The idea of just one electron, zipping all over the Universe in order to make it appear, reminds me of the old raster system for displaying TV pictures, with just one light zipping back and forth and triggering the red, blue and green cells to make up the picture.
I've been a landscaper for 9 years and I've NEVER dug a hole were it was 1 to 1 pile to hole ratio. You always need to find more backfill to get it level, haha. I love your channel Michael, recently subscribed. My gratitude Sir.
Your voice conveys thought provoking concepts that stay with me. I appreciate that you find, read, comprehend, and translate complex scientific papers into concepts that are easy to listen to and make me question what we think we know. Im not in the dark energy/matter camp. Yes it balances the net zero energy hypothesis, but it is a fudge factor conceived to do exactly that :-) Thank you.
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. “There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” - Douglas Adams, _The Restaurant at the End of the Universe_
Adams was such a hoopy frood. I missed meeting him in person years ago by just hours. I worked in the same complex as Infocom when they were doing the game based on the Hitchhikers guide.
It’s not much but you’re a massive inspiration to me. I hope I can become an astronomer/sci-fi author one day. Currently working on my BS in Physics 💪 but thanks bro.
I wish scientists and philosophers would get used to a distinction. “Nothing” as usually used means “a lack of a particular thing,” as in “There is nothing in this box,” as opposed to “nothingness” which means an absolute lack of any existence at all.
Thanks for putting this out, it seems like I'm the only one i know in "real life" who has been saying this stuff and I just get weird looks, I say look into science and read about it, you get to this weird point where you realize that the more you know the less you know and that it seems to be a fundamental aspect of reality, im glad for youtube and the people who take the time to make these videos because i know im not alone even though i am lol
I’ve been watching JMG videos for a few years now and have seen pretty much every one of his videos. This has got to be the best one yet. Informative, thought provoking, clear, concise, well produced…everything. It’s truly is a “something” 😉
A similar thought occurred to me about a year or so ago, though I used the term "zero sum" universe "instead of "zero energy". I was really proud and impressed with myself, and my big, original-thinking brain. But then I looked it up, and discovered the theory had been proposed back in the 1940s. So that was a bit deflating, though I was still a tad proud of coming up with it myself. Although, even then, it's possible that I actually did come across it years earlier, and I only think I came up with it on my own.
You could come to the same conclusions, that's because human knowledge is shared and for you to find interest in something like space, stars, math and difficult concepts proves you can also come up with things. The same would be if you'd be hungry, you imagine yourself ex your favourite food or what you would eat before, but someone else already made it for you back then and now you're the one making it. The process and answers could be similar or different. But the result is the same...but now it's been proven before...making it more true or interesting.
I don't know how I can sleep if JMG ever stops making videos. These videos are super relaxing and a great dream stimulant. No better way to enter a scifi universe than listening to JMG
This narration of yours coupled with the visuals reminded me of Foundation series by Asimov. When i was reading it as a child, i felt this kind of atmosphere surrounding the different stories. Nice channel.
Another JMG brain exploding, mind expanding episode. I’d forgotten Wheeler’s “single electron” hypothesis. I had a PhD friend tell me about a “single photon” hypothesis back in the 70s. Either way… mind blowing! Keep on, keeping on, John. We all love you and your work.
I enjoy doing nothing from time to time. Unfortunately, there always seems to be something I have to do that cancels it out. Thanks for the video, John.
0:11 _"We get up, drive to work, eat lunch, and go home and watch some television."_ I don't _actually_ watch the TV, I just sit there eyeing it suspiciously, because of some JMG videos I had watched earlier (" o.o)
“Being and non-being produce each other”… Tao Te Ching, written 2500 years ago My model of reality is the ground state is an infinite number of probabilities, that both exist and don’t exist. They exist as probabilities, but don’t exist due to cancellation through contradiction. This cancellation of the field of infinite probabilities renders this field infinitely small or non-existent. The Tao Te Ching says that it “seems to exist”. This is why the ground state cannot be seen, and any effort to investigate it seems to flee our perception into the infinitely small… .
It is possible that this field of infinite probabilities is oscillating between being infinitely small and non-existent. That this oscillation is what the Tao Te Ching refers to as “the opening and closing of heaven’s gate”, the flashing in and out of existence of the universe, and with each closing of the gate the ground state dips into the infinite probabilities, and opens to manifest a new set of these probabilities as the material universe… .
Dr. Rupert Sheldrake has suggested that what we perceive as constants, as laws governing the universe are not laws, but mere habits that the universe is in. This would allow - since the ground state contains an infinite number of probabilities - the possibility of the ground state introducing novelty that disrupts the habits that the universe is in. As Sheldrake observed - and the scientific groups think downplays - that the “constant” of the speed of light slowed significantly roughly during the period of World War 2, and sped back up shortly thereafter. That slowing would be an example of the introduction of novelty into the universe, at least locally… .
One of your better videos. You should ponder this in a longer format and dive deeper. Perhaps get an Aristotelian on the show for a friendly discussion.
