мир объединяет противоположности, если да, то человек вынужден ответить только на одну его часть. Человека вынудили ответить только на одну часть, а заставляют ответить за все на основании этой части. Вы путаете тело, душу и дух. А Господь прощает грехи и не воспомянет о них больше никогда.
It seems you have determined what is objectively immoral. What makes you so certain you know the truth. @@ReverendDr.Thomas
Sabine would disagree with you, I bet
This was a very enjoyable conversation. Very interesting.
I do love this channel and this discussion. It makes me think of this quote. Terrance McKenna “Modern Science is based on one principle: Give us one free miracle and we will explain the rest.”
Great talk. Anyone else thinks Will Kinney’s voice sounds just like Nicolas Cage? I couldn’t listen with my eyes closed 😅
OMG….yes!!!
Ha ha, yes, I get that too, every now and again
I cannot unhear that now! :D
A human spanner in the works. Something unpredictable is going to happen.
Thanks Dr green another great interview
I've been saying this for years.
The issue is you cannot necessarily apply the theorem to the cyclic cosmology. The mistake made in penroses pucture is to assume these continueties in the metric picture, that is where the results come from. Always. If those degrees of freedome are wiped out completely then the theorem is just not applicable.
Either space stretches from here to eternity, or time shrinks to the size of a needle's head
22:00 - Why does this sound like a heavily coded conversation about existential escapism? Yeah, infinite universes spreading infinitely, with no way of ending any of them. It suggests that suffering is a constant of this universe. Not just suffering, but isolated suffering (as we are unable to communicate between universes).
As I have always understood, it is not suffering that is constant, unending, and inescapable, but Awareness. The quantity of energy at 'awareness level'. It may well be invariable within and throughout universes. Some of it will be experiencing suffering, but that suffering experience is transient. At least it should be..
You can communicate between universes... think what they have in common!?
Just ignore everything, then you don't suffer 😂
@onibordiciuc1986 Yes, that is why we created black-holes. Something of irresistable common interest across universes. Something they would be sure to think about! If they created them too, to establish a common point of communication, things will eventually start making a lot more sense!
@@FatherFractal Lol! That reminded me of this funny quote: " To love is to suffer, to be happy is to love. In order to be happy one must then love to suffer... or suffer from too much happiness!"
Fascinating
It's hard enough trying to imagine how big our universe is, let alone all the possible universes.
Good stuff. Needs more views!
Im still stuck at the idea of universes being "pushed apart" faster than the speed of light. Is this "arena" a higher dimension in space? Is it just space? What conceptual framework is used to make sense of this, what is being inflated that separates these universes?
It's a difficult one. That's why they say many times the laws of physics appear to be different in the beginning.
But what you can do is imaging *not* space (filled with energy that creates friction and slows everything down), but a completely empty void. That void may have no real physical properties other than eventual vacuum so may not be restricted by the limit of 'c' like our energy filled space is :)
This is one of the best fundemental physics vieos ever and I've seen most of them!
It is a very important loophole. The assumption of continuity in those very time dilation effects and lenght scales associated with matter, is what breaks down to rescue us from a finite past.
This made me think of popcorn, that decays into popcorn Kernels. Microwave background. interesting terminology. Did I just break the game?
I would like to know how Steinhardt responds (if he does) to Kinney's criticism at the end of the video. That said, I still don't know how Kinney responds to Steinhardt's best criticisms of inflation, since they weren't raised in this video, despite the fact that Greene recently interviewed Steinhardt. I generally like Green as a presenter/interviewer/conversationalist, but here I wish he had forced the issue more and been more specific about the criticisms. Sometimes he errs too much on the side of niceness.
Amazing refresher ❤🎉
Love and respect from Chania Crete Greece
xairetismata ap enan germano apo to bremerhaven.
@carlbothmann Καλημέρα φίλε!!!!
It's the Dude I usually banter/read papers from on Twitter! ^.^
I don't know if any of this is true but this is insane 🥵
I'm skeptical towards multiple universes. I enjoyed this talk nonetheless
Yea, inflation is wrong too. I'm with Penrose on some of this stuff.
