Mysteries of the Cosmos, From Dark Energy to the Big Bang: State of the Universe with Michael Turner
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Subscribe for exclusive content at lawrencekrauss...
Learn more and support the foundation at originsproject...
A note from Lawrence:
Michael Turner has been one of the leading pioneers in the emerging field of particle-astrophysics: the effort to understand the large scale properties of our universe by exploring the fundamental microphysics that ultimately governed the earliest moments of the big bang. It has been an area in which most of my own research has been focused, so it is not surprising that Michael I became on and off research collaborators starting about 40 years ago. In 1995 Michael and I published a paper arguing that 70% of the energy of the universe must reside in empty space if the data at the time were to be self-consistent. Three years later two groups confirmed our prediction, and were awarded the Nobel Prize in 2011 for that discovery. Michael later coined the term “dark energy” to describe this completely mysterious quantity.
Michael is not only a leading scientist, he is also a leading expositor of astrophysics, having written one of the seminal books about the physics of the early universe, and he is frequently sought out by journalists to comment on current results, and by academic audiences for his popular lectures. He has a wry sense of humor, and over his more than 40 years of scientific research he has been involved in many of the key developments that have shaped astrophysics. He has also helped direct the national research effort itself, having been a deputy director of the National Science Foundation, and a former president of the American Physical Society.
Mike and I sat down for a long overdue discussion of his own perspectives on the field. We discussed his personal history, motivations, and challenges as a young scientist, and then went on to discuss many of the key areas of progress in cosmology over the past 40 years, including some puzzles which remain today, and about which one often reads in the popular press. For anyone interested in cosmology, our discussion will shed a great deal of light on which problems are real, and which are not, and also give a new perspective for how far we have come over the last half century in unraveling many of the mysteries of the universe.
Sometimes I wish I'd pursued one of the physical sciences instead of writing about poets. Your informed repartee and comradery makes me feel this way again.
Enjoyed the discussion! Although I find the self-adjusting camera to be quite distracting.
I love your podcasts, but please leave the camera's focus still.
this was a fun informative conversation that taught me some general ideas about the universe. thanks Dr- I quite appreciate that you both took time to do this
Its always a joy
Even if I never get to understanding the complexity of it all, it stretches the mind in a comfortable and calming manner
Long time fan Lawrence! love your passion for science and truth.
Hi, tremendous talk, lots of knowledge and interesting ideias....
10 -37 seconds. Universe is already an old man......😅
now they're doing the Jewish admission thing with the Asians
Love your discussions Lawrence!
Fantastic interview! One of your best. I've listened to it twice.
Thanks Larry for this wonderful podcast. I watched this video twice as it was so enjoyable. Michael Turner is a great communicator.
I am very excited for this one
I'm more like "gee I hope Lawrence let's Michael talk for at least 30% of the time"
Brown Jose Lee Betty Gonzalez Sharon
Longtime fan of the show. Don't like the edits. Something about the flow The old show had that these don't.
Thanks. Agree. It was an experiment.
Feynman told me I'm just jiggling
My takeaway..........just add asparagus 😅
Enjoyed the interview very much. A nice blend of anecdote, explanation and discussion of the frontiers. Wonderful.
One tiny quibble is that the most conservative explanation of dark matter via WIMPS is RH neutrinos.
They are literally in the Standard Model, and even if the weak force is maximally parity violating (it is)
they would still interact by (at least) gravity and maybe beyond SM forces. Please talk with Neil Turok...... TBC (I hope)
Let's go
≈ 1 a_H (acceleration associated with the cosmological expansion rate) = (Λ c^2 l_Λ/7) is an Einstein | Head square equivalency to Einstein coefficient B ≈ 1 predicted gravitational constant gradient according to projective unified field theory = ((-1. α c)/(Λ m_Λ t_Λ^2)) for photorefractive figure of merit.
I've heard that lamp post story a few times, but since I had seen one myself... I'm a little confused about that story now.
It’s flat because it’s reciprocal?
All species, and spaces? Replicate?
What about lithium burn and deterium burn from free neutrons then? Think castle bravo for part. Thank you for sharing the video.
Mapping properties of zero and non-zero numbers onto 0D and higher dimensional concepts in physics could indeed yield fascinating insights. Let's explore some key parallels:
1. Additive Identity:
- Arithmetic: 0 is the additive identity; any number plus 0 remains unchanged.
- Physics/Geometry: 0D could be seen as the "identity" dimension, from which all other dimensions emerge without changing the fundamental nature of reality.
2. Multiplicative Annihilator:
- Arithmetic: Multiplying any number by 0 results in 0.
- Physics: Interactions or operations involving 0D entities might "collapse" higher-dimensional structures back to their 0D fundament.
3. Division Undefined:
- Arithmetic: Division by 0 is undefined.
- Physics: This could parallel the breakdown of physical theories at singularities, suggesting 0D as a limit of our current understanding.
4. Parity:
- Arithmetic: 0 is the only number that is neither positive nor negative.
- Physics: 0D could represent a state of symmetry or balance from which asymmetries (like matter/antimatter) emerge in higher dimensions.
5. Cardinality:
- Set Theory: The empty set {} has 0 elements but is fundamental to building all other sets.
- Physics: 0D entities, while "empty" of extension, could be the building blocks of all higher-dimensional structures.
6. Limits:
- Calculus: Many limits approach but never reach 0.
- Physics: This could relate to quantum uncertainty principles, where precise 0D localization is impossible.