Hey John, first off let me just say I love your videos & I am a long time fan. I’ve been with you since the Tabby’s star videos and it’s incredible to see how the channel has grown. Now I know this isn’t your usual content but I would like to ask you to take a serious look at the case for God. Based on some of the questions you brought up in this video, I would like to offer my perspective. I’m by no means a good theologian or scientist (but am a fairly decent engineer I think!) and I would ask you to look into this all for yourself. Nothing doesn’t just become something, and the universe definitely had a beginning. Therefore there must have been a cause, and that cause exists outside of time and space. That cause must also have made a decision (because an eternal ‘Causer’ doesn’t make a universe without making a decision, because to be eternal means also to be unchangeable, so in order for the ‘Causer’ to make the change of nothing into something, there must have been a decision made by the Causer) meaning the cause is a personal being of some kind. A personal, eternal being who is not constrained by time and space like we are. This is where I move away from the ‘top level’ theology stuff and more specifically into the case for Jesus Christ Himself. I could go on but I don’t want to make this comment too long, so I’m gonna jump straight into the deep stuff. The simplest explanation for the account of Jesus’ resurrection is that Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead. Jesus really did exist and died on a cross under Pontius Pilate (proven by extra-biblical sources). The Gospels are reliable, historical documents which do not contradict each other and have many undersigned coincidences. The people of the time had nothing to gain by proclaiming Jesus as God and everything to lose, but they did so anyway because of what they had seen. If you look at the Gospels with humility, an open mind and a desire for the truth (which I know you have John) then I believe you will come to the same conclusion I did. If you don’t, that’s fine & I’d love to hear your perspective regardless. When I found Jesus to be the truth, He was the last thing I was looking for or expected, but I looked at the evidence fairly and without pride, and could not deny that it is truth. I know all of you reading this comment are people like me. Truth seekers, intelligent, rational, logical people. You probably all have preconceptions about Jesus and Christianity. All I would ask is that before you become concerned with whatever difficult Christian theories you have heard in the past, first consider throughly and with humility the evidence for Christs resurrection. ‘Before Abraham was, I AM’ - John 8:58
I wouldn't make a video on it for a very specific reason, but I can give you my perspective. The reason is quite simple. There are two possible ways to envision a god. You can see them like the Romans and Greeks, where they were nature gods part and parcel to the natural world. Zeus throwing lightning bolts and the like. The other is how most of the current major world religions see it. A supernatural god. The nature gods just turned out to be nature, so there's nothing there. The ancients just didn't know how lightning works. But with a supernatural god, then that specifically implies a god that does not exist in nature, but above it. That you can't test in science by definition, so it leaves an open question. Perhaps that's by design. The closest I can come to it are things like the apparent fine-tuning of the universe, simulation theory and other such things, but I can't take it on directly because I can't provide any supporting evidence to make a claim. My perspective is that I believe in the god of Spinoza, as did Einstein. The sum of all of the natural laws of the universe can be seen as God, and I can observe and understand those laws. And they are laws, that counts for something. And it leaves open the possibility that it is not an unthinking process, but a coherent one. Therefore I leave the option open for god. And remember, Christianity's foundation was on the concept of the bible not being the sole revelation, but nature and tradition as well being equal revelations. Seemingly only the orthodox and catholics still remember that part, but it was the rule for all before the protestant reformation. But I wouldn't go into that on the channel because my own personal viewpoint on it is irrelevant and no better than anyone else's and I could never back any of it up. And the old rule, never discuss religion or politics, especially to an audience that spans the whole of all of it and are at odds with each other. What I can't do is follow someone's book or take their word for it. I grew up in organized religion, Christianity, and left it specifically because I realized it was just a bunch of people saying "believe this" handing me a book written by dead people that I can't interview and question telling me to believe them. They presented that book as evidence. It's not, it's some people's accounts saying they saw something. My brain just doesn't work that way, I can't consider that evidence, and I don't require an owner's manual for life, so there ultimately isn't anything in it for me. It works for some people, I understand that and people are welcome to believe whatever they want, but I lack the underpinning reasons people are drawn to a religion. I don't have those needs, and I am highly skeptical that any human ever born had any actual insight on god, if one exists, because the universe as a creation makes no sense if they do. It only makes sense when you're not supposed to know, or creation would have been designed for it to be unambiguously known. Nature isn't that way however. Without that, it just becomes a senseless game that god plays with its creations. I do not wish to bother with such a god, or meet it in a dark alley. Whereas if it remains a total unsolvable mystery that can only be explored inside one's self and not from the contents of a book and importantly it cannot be conveyed to anyone else, then it begins to resemble a plan. Even the ability to read the book is ambiguous. Very very few people in this world can actually read the bible in context, and before recently most people couldn't read it at all and were getting the stories from pastors and pictures and statues. I definitely can't do that. You'd need to be able to read three ancient languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek .... in the forms they were in the 1st century. I would only consider believing something if I read those languages personally, and one I do, and it's not going to translate perfectly into English. Even the Latin vulgate, which I can also read, doesn't quite match up with an English bible. So that's it for me, without that, I can't do it. But even if I had that, I'd still be concerned about 2000 years of humans copying it, especially early on, the choices made in the compilation of the bible - much was left out, some we have apocryphally, some are lost, some were condemned but we don't entirely know why and so on. And some were thought to be good, but are in question now, the big one there being Revelations which wasn't written by who they thought it was when the bible was compiled. Then I'd then be concerned about trusting observers at all, especially ancient ones that didn't fully understand how the world around them worked. And finally, I'd be concerned why a deity that wanted to make itself known set it all up in such a horrifically messy way.