It's all theoretical. So pick one, pick a card any card, but remembe, none of the cards may be the right one.
Hi, can someone please eli5 what was meant by the quote “physics is a differential equation and religion is a boundary condition” -Allen Turing
Thanks!
Our theory has a following explanation
Classical universe of our theory is a differential equation and quantum universe is an initial condition that is bounded by our CPT(α,Φ) function as the boundary/limiting condition”
Please feel free to read my comment for more details
@ hmm I guess I need it more dumbed down. I’ll try and do some research. Thank you for replying though!
I could be wrong about this, but the way I had interpreted it was:
Physics is a differential equation, meaning that with context (initial conditions, the state of the system, etc.) physics can describe the behaviour of our universe.
However, since we don't have the initial conditions and those conditions may be unknowable, it requires speculation (a leap of faith) for us to answer. In this sense, the quote uses religion as an analogy for the kind of belief (speculation of unknown boundary conditions) that are required to evaluate the differential equation that the physics provides us with.
Again, could be totally wrong, I'm not a physicist. I would happy for someone to correct me if I've misunderstood the quote.
The concept of infinite beginnings is reshaping our understanding of time in cutting-edge cosmology. Traditionally, cosmologists have looked to the Big Bang as the ‘beginning’ of time, a singular event marking the universe's origin. But new theories suggest that the universe may have no true beginning, potentially existing in an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction, or even through multiple, parallel universes. In this framework, time as we understand it might just be one aspect of a far more complex, infinite structure. Some models, like those in quantum cosmology, propose that time is emergent, meaning it could arise from something more fundamental and timeless. These ideas hint that what we see as the beginning could be one of many phases in a cosmic sequence. If the universe has an infinite or cyclic nature, it challenges our perception of cause and effect, existence, and the concept of a "moment of creation." How might these theories influence our view of existence, or our quest to understand what (if anything) came 'before' time as we know it?
Brilliant conversation… mind blowing 🐬
The universe began with Entanglement,that is how all universe’s began.all Entangled space is a universe unto its self.that is how you have a multiverse.
Q.M. 0`10 ~ There are no laws when it comes to the realms of the Infinite Possibilities.
Starts out with guy saying "We super duper know for a fact blah blah blah.
In Theory you mean?
Yeah, there are valid reasons against slow-roll inflation… it’s a very ‘tuned’ guess.
Thank you for this! Our OLQEM formula describes this.
❤
Anthony Aguirre and Steve Gratton appear to have developed a model, described in a paper titled "Steady-State Eternal Inflation", that would have dual arrows of time, each pointing in a direction of time opposite the other's, that was found to be acceptable to the writers of the BGV Theorem: The dual universes resulting would be separated by a Cauchy surface.
16:29
We can SEE that the yellow points are the dots, what do they represent?
{:o:O:}
Seems instead that the particle would only asymptotically approach the speed of light, thus leading to an infinite past... 🤔
a very good video
It can never be proved that there’s not a universe disconnected from ours - by definition!
GREAT DISCUSSION!!!!
Question General relativity tells us that mass deforms spacetime and spacetime "tells" mass/energy how to move. If that's the case, why do we need gravitons (since mass deforms spacetime)?
That is the key thing, if you drop this continuity in these time dilation and lenght scale parameters/variables. Then the theorem just doesn't hold, so the over all universe doesn't need a starting point. To me the theorem, although not wrong given its assumptions, is sort of assumes to much in they way it assumes geodesics are continous through these phase transitions in a particular form relating to the intrinsic geometry associated with these lenght scales and time scales of matter. That is the real issue imo. If you just say, hey before inflation the metric was based on entierly different measures and if you trace it back you find another inflation like phase transition again, and again and so on, then you really do not have any such theorems anymore, that applies to the physics.
To me, a single universe starting 13.8 billion years ago sounds like creation. I’m of a thinking that we’re in a bubbling, roiling mass if universes. Like soap bubbles growing in hot water as more hat water pours in. Bad analogy but that makes more sense than this short one off universe is all there is.