7. Exponents:
- Arithmetic: Any number to the 0 power equals 1 (except 0^0 which is indeterminate).
- Physics: This might suggest that 0D entities have a kind of "unitary" nature, fundamental to quantum mechanics.
8. Countability:
- Number Theory: There are infinitely many non-zero integers, but only one 0.
- Physics: This could parallel the idea of a single, unified 0D substrate giving rise to infinite higher-dimensional configurations.
9. Continuum:
- Real Analysis: 0 separates positive and negative reals on the number line.
- Physics: 0D might represent a kind of "phase transition" point between different states or topologies of higher-dimensional spaces.
10. Complex Plane:
- Complex Analysis: 0 is the only point where real and imaginary axes intersect.
- Physics: This could relate to 0D as a nexus where different aspects of reality (e.g., matter and spacetime) unify.
11. Polynomial Roots:
- Algebra: 0 is often a special case in root-finding (e.g., the constant term in a polynomial).
- Physics: This might suggest 0D entities as "ground states" or fundamental solutions in physical theories.
12. Modular Arithmetic:
- Number Theory: 0 behaves uniquely in modular systems.
- Physics: This could relate to cyclic or periodic behaviors emerging from 0D foundations in higher dimensions.
These parallels suggest that just as 0 plays a unique and fundamental role in mathematics, 0D entities could play a similarly crucial role in physics. This mapping hints at a deep connection between abstract mathematical structures and physical reality, potentially offering new ways to conceptualize and model fundamental physics.
Such analogies could inspire new approaches to quantum gravity, the nature of time, the emergence of spacetime, and the unification of forces. They might also provide intuitive frameworks for understanding seemingly paradoxical quantum phenomena.
Your questions delve into a fascinating philosophical and theoretical realm. Let's explore these ideas:
1. Proving 0D is non-natural vs. 1D-4D being natural:
While we can't definitively "prove" this in the strict mathematical sense, we can make a compelling argument:
- Natural dimensions (1D-4D) are observable, measurable, and part of our everyday experience.
- 0D, representing a dimensionless point, lacks spatial or temporal extension and thus exists outside our natural, observable universe.
- In mathematics, natural numbers start from 1, while 0 is often treated separately, suggesting a fundamental difference.
This distinction could align with the concept of 0D being more fundamental or "pre-geometric," existing prior to or outside of what we consider natural space-time.
2. Proving natural can't exist without the non-natural:
Again, while a formal proof is challenging, we can construct a logical argument:
- If 0D entities are truly fundamental and non-natural, and higher dimensions emerge from them, then by definition, the natural (1D-4D) requires the non-natural (0D) as its foundation.
- This mirrors how in mathematics, complex structures are built upon more abstract, foundational concepts.
- Quantum field theories often rely on abstract, non-observable entities (like virtual particles or fields) to explain observable phenomena.
3. Novel implications:
If we accept these premises, several intriguing implications arise:
a) Ontological Priority: The non-natural (0D) would have ontological priority over the natural, reversing traditional materialist philosophies.
b) Information Fundamentalism: If 0D entities are fundamental, reality at its core might be informational rather than material.
c) Emergent Naturalism: Our entire concept of "natural" laws and phenomena would be emergent properties of a more fundamental non-natural substrate.
d) Limits of Science: Traditional scientific methods, designed to study the natural world, might be fundamentally limited in probing the true nature of reality.
e) Bridging Physics and Metaphysics: This framework could provide a bridge between physical theories and metaphysical or even spiritual concepts that have traditionally been seen as separate from science.
f) New Approach to Quantum Gravity: This perspective could offer a novel approach to quantum gravity, where gravity emerges from the interaction of 0D entities rather than being a fundamental force.
g) Redefinition of Existence: We might need to redefine what we mean by "existence" if the most fundamental entities exist in a non-natural, 0D state.
h) Computational Universe: If 0D entities are informational, it could lend credence to theories that our universe is fundamentally computational in nature.
i) New Mathematical Frameworks: This could spur the development of new mathematical frameworks designed to model the emergence of natural dimensions from non-natural 0D foundations.
These ideas, while highly speculative, open up exciting avenues for theoretical exploration and could potentially lead to revolutionary changes in our understanding of physics, philosophy, and the nature of reality itself.
@@ready1fire1aim1
Mathematician and philosopher Dmitry Bukin in the article "THE CRISIS OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS AS A CRISIS OF ONTOLOGY" concludes:
"The crisis of the foundations of mathematics is, first of all, a crisis of ontology, the essence of which is the inability to describe objects, the fact of existence or formation of which goes beyond the usual ideas about the world. The way out of such a crisis must be sought not so much in improving the methods of mathematics itself, but in updating cognitive means of ontology that do not deny the classical paradigm, but can go beyond its framework. In this sense, dialectics is a historically proven method of comprehending the existence of a mathematical object in its development and relationship with objective reality."
Today, the "problem No. 1 of the millennium" is the ontological justification of mathematics (ontological basification), and therefore knowledge in general, the construction of the New Extended Ideality - the ontological basis of knowledge and cognition for the New information age: ontological frame, carcass, foundation. Mathematicians sweep the problem of the ontological justification of mathematics “under the rug”.
*_"The event of grasping the structure means understanding."_* (G. Gutner "Ontology of mathematical discourse")
I will add: "grasping the ontological structure".
To understand the beginning/origin of the Universe and knowledge is to “grasp” the primordial (absolute, ontological) generating structure.
Yes, it's James Ellroy.
Nonsense
Hello Lawrence'!!!!