@@JohnMichaelGodier Thanks so much for such a detailed reply! Really appreciate your perspective. I totally agree that the audience of this channel probably spans every political and religious view out there.. maybe not the best place to take a definitive side😅 Thanks John, can’t wait for the next video.
Zero net energy....something I like to use to baffle those who state that the Universe came from nothing, and is something, therefore... "But it contains nothing!" They get confused and go away because this is beyond them, leaving me alone. This is the intended result.
@@jalene150 can you point to anything that isnt? its all structure: stuff and nonstuff within a configuration. and any attempt to look at that substuff (or sub-nonstuff) results in a different thing that, itself, is made of more stuff and nonstuff. and examining *that* yields... all the way until we have to shrug our shoulders due to ignorance of the structure.
@@jalene150First of all, yes, there are countless voids. The largest void we know, the Böotes Void, may be an unremarkable one compared to the giants that lurk beyond the event horizon/observable edge. But more importantly, you misunderstood. The argument is that the universe contains negative energy and dark matter which adds up to a net mass-energy density of zero: therefore there is still nothing.
One thing you said, “there was no observer at the start of the universe” is interesting. I sometimes wonder if inanimate matter possesses some minuscule amount of observation , its interactions with surrounding matter or its subatomic components yielding a subjective experience for the matter.
I think that final note deserves more discussion. If "nothing" is endowed with the properties that allow something to form from it, then it's hardly nothing.
I always find the "The universe just is - it doesn't need a cause" or "We can't know so it doesn't matter" answers to the question of something rather than nothing both unsatisfying and uncurious.
I like the hill-hole analogy, although this subject is hard to comprehend. Thank you, JMG, for another great, mind-travelling video and good morning from Athens, Greece,
Man, did you make through a video without saying “spooky,” “Oumuamua,” “anKshient,” or “Tabby’s Star”? Ha Ha Ha! I always play JMG bingo with each video. Love your content!
This has been a kind of theory I had played around with for a while myself. The Big Bang's problem that a lot of people have is "something can't come from nothing." But I believe perhaps we don't understand just exactly what 'nothing' is - and perhaps 'nothing' has more properties than we are aware of. It sounds counterintuitive, but hang on for a minute. Nothing is basically defined as undefined. How can you define how much nothing something is? You simply can't, which is why most the times when you divide by 0 it's undefined. My argument is nothing and infinity are linked together. Infinity has no beginning or end. It goes on forever and ever. Nothing *could* go on forever and ever too, would that not make nothing infinite if so? Infinite nothingness? For the visual learners, imagine space was limited and our observable universe that we see, ~100 billion light years is all there is. Then, is the outside area outside of the observable universe true nothingness....for infinity? Wouldn't it have to be, if that's the edge of our universe, even if there's other universes in their own bubbles, this nothingness *could* extend forever and ever. And how could you create an imaginary border around nothing and say that's all there is to nothing? You can't! So nothing never ends. Thus it is infinity in a sense. Maybe nothing and infinity are more linked than we think, and maybe nothing has properties we don't know about. Maybe nothing isn't as it appears.
10:15 One is not referring to nothingness if it is unstable. Describing nothingness as unstable means there is something there. Good point at the end, "if something came from nothing is it even nothing to begin with"
4:00 On your channel it is ALWAYS Halloween, much like the time traveling electron is going through the universe from start to end just to go again and interact with itself, your videos are all residing in the Halloween era, going from start to end acting like a new thing but is just another iteration of JMG on Halloween day.
The hill/ hole theory… blew my mind so much that it actually makes sense. There’s a book by hawking where he talks in favor of this idea and it makes me really believe that this is the case. I kinda ironically, beautiful form of poetry
Many years ago I wondered at the possibility that, instead of countless electrons or 1 time travelling electron, there might be something more like a thin layer, sheet, or membrane - possibly even a dimension of its' own -where dimples would occur. When considered in tandem with the cross-cancelling energy perspective you mentioned, it might explain quantum entanglement.
@JohnMichaelGodier I Love Your Work! You’re not afraid to Reach For The Stars, but you always remember to stay grounded in reality. It’s the best ! ❤
7:22 Doesn't gravity propagate infinitely - just getting weaker with distance? Eg.: we're getting pulled off by every distant twinkling star we see in the night sky (by _all_ matter actually; we're even getting pulled off by each other, just more delicately as we're so small) - it's just that the star we see pulling us off in the daytime, is _sooo_ much closer that it's big tug drowns out all those other little tugs - _but those enthusiastic little tugs are all still there._ If so, how could there _not_ be enough gravity (-) to cancel out matter and energy (+)? Both matter & energy are possibly finite, whereas gravity is possibly infinite.