When you use a word like universe, you are using the word for everything, so if there are other “universes”, they would be by definition a part of The Universe, as it is by definition Everything .
@ Someone can’t track a conversation. Isn’t there a grammatical error in my comment to focus on too?
@@danielpaulson8838 WHYY is there an incessant need to complicate things exponentially with infinite universes, when we still have NO CLUE regarding > 90% of our OWN universe? Especially when they are unfalsibiable and entirely unprovable?
All because a single universe "sounds like Creation" to you...!?🙄
Have you ever stopped and thought that maybe, juuust maybe, it might actually BE Creation??🤔
It's AS likely, if not MORE likely than "infinite universes" and that's a FACT.
Multiple (infinite) separate universes are possible, but they would also likely have no external concept of existence or be viewable externally.
@@axle.student Agreed. That's what Sabine would say too. It isn't even science to consider what cannot be observed. I figure since we know everything works through cause and effect, it's worth pondering what came before and it sure sounds like a one shot universe supports a silly creation story.
We'll never find out. But it's more fun that sitting in Church being told to stop thinking.
would CCC also have a beginning?
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
You can take the Idealist metaphysical position when studying problems of physics and then you can say that maybe what physics really describes, metaphysically, is Nature's dream. In other words, the low energy physics that we study and have access to, which also includes space and time, is how the dream of Nature looks like. That's why gravity is also an observable in the dream - it only makes sense from an alter's point of view, together with other classical observables like positions, momenta, spins and so on.
But if you were to go back to the Big Bang where high energy physics would describe the state of Nature, what that metaphysically means is that Nature was in another state - similar to an "awake state" - Nature was not dreaming, like it is now, at low energies. What we see as singularities is what that state looks like to us - they appear as singularities because the dream's state space and time stop, there - they make no sense in Nature's "awake state", only in its "dream state".
My question... The Big Question... is: "What is the name of that piece of music at the end credits?!" I've heard several versions of it in videos, and it feels super-familiar as if it's from classical, but I can't place it and I've never seen it credited. Any help?
Dear Prof Greene,
Does this ring a bell?
A modified field equation of Einstein, with no singularity or infinite outcome but includes the accelerated expansion of the universe as a natural properties such as you said, outward push gravity 🥰
0:19
Best Cleaning Lady
Berlin/Germany
4:15 This very misleading. It wasn’t that the questions were “left open” intentionally; it was more that the fine-tuning implications themselves caused problems for the original model. At that point there was a frenzy to explain this. It was Guth’s creative imagination that was attributed with fixing the fine tuning problem. So, there was never any casual leaving open. Once these issues were recognized it was quite the opposite. Guth just happen to be the one bold and desperate enough to disregard known physics
Are the red dots another universes , or another side of our universe ? Is big bang explode to one side only or two sides ?
I don’t quite understand this. The temperature variation across the entire universe as measured by the CMB is +/- 0.001 degrees either C or K, which should indicate a universe at maximum entropy, or do I misunderstand the significance of this minuscule temperature difference.
My guess is ... entropy can decrease in a local bounded system if it increases more across the global system under the 2nd Law. If that still holds here, then our bubble universe having near the minimum entropy means the multiverse as a whole has to have increased in entropy by as much or more than that amount.
Edit: You mean close to the minimum entropy. Entropy counts the number of degrees of freedom to fully describe a system, so a cosmological singularity at the time of the Big Bang with one or a handful of properties will have the lowest entropy, and evolution away from that singularity will still have a very small entropy that's increasing over time. This discussion is adding the entropy of the full surrounding multiverse to that equation.
In CCC with a Hartley-hawking state separating the bangs, each bang each cycle would have no temporal relations with each other , hence they could all be be banging together concurrently as in an entire multiverse occurring at once concurrently??
- Jaime Tan
Awesome !
Enjoyed this, even with multi universe there is a beginning that seems bothersome .
The guest just materialize from thin air at 01:22
010 cannot be simpler than simple...
Never heard Kinny! Can't wait. My ears are too slow!
