CORRECTION: Roger Penrose doesn't think Hawking Points are "interactions with other universes", he thinks they are the remnants of supermassive black hole evaporation from a "previous aeon", before the Big Bang.
I've heard it suggested those sites were when another 'universe' bumped next to ours, in the sense of bubbles on the water. I have not heard, until you, they were evaporated black holes. Personally I am going to go with aliens. Super civilizations or whatever.
@@nexusdrop7863throw a brick is correct. The hawking points are said to be remnants. Looking at how long it’ll take a black hole to evaporate from hawking radiation I could believe in them having an effect in the next aeon
My understandings concerning this topic are very much limited, yet as far as I comprehended, the multiverse idea comes largely from mathematical calculations of superstring theory. Now, Penrose along with many other theoretical and practical physicists reject that notion and string theory. The first ones because of the mathematical approach within the theory itself and the latter ones (like Sabine H.) because of the fact that this idea is not properly testable. So, my question is (if someone could clarify) what bares more probable truth? (If I may formulate it so) Thanks 😊
Hey Anton, my name is Devin. I've been watching your channel for a year and a half now. I had no idea about the world around us. You've taught me so much and I appreciate you so much. All this time I feel like you're a friend. You truly are a wonderful person