Thank you. Expanding on this notion I've tended to take the view that the universe as we experience it exists as an 'attempt' to energetically balance being in a state of a false vacuum. It's interesting that the three* fundamental forces seem to be a 'reactive' consequence of this false vacuum, the denizens of the standard model being no more than a consequence of those forces. If we loose that false vacuum we loose everything else. *Yes three fundamental forces. I strongly suspect that gravity (maybe all the other macroscopic qualities of the universe) is no more than emergent property of the macroscopic universe, just as 'highways' are an emergent property of Langton's Ant - it has it's own 'rules' (hence general relativity) but being emergent they can't be predicted from fundamental principles... and so the reason we will never combine quantum mechanics with relativity - they are fundamentally not the same thing AND we have yet to crack the mathematics of emergent systems. As an aside I wonder if 'dark' matter and/or 'dark' energy (not necessarily related although they may be) are no more than further manifestations of a universe 'trying' to balance being in a false vacuum state - beyond wondering I have no clue how this may be. A matter of perspective we are currently missing, or another suite of forces and particles we have yet to apprehend... who knows..?
I love wheelers idea that there is only one electron travelling forward and backward in time, so the big bang could have been just a little pop as one electron came into existence, then proceeded to travel backward and forward in time always interacting with itself on each pass, causing the universe to inflate and creating all the particles and matter we know of, all from one little electron.
I will say this, our galaxy is conducive to life. Life exists at the absolute tiniest scale. It's all around us we just can't always see it. I'm also in the belief it's throughout the vacuum space. I enjoy most of your videos, whether I agree or not. Great job. Peace ✌️ 😎.
As a kid, the Dean of physics at UT told me about a version of the electron. But a time traveling photon. Good brain game for a kid. As far as 0 energy. T=0 to the last particle decaying shows lots of work done. I.E. energy. Imbalance in matter to antimatter is more energy. As far as quantum flux as a start. Limited to quantum foam constraints and light speed in a vacuum. Also, if you invoke quantum to start, then pair production needs to be looked at and a possible sister universe. Boltzmann time bombs and the universe as a natural cutoff regime or limit.
universes mass and energy may come from nothing but it does pack alot of information, alot of checks and balances that gives you that fine tuning. Mass energy from nothing stems from a whole being imparted opposite attributes so as to leverage against eachother where there previously were none.
I'm happy that you're doing what you're doing, John
I’m happy that you’re happy that John is doing what he’s doing
I'm happy to do it.
@@hoixmap520I'm happy cuz you are happy that he is happy because John is happy to do it
*_*happiness intensifies*_*
If my math is correct, that's a Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy.
The idea of just one electron, zipping all over the Universe in order to make it appear, reminds me of the old raster system for displaying TV pictures, with just one light zipping back and forth and triggering the red, blue and green cells to make up the picture.
That's interesting. My own theory is that there is only one electron in the universe and it's name is Tim.
Or it’s like a Sophon from the 3 Body Problem.
Thank you JMG for all the fantastic content you provide, it's always entertaining and educational. Much love and best wishes from across the pond
Much love back! Many thanks. Next up ... Mars.
I've been a landscaper for 9 years and I've NEVER dug a hole were it was 1 to 1 pile to hole ratio. You always need to find more backfill to get it level, haha. I love your channel Michael, recently subscribed. My gratitude Sir.
The phlogiston argument, you simply didnt pack it exactly as it came
What's wild to me is I'm usually running a 100 or more feet of decently thick pvc pipe, and it's STILL a problem 🤣
#Facts of course physicists never dug a real hole in their lives. 😅
Water content evaporates from the material dug out as well as from the sides of the hole. This would be my guess.
@@Freja_Solstheim So a hole left on its own gets larger???😘
Your voice conveys thought provoking concepts that stay with me. I appreciate that you find, read, comprehend, and translate complex scientific papers into concepts that are easy to listen to and make me question what we think we know. Im not in the dark energy/matter camp. Yes it balances the net zero energy hypothesis, but it is a fudge factor conceived to do exactly that :-) Thank you.
Thanks!
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
“There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”
- Douglas Adams, _The Restaurant at the End of the Universe_
I know where my towel is.
42
Adams was such a hoopy frood. I missed meeting him in person years ago by just hours. I worked in the same complex as Infocom when they were doing the game based on the Hitchhikers guide.
That's not what he meant. He meant it will open up more questions and completely blow our minds. More answers even more questions and astonishment
@cozmothemagician7243 that's very cool! I had that game on my Commodore 64
The way JMG ends his videos with "in which we liiiiiive" is the greatest thing the universe has ever, by shear luck, created.
JMG - You rule. One of my fave channels here.
It’s not much but you’re a massive inspiration to me. I hope I can become an astronomer/sci-fi author one day. Currently working on my BS in Physics 💪 but thanks bro.
Best of luck with your studies and thanks!
There's loads of BS in physics.Usually when fundings needed😂❤❤❤good luck on your future❤
Hell yeah! I’ll be coming through soon, as well.
I wish scientists and philosophers would get used to a distinction. “Nothing” as usually used means “a lack of a particular thing,” as in “There is nothing in this box,” as opposed to “nothingness” which means an absolute lack of any existence at all.
I think I could use this premise with my wife when she asks what I’m thinking about.
never stop john, you are my favorite youtube channel
JMG, your content really melts my face... Much appreciated...