Love it I got you buddy
So yeah the fundamental loophole in the argument is the transition represented by inflation reseting the scale at finite time in the past and the future for any particular vacua, pardon the pun
If there is infinite time -space -energy then if we are in the middle of infinity then everything would be already infinitely expanded . The infinite between 0 and one is simply a hare/ torus race.
Belief is a string delusional quality.
Even if there are multiple universes even so our universe seems to have had a beginning.
The statement you mentioned is a paraphrase that has been circulating on the web, but it doesn't seem to be a direct quote from Alan Turing.
Exquisite!
and then what's story with the ancient galaxies the the JWST sees that are not "supposed" to be there??
If everything in the universe moves away from each other in every direction, the universe HAS to be spherical too and CAN NOT be flat. Spheres are the norm in the universe: stars, planets, moons, asteroids, comets.
I'd like to add that if galaxies, suns, planets, moons, asteroids, and likely comets too, rotate... the universe probably is rotating too.
Okay, so when a cooling universe contains only photons, the lack of mass deflates spacetime into a new big bang, with CMB radiation the only remnant of the last cycle. Brilliant. I always forget that a photon moves across space without experiencing time at all. I still have questions about photons, at the concept level. For example, what property of 'vacuum' facilitates lossless co-induction between electric and magnetic fields, and what on Earth does c represent? A coupling co-efficient of some sort?
Most excellent discussion :)
I am not a physicist or cosmologist. The following are just my educated thoughts on the discussion points.
>
3:45 I thought Inflation was the Big Bang? What?
6:11 This is confusing. inflation started with a hot infinitely dense (singularity) primordial soup, but it also was empty and cold? That make no sense to all of the explanations of the Big Bang at all :/
>
An empty void expanding is completely different to any explainer of the bib bang that I have ever seen :/
I considered this concept as a thought experiment as an alternative to the Bing bang explanation that I had always seen and got raged of YT for suggesting it :/
In that thought experiment you can create a universe from nothing and ultimately the energy that emerges in it. The driver is time, not time as a measurement or clock, but something more fundamental that drives the universe from one moment to the next. That same driver that I loosely call time also continues to create potential energy after the inflation period (call it dark energy if that works).
8:12 Exactly. It has "potential" energy. Exactly
what converts that potential energy into kinetic energy I am unsure of at the moment.
8:22 I am more inclined to think that the potential energy is a result of inflation/expansion and there is a more unsentimental driver related to time/progression. In this way you can have a universe from nothing that exist nowhere.
9:26 9:30 to 9:41 *YES, someone gets it* :) Yes, the potential energy comes out of the vacuum. The original driver that is time like inflates the universe in all direction from nothing. As the boundary of that bubble (an event horizon) expands it creates a void in its wake, a void that has potential vacuum energy. At some point that potential vacuum energy snaps or gives way to kinetic energy in the primal universe.
It's not difficult to do as a thought experiment. It does have issues about that primal driver such as what initiates it from a dormant state or if universes just infinitely keep initiating/spawning etc.
12:41 to 13:00 "At some point that potential vacuum energy snaps or gives way to kinetic energy". There an issue with the expansion rate from what I have said above. The only work around that I can think of would be a longer initial period of inflation, or that concept of time does not have the same restriction as 'c'.
13:40 Yup, that's it :)
14:42 I am not sure which direction to look for this initiation, but I am following down a path that is analog in nature where we have a balance between infinite degrees of certainty and infinite degrees of uncertainty. It is possible that a complete state of quiet/nothingness could still have an infinitesimal amount of uncertainty. Enough that one in an infinite possibility could introduce noise into the nothing and initiate a change. From that moment the primary driver begins.
20:10 "... initiates it from a dormant state or if universes just infinitely keep initiating/spawning etc." It's problematic, but if we just focus on our universe then that's all that can really matter to us for now :)
I work from an ultimate state of nothingness (no void, no medium) so the other universes would not be reachable and a separate universe.
21:10 No, I personally disagree with this concept of an external view of multiple universes because non of them would exist from an external perspective. there is no external perspective/view to the universe described above :)
22:04 As I hinted above the possible others likely have no relevance to our universe.