Thanks for putting this out, it seems like I'm the only one i know in "real life" who has been saying this stuff and I just get weird looks, I say look into science and read about it, you get to this weird point where you realize that the more you know the less you know and that it seems to be a fundamental aspect of reality, im glad for youtube and the people who take the time to make these videos because i know im not alone even though i am lol
I’ve been watching JMG videos for a few years now and have seen pretty much every one of his videos. This has got to be the best one yet. Informative, thought provoking, clear, concise, well produced…everything. It’s truly is a “something” 😉
this is top shelf science and futurism content. thank you taking the science seriously and having an imagination
Repent to Jesus
Wow. This one was super fascinating. Love these vids.
Got to be one of the best channels on RUclips. Amazing quality, accessible to everyone and a cool host. Keep up the awesome!
Thankyou for continuing to delivering the goods john!
Hell yeah you’ve been on a roll recently with all the videos 🤘
Beautifully written and depicted 🙏
I agree. I liked it so much I listened to it twice!
A similar thought occurred to me about a year or so ago, though I used the term "zero sum" universe "instead of "zero energy". I was really proud and impressed with myself, and my big, original-thinking brain. But then I looked it up, and discovered the theory had been proposed back in the 1940s. So that was a bit deflating, though I was still a tad proud of coming up with it myself. Although, even then, it's possible that I actually did come across it years earlier, and I only think I came up with it on my own.
No human knowledge is original to one individual brain.
You could come to the same conclusions, that's because human knowledge is shared and for you to find interest in something like space, stars, math and difficult concepts proves you can also come up with things. The same would be if you'd be hungry, you imagine yourself ex your favourite food or what you would eat before, but someone else already made it for you back then and now you're the one making it.
The process and answers could be similar or different. But the result is the same...but now it's been proven before...making it more true or interesting.
Depends on what universe you live in...😁
I don't know how I can sleep if JMG ever stops making videos.
These videos are super relaxing and a great dream stimulant. No better way to enter a scifi universe than listening to JMG
This narration of yours coupled with the visuals reminded me of Foundation series by Asimov. When i was reading it as a child, i felt this kind of atmosphere surrounding the different stories. Nice channel.
love your so good vids, dawg.
Another JMG brain exploding, mind expanding episode. I’d forgotten Wheeler’s “single electron” hypothesis. I had a PhD friend tell me about a “single photon” hypothesis back in the 70s.
Either way… mind blowing!
Keep on, keeping on, John. We all love you and your work.
I got a belly full of deviled eggs and brisket John. Thank you.
I'd be cracking porcelain soon
Brisket John is meat that's been eaten
🤣
@@bustinnutsinslutsbutts buddy I’m way ahead of you
Good Food!
Needed my JMG science fix. Thanks!!
I get a Matrix Explained and a John Michael Godier back to back? Good Easter evening!
That matrix explained was absolutely awesome!!!
Link to "The Matrix Explained"?
Happy Easter!
I cant get enough of this channel! 😊
How can we say for sure that the universe wasn’t being observed when it was created? Now that would really be something, wouldn’t it? 😉
Dude … 🤯
😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😊😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😊😅😊😅😅😊😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😊😅😅😊😊😅😅😅😅
😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
God made the word
I enjoy doing nothing from time to time. Unfortunately, there always seems to be something I have to do that cancels it out. Thanks for the video, John.
My daily dose of narrated sedation. Thanks JMG! ☺️
0:11 _"We get up, drive to work, eat lunch, and go home and watch some television."_
I don't _actually_ watch the TV, I just sit there eyeing it suspiciously, because of some JMG videos I had watched earlier (" o.o)
Nothing is unstable . Cyclical universe for the win . Great episode as always John .
The expansion is accelerating.
Your voice is perfect for these kinds of videos. Thank you for your insights good sir.
I always click on your videos as soon as I see them. Please never stop!
“Being and non-being produce each other”…
Tao Te Ching, written 2500 years ago
My model of reality is the ground state is an infinite number of probabilities, that both exist and don’t exist. They exist as probabilities, but don’t exist due to cancellation through contradiction. This cancellation of the field of infinite probabilities renders this field infinitely small or non-existent. The Tao Te Ching says that it “seems to exist”. This is why the ground state cannot be seen, and any effort to investigate it seems to flee our perception into the infinitely small…
.
It is possible that this field of infinite probabilities is oscillating between being infinitely small and non-existent. That this oscillation is what the Tao Te Ching refers to as “the opening and closing of heaven’s gate”, the flashing in and out of existence of the universe, and with each closing of the gate the ground state dips into the infinite probabilities, and opens to manifest a new set of these probabilities as the material universe…
.
Dr. Rupert Sheldrake has suggested that what we perceive as constants, as laws governing the universe are not laws, but mere habits that the universe is in. This would allow - since the ground state contains an infinite number of probabilities - the possibility of the ground state introducing novelty that disrupts the habits that the universe is in. As Sheldrake observed - and the scientific groups think downplays - that the “constant” of the speed of light slowed significantly roughly during the period of World War 2, and sped back up shortly thereafter. That slowing would be an example of the introduction of novelty into the universe, at least locally…
.
what's a better time for a new JMG video? The answer is always: NOW.
Yes. However, does 'now' truly exist?
😊😂😂
I've been here since your Tabby's star videos...glad I joined the journey early.
I've been here since I used to bounce a baby John Michael on my knee I'd tell him "you're gonna go far kid".
There may yet be another Tabby's star video ...
Thanks so much. Even on a holiday!!!
One of your better videos. You should ponder this in a longer format and dive deeper. Perhaps get an Aristotelian on the show for a friendly discussion.
Scary thought. Talking to an AI of Aristotle. That would actually spook me I think.
Just made my Easter, JMG! Thank you for your dedication!
I love simple explanations
I remember hearing the hypothesis that there is only one electron as a kid, and yes it was bizarre seeming, but it actually seems elegant to me now.
2:39 can we get a video on the one single time travelling electron??
Or have I missed that already
Hey John, first off let me just say I love your videos & I am a long time fan. I’ve been with you since the Tabby’s star videos and it’s incredible to see how the channel has grown.
Now I know this isn’t your usual content but I would like to ask you to take a serious look at the case for God. Based on some of the questions you brought up in this video, I would like to offer my perspective. I’m by no means a good theologian or scientist (but am a fairly decent engineer I think!) and I would ask you to look into this all for yourself.
Nothing doesn’t just become something, and the universe definitely had a beginning. Therefore there must have been a cause, and that cause exists outside of time and space. That cause must also have made a decision (because an eternal ‘Causer’ doesn’t make a universe without making a decision, because to be eternal means also to be unchangeable, so in order for the ‘Causer’ to make the change of nothing into something, there must have been a decision made by the Causer) meaning the cause is a personal being of some kind. A personal, eternal being who is not constrained by time and space like we are.
This is where I move away from the ‘top level’ theology stuff and more specifically into the case for Jesus Christ Himself. I could go on but I don’t want to make this comment too long, so I’m gonna jump straight into the deep stuff.
The simplest explanation for the account of Jesus’ resurrection is that Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead. Jesus really did exist and died on a cross under Pontius Pilate (proven by extra-biblical sources). The Gospels are reliable, historical documents which do not contradict each other and have many undersigned coincidences. The people of the time had nothing to gain by proclaiming Jesus as God and everything to lose, but they did so anyway because of what they had seen. If you look at the Gospels with humility, an open mind and a desire for the truth (which I know you have John) then I believe you will come to the same conclusion I did. If you don’t, that’s fine & I’d love to hear your perspective regardless.
When I found Jesus to be the truth, He was the last thing I was looking for or expected, but I looked at the evidence fairly and without pride, and could not deny that it is truth.
I know all of you reading this comment are people like me. Truth seekers, intelligent, rational, logical people. You probably all have preconceptions about Jesus and Christianity. All I would ask is that before you become concerned with whatever difficult Christian theories you have heard in the past, first consider throughly and with humility the evidence for Christs resurrection.
‘Before Abraham was, I AM’ - John 8:58
I wouldn't make a video on it for a very specific reason, but I can give you my perspective. The reason is quite simple. There are two possible ways to envision a god. You can see them like the Romans and Greeks, where they were nature gods part and parcel to the natural world. Zeus throwing lightning bolts and the like. The other is how most of the current major world religions see it. A supernatural god. The nature gods just turned out to be nature, so there's nothing there. The ancients just didn't know how lightning works. But with a supernatural god, then that specifically implies a god that does not exist in nature, but above it. That you can't test in science by definition, so it leaves an open question. Perhaps that's by design. The closest I can come to it are things like the apparent fine-tuning of the universe, simulation theory and other such things, but I can't take it on directly because I can't provide any supporting evidence to make a claim.
My perspective is that I believe in the god of Spinoza, as did Einstein. The sum of all of the natural laws of the universe can be seen as God, and I can observe and understand those laws. And they are laws, that counts for something. And it leaves open the possibility that it is not an unthinking process, but a coherent one. Therefore I leave the option open for god. And remember, Christianity's foundation was on the concept of the bible not being the sole revelation, but nature and tradition as well being equal revelations. Seemingly only the orthodox and catholics still remember that part, but it was the rule for all before the protestant reformation. But I wouldn't go into that on the channel because my own personal viewpoint on it is irrelevant and no better than anyone else's and I could never back any of it up. And the old rule, never discuss religion or politics, especially to an audience that spans the whole of all of it and are at odds with each other.
What I can't do is follow someone's book or take their word for it. I grew up in organized religion, Christianity, and left it specifically because I realized it was just a bunch of people saying "believe this" handing me a book written by dead people that I can't interview and question telling me to believe them. They presented that book as evidence. It's not, it's some people's accounts saying they saw something. My brain just doesn't work that way, I can't consider that evidence, and I don't require an owner's manual for life, so there ultimately isn't anything in it for me. It works for some people, I understand that and people are welcome to believe whatever they want, but I lack the underpinning reasons people are drawn to a religion. I don't have those needs, and I am highly skeptical that any human ever born had any actual insight on god, if one exists, because the universe as a creation makes no sense if they do. It only makes sense when you're not supposed to know, or creation would have been designed for it to be unambiguously known. Nature isn't that way however. Without that, it just becomes a senseless game that god plays with its creations. I do not wish to bother with such a god, or meet it in a dark alley. Whereas if it remains a total unsolvable mystery that can only be explored inside one's self and not from the contents of a book and importantly it cannot be conveyed to anyone else, then it begins to resemble a plan.