23:01 No, no external medium required other than that initiator. All possible universes including ours would have a beginning, but there is that prior initiator problem, but it doesn't need to be defined as a universe, just random noise in the nothing.
26:15 I disagree with much of this. There is an ambiguity at the core of relativity that fails at the boundaries. The same problem seems to give a false view of the CMBR against other objects due to the expansion problem.
27:48 As I said above. There is a fundamental ambiguity that fails at boundaries. It can be circumvented and the weird boundary paradoxes will appear to dissipate. The ambiguity exists within the fundamental concept of universal time, and also in the speed of light and 'c'. It appears to be a false boundary condition created by the mathematics and convention of the speed of light and the default speed of time. It's difficult to find as it is an infinitesimally small value that can be rounded as an error.
28:31 This is what I hinted to above in the illusion created by the CMBR. We appear to have 2 boundaries moving in different directions. In reality we would have 3 boundaries close together if we include the moment before the big bang. This is 3 separate past light cones as a spherical shells in m/s with 2 possibly overlapping.
36:43 Nothingness-uncertainty, time1-void, populated space-time2.
>
Thanks :)
Slow roll is fine, but the change in the potential can still do the same job so to speak with a bump. The mass scales of particles before inflation is locked into a sort of stick potential, and the dynamics that set up this heyristic potential changes, so there is a potential curve for the vacua itself that looks like slow roll, and a potential curve with a bump as well for the properties of the higgs field. Very handwavy description, but the potential curve can itself change in various ways as the previous vacua decays. A little bit like a heavy ball on a soft surface that leans over and drops off, the change of the balls position deforms the potential. And so the slow roll is there even though there is a potential barrier stopping a sudden transition in a sense. Once tha ball climbs over the edge so to speak the potential barrier for going back grows in a very imprecise sense.
The issue is as i said, the continuety of geodesics, but not in a simple way. If we just do a transformation into coordinates where the geodesics are otherwise defined, as to be euclidian, the problem of a change of the scale factor of the metric becomes a problem of changing measures locally. And again if the evolution is continous then those measures will indeed blow up in the finite past in some sense. But not if the time dilation and lenght scales are in some sense replaced along the way with new fundamental scales, then the theorem just doesnr apply and you can expand for as long as you damn well please without worrying about finite time singularities. That is a mathematical fact, if you then try to apply the theorem to this sort of cosmology then you are in trouble, that isn't appropriate, because rhe assumptions are broken.
How did they get around constraints on quantum foam and dark matter? Also why FTL inflation when FTL in a vacuum has never been seen. Also artifacting that shouldn't exist. Like super voids and super structures. Also they can use natural cutoffs for the universe.
Phase change? So the whole universe is a massive refrigeration cycle? And it's capable of moving more [heat] energy than it requires to move it? Am I grasping this right? The quanta of gravity ends up being really big, and serves as sort of the 'compressor' that regenerates the cycle in such a concept.
The force cannot be time space or matter these did not exist. This video dodged this question.
I got the impression from the guest that empty space was supposed to pre-exist, hence the source of the "force" that was supposed to start everything off. Would this have happened infinitely long ago? There's an awful lot of conjecture in this presentation. Perhaps that's the purpose
Start with nothing end with nothing. Everything is in between.
Amazing dude
When time passes by infinitely fast, you freeze in place, even if you move, correct me if I'm wrong :)
Conversly, when time stops, traversing space is instantaneous, as if this space didn't exist. All depends on the perspective. So... what's the problem, really ?
In relativity, time has a maximum limit equivalent to 'c' called 'ct' Casual time, so cant have infinite velocity.
.
Nothing can accelerate from 0 m/s to a velocity of 'c' m/s. At best 99.999...% the speed of 'c' so time can't appear to stop, it just appears infinitely slow in SR. In GR under gravity it gets a bit more messy but is still the same, time just becomes infinitely slow, but doesn't stop.
So traversing space would appear to take an infinite amount of time, but in reality the clock traversing space just shows normal time at 99.999% speed of light.
Time stops is not a technical, but metaphorical term, but why do you say that nothing can travel with the speed of light ? Light can ! As any other massless particles for that matter. I'm pretty sure there are some.