Even the ability to read the book is ambiguous. Very very few people in this world can actually read the bible in context, and before recently most people couldn't read it at all and were getting the stories from pastors and pictures and statues. I definitely can't do that. You'd need to be able to read three ancient languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek .... in the forms they were in the 1st century. I would only consider believing something if I read those languages personally, and one I do, and it's not going to translate perfectly into English. Even the Latin vulgate, which I can also read, doesn't quite match up with an English bible. So that's it for me, without that, I can't do it. But even if I had that, I'd still be concerned about 2000 years of humans copying it, especially early on, the choices made in the compilation of the bible - much was left out, some we have apocryphally, some are lost, some were condemned but we don't entirely know why and so on. And some were thought to be good, but are in question now, the big one there being Revelations which wasn't written by who they thought it was when the bible was compiled. Then I'd then be concerned about trusting observers at all, especially ancient ones that didn't fully understand how the world around them worked. And finally, I'd be concerned why a deity that wanted to make itself known set it all up in such a horrifically messy way.
@@JohnMichaelGodier Thanks so much for such a detailed reply! Really appreciate your perspective.
I totally agree that the audience of this channel probably spans every political and religious view out there.. maybe not the best place to take a definitive side😅
Thanks John, can’t wait for the next video.
the analogy of the hole and the hill relating to matter and dark matter blew my mind a little
Zero net energy....something I like to use to baffle those who state that the Universe came from nothing, and is something, therefore...
"But it contains nothing!" They get confused and go away because this is beyond them, leaving me alone. This is the intended result.
Just as the universe wanted!
What do you mean by that? Is there anywhere in the universe that is truly empty and contain nothing?
@@jalene150 can you point to anything that isnt? its all structure: stuff and nonstuff within a configuration. and any attempt to look at that substuff (or sub-nonstuff) results in a different thing that, itself, is made of more stuff and nonstuff. and examining *that* yields... all the way until we have to shrug our shoulders due to ignorance of the structure.
@@jalene150First of all, yes, there are countless voids. The largest void we know, the Böotes Void, may be an unremarkable one compared to the giants that lurk beyond the event horizon/observable edge. But more importantly, you misunderstood. The argument is that the universe contains negative energy and dark matter which adds up to a net mass-energy density of zero: therefore there is still nothing.
One thing you said, “there was no observer at the start of the universe” is interesting. I sometimes wonder if inanimate matter possesses some minuscule amount of observation , its interactions with surrounding matter or its subatomic components yielding a subjective experience for the matter.
"Observation" in physics doesn't mean someone is looking at it, it just means any interaction.
I think that final note deserves more discussion. If "nothing" is endowed with the properties that allow something to form from it, then it's hardly nothing.
I refer to the late great Alan Watts:
"Wouldn't it have been so much simpler if nothing had ever happened?"
I always find the "The universe just is - it doesn't need a cause" or "We can't know so it doesn't matter" answers to the question of something rather than nothing both unsatisfying and uncurious.
Im thankful that men like you exist. As long as man can dream, i have hope for our species.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Fascinating subject! Thanks, John!!! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Thanks for everything, much appreciated
I like the hill-hole analogy, although this subject is hard to comprehend. Thank you, JMG, for another great, mind-travelling video and good morning from Athens, Greece,
Thank you John. Always the best from You.
Newtonian physics and pain receptors have taught me so much.
This answers alot of questions without diving into higher dimensions
Man, did you make through a video without saying “spooky,” “Oumuamua,” “anKshient,” or “Tabby’s Star”?
Ha Ha Ha! I always play JMG bingo with each video. Love your content!
I most certainly did not! I said spooky in this one.
Just about to sleep perfect timing!
This has been a kind of theory I had played around with for a while myself. The Big Bang's problem that a lot of people have is "something can't come from nothing." But I believe perhaps we don't understand just exactly what 'nothing' is - and perhaps 'nothing' has more properties than we are aware of. It sounds counterintuitive, but hang on for a minute. Nothing is basically defined as undefined. How can you define how much nothing something is? You simply can't, which is why most the times when you divide by 0 it's undefined. My argument is nothing and infinity are linked together. Infinity has no beginning or end. It goes on forever and ever. Nothing *could* go on forever and ever too, would that not make nothing infinite if so? Infinite nothingness?
For the visual learners, imagine space was limited and our observable universe that we see, ~100 billion light years is all there is. Then, is the outside area outside of the observable universe true nothingness....for infinity? Wouldn't it have to be, if that's the edge of our universe, even if there's other universes in their own bubbles, this nothingness *could* extend forever and ever. And how could you create an imaginary border around nothing and say that's all there is to nothing? You can't! So nothing never ends. Thus it is infinity in a sense. Maybe nothing and infinity are more linked than we think, and maybe nothing has properties we don't know about. Maybe nothing isn't as it appears.
What a gifted man! I really liked this.
Great video!
Ive been pondering this for some time, now I know its a known theory I'll find lots of research to dig through
10:15 One is not referring to nothingness if it is unstable. Describing nothingness as unstable means there is something there. Good point at the end, "if something came from nothing is it even nothing to begin with"
This is totally mind blowing ..I love how it bends my brain!!!
4:00 On your channel it is ALWAYS Halloween, much like the time traveling electron is going through the universe from start to end just to go again and interact with itself, your videos are all residing in the Halloween era, going from start to end acting like a new thing but is just another iteration of JMG on Halloween day.
The hill/ hole theory… blew my mind so much that it actually makes sense. There’s a book by hawking where he talks in favor of this idea and it makes me really believe that this is the case. I kinda ironically, beautiful form of poetry
Many years ago I wondered at the possibility that, instead of countless electrons or 1 time travelling electron, there might be something more like a thin layer, sheet, or membrane - possibly even a dimension of its' own -where dimples would occur. When considered in tandem with the cross-cancelling energy perspective you mentioned, it might explain quantum entanglement.
@JohnMichaelGodier I Love Your Work! You’re not afraid to Reach For The Stars, but you always remember to stay grounded in reality. It’s the best ! ❤
What a cool theory! Thanks for the awesome video :D
The paradox of existence is actually that nothing IS something, by any definition.
hey hey i'm going to bed early tonight
Balancing energy to zero is an attractive idea.
Whether it is true or not is another matter, both figurativey and literally.
John, you've invented a whole new genre: scientific poetry.
Longer videos would be cool too!! JMG is on top of the hierarchy.
Never listen to these in the morning as they will do your head in. Perfect just before you go to sleep though. Best sleep medicine ever!!!!
Me: John, what were we talking about again?
John: Nothing
7:22 Doesn't gravity propagate infinitely - just getting weaker with distance?
Eg.: we're getting pulled off by every distant twinkling star we see in the night sky (by _all_ matter actually; we're even getting pulled off by each other, just more delicately as we're so small) - it's just that the star we see pulling us off in the daytime, is _sooo_ much closer that it's big tug drowns out all those other little tugs - _but those enthusiastic little tugs are all still there._
If so, how could there _not_ be enough gravity (-) to cancel out matter and energy (+)? Both matter & energy are possibly finite, whereas gravity is possibly infinite.
We love you John!!!!!
Nothing can't become something without time, which is something.
Thank you.
Expanding on this notion I've tended to take the view that the universe as we experience it exists as an 'attempt' to energetically balance being in a state of a false vacuum. It's interesting that the three* fundamental forces seem to be a 'reactive' consequence of this false vacuum, the denizens of the standard model being no more than a consequence of those forces. If we loose that false vacuum we loose everything else.
*Yes three fundamental forces. I strongly suspect that gravity (maybe all the other macroscopic qualities of the universe) is no more than emergent property of the macroscopic universe, just as 'highways' are an emergent property of Langton's Ant - it has it's own 'rules' (hence general relativity) but being emergent they can't be predicted from fundamental principles... and so the reason we will never combine quantum mechanics with relativity - they are fundamentally not the same thing AND we have yet to crack the mathematics of emergent systems.
As an aside I wonder if 'dark' matter and/or 'dark' energy (not necessarily related although they may be) are no more than further manifestations of a universe 'trying' to balance being in a false vacuum state - beyond wondering I have no clue how this may be. A matter of perspective we are currently missing, or another suite of forces and particles we have yet to apprehend... who knows..?
I have a dream. Someday, someone will say "there is no such thing as dark energy". Might not live that long. Great vid. +1
I love wheelers idea that there is only one electron travelling forward and backward in time, so the big bang could have been just a little pop as one electron came into existence, then proceeded to travel backward and forward in time always interacting with itself on each pass, causing the universe to inflate and creating all the particles and matter we know of, all from one little electron.
Every day JMG uploads is a great day
LETS GOOO NEW JMG
I will say this, our galaxy is conducive to life. Life exists at the absolute tiniest scale. It's all around us we just can't always see it. I'm also in the belief it's throughout the vacuum space. I enjoy most of your videos, whether I agree or not. Great job. Peace ✌️ 😎.
As a kid, the Dean of physics at UT told me about a version of the electron. But a time traveling photon. Good brain game for a kid.
As far as 0 energy. T=0 to the last particle decaying shows lots of work done. I.E. energy. Imbalance in matter to antimatter is more energy.
As far as quantum flux as a start. Limited to quantum foam constraints and light speed in a vacuum. Also, if you invoke quantum to start, then pair production needs to be looked at and a possible sister universe. Boltzmann time bombs and the universe as a natural cutoff regime or limit.
John is the best!
Imagine being the motorist who ran over Einstein, especially if you ran him over as he was first considering some grand new theory.
Newtonian Physics , like dropping an Easter Egg !
Giving new meaning to "nothing is impossible"
Great content, but please turn the music down, it makes listening difficult for some of us.
Thank You 🙏🏽
I like it. It adds gravitas.
You're the most awesome dude on RUclips 🌌
The last podcast episode was great
universes mass and energy may come from nothing but it does pack alot of information, alot of checks and balances that gives you that fine tuning. Mass energy from nothing stems from a whole being imparted opposite attributes so as to leverage against eachother where there previously were none.
Who needs drugs when there's astrophysics? :)
Combination
Fusion
That was a good one