@@TomekSamcik69 Yup, they do appear to (technically in relativity they do), but also in relativity they don't have any time dilation as they have no rest state. A particle has to have a rest state of zero m/s such as a particle with mass to be able to calculate against its different velocity to get time dilation.
Photons are always at 'c', so there is no time dilation calculation for it :)
That is stated somewhere in SR.
@@TomekSamcik69 It is a bit of a weird problem in the middle of relativity and even ol Albert was a bit puzzled over it.
It's one of those weird things that breaks relativity at event horizons.
@@axle.student Yes, there is no frame of reference in which photons are at rest as they always travel at the speed of light, so that doesn't make things any clearer :) It's a bit fat-fetched to speculate what happens when you're a photon.
But I've read somewhere that time diation is either undefined or infinite depends on how you want to calculate it.
a genius is not someone who repeats what he learned
geniuses can be teachers. and female.
hairdressers are not people who eat tacos... that's you 😅
Wow, can taste it along with you.
My theory of gravity: All atoms interfere - essentially refracting - with themselves, and that causes gravity. Specifically, other universes are being scattered because they undergo vacuum decay, which causes the intensity curve of gravity. One real-world event that supports my theory is the super, super fast cosmic ray - that came from a cosmic void. It is currently unknown to scientists how the particle could have been accelerated to such an extreme speed. My idea says that multiple copies of that cosmic ray turn into energy by the vacuum decay in other universes, but since the particle is going at a speed so close to the speed of light, the influence from other universes piles up in front of it, pulling it forward as it travels in otherwise empty space.
Refracting?? How
And how they causes the gravity ,
We do have a Einstein equation which tell us how gravity works in bigg masses but problems comes when we went to quantam levels
@@sohailasghar8684 When photons, or even single atoms, are sent through the two slits, they interfere with themselves. With the countless atoms from the multiverse turning to energy in those universes, matter (which equals energy) and light are refracted in this universe by some of the mass from the multiverse. Matter can be refracted because it is basically moving energy.
Maybe the Inflaton field it the Axiom of Choice at each point of expansion. Just something to imagine.
The beggining theorem is not quite right. Imagine for a second that the more inflation vacua had its own particles and so on, but at a different scale, with different much lower entropy associated with it through the unifying dynamics of both vacua. The average positive expansion then does not have to close of at a finite time in the past. Because the transition involves a kind of reset of scales.
The easiest way to put this is that the measures associated with the scale of matter in a different representation has a singularity in their scale in space, rather than talking about geodesics of space.
So we transform a problem of geodesics meeting at a point in the past. To geodesics being identical at all times, but scales of matter become infinite in a finite past, tgese matter degrees of freedom are wiped out going back in time in inflation, and so the scale dissappears there, and can be seen as picked up again at some finite scale at some finite rate of change in the vacua before inflation. Think of it as analogous to zooming into a fractal, there is always more details there to be found, and they can be expanded eternally just fine without asserting tgat there must be a finite time in the past where the patter just stops, it is kind of like zooming out eternally from a starting point of infinite zoom into the mandelbroth set for instance, you will never get to a sort of clean starting point, when going that way.
Inflation has never been observed and there is no empirical basis to have faith in it.
The empirical evidence is the thermal equilibrium seen in the cosmic microwave background; inflation is just one possible explanation of how that empirical evidence got there.
What if instead of everything having been in the same spot in a hypothesized inflationary period, What if instead the CMB arrived at thermal equilibrium because the same process warming up the universe in one area is the same process warming up the universe everywhere else?
Black holes have a cycle of absorption and emission which would account for how the CMB got there.
Trillions of blackholes traveling through empty space constantly creating and destroying matter for all of time would have the same CMB that we see today. The empirical evidence is just as likely indicating an infinite universe with constant creation & destruction of matter by black holes as it indicates inflation.
I hope more people start to study & use Steady State cosmology to fix the last few decades of creationist cosmology known as the inflationary big bang model.
Since both inflation and string theory are mathematical models that can always be fitted to observations after the fact and make no real predictions that help us understand the universe or develop new technologies. Progress and solutions will have to come from the fringe.
Actually, the theories they are talking about directly affect everything from GPS positioning to satellite communications to how computers and cell phones work- genius. Ppl like you know just enough to make an ass of yourself.
@@stoneysdead689 "the theories they are talking about directly affect everything from GPS positioning to satellite communications to how computers and cell phones work- genius". Zero theories discussed in this video impact any of that. It is true that relativity is used for GPS corrections. And that quantum mechanics is used for cell phone technology. I don't appreciate the needless hostility and supposed corrections when u are incorrect. I am a big fan of Brian Greene, he even corrected the guest here when the guest said that the higgs gives mass to "ALL" particles. Brian later said "MOST". Cuz it doesn't give mass to the neutrino. Brian takes accuracy seriously, and that is great cuz it matters.
It is not true, duration of these cycles over and over could be anything. When you change from a global geometric language to a local language of changing measures aka emergent matter scales and so on. You would not say infinity in a oenrose diagram is a finite distance away just because of a representation of it rhat puts it like that, it is the same thing here, the issue with the finite past thing, is the assumption that the metric in a geometric language provided by the formalism of gr is somehow continous between phases, when in fact, it might require a higher order extension of GR to say anything about it.
As interesting as it sounded the last part, I didn't understand it. Does he think our universe began 13.8 billion years ago, or even earlier? Because he says that particles in an expanding universe go faster in the past, to a point where they sort of reach light speed. If he means particles had to continue moving before the inflation, how could that be if they moved that fast and the universe was so small? Else why he thinks our universe is older than 13.8 billion years old? Didn't get it.
Yeah, I agree. That all seamed like a bit of a fruit salad. It didn't make a lot of sense.
I think it was an attempt to explain a problem with the conflicting age of objects near the CMB.
Dr. Kinney sounds uncannily like Martin Mull!
Inflation is NOT settled science - Penrose pointed out there’s no reason to believe it was smooth - let alone infinitely differentiable. How much cosmology have you studied exactly??
I have a question, if someone can answer to me ,
The Einstein field equation tells us how the gravity works , but the tricky thing is we have neutron stars and blackholes in the universe, so when i star collapse undergravity and mass amount remains the same , and it collapsed undergravity , so some how gravity becomes more dominant at the atomic scales or even at the scale of quarks , which causes this shrink possible, so some times gravity works and form black holes or neutrons stars but usually it remains silent at atomic scale and effects nothing ,
21:26 So Will Kinney’s real name is Dr. Strange?
Is it possible that the universe is in a time loop where the big bang keeps happening and collapsing almost instantly, each bang and collapse counting as a very minuscule segment of time for us? This might explain the odd behavior of light and other particles, they are always being slightly shifted or displaced by a constant big bang that’s just nearly instantaneous, if you could figure out how far apart each bang was it might be easier to determine what a particle will do, it might also give off the impression that we are a hologram? I realize the universe is expanding so fast that there’s not enough gravity to pull it back together but if it expanded faster than light then there is a chance it could start to move backwards in time and then you would not need gravity. Additionally, the big bang could have been caused by itself, time can be strange. what if it was going to bang and it preemptively collapsed in on itself first, causing the bang, sort of like a man getting in a time machine and going back to a time to meet himself before he gets in the time machine.
There is 0 Time ~ 1 Timing = 010
Time can only manifest in Timing, QM = Creation Evolution Entropy.
Knowing the answer means nothing.
Testing the knowledge means everything.
🔭🚀🪐🛰️
Your philosophy is refutable.
The vacuum primordial
The 'larger structure which probably has a beginning' may be a higher dimensional being made of (star)light (and blackholes?), just as cells make up parts of a whole organism orders of magnitude above their cognitive lightcone (as well as size, time, etc.).
Also, the beginning and the end are the same, that is to say their meeting - when spacetime meets itself - results in infinity.
Does this mean ~ That we are just part of some sort of a quantum computer ?
More of a Boltzmann brain per say. Airplanes are time machines really. Allowing us to converge. This may seem crude yet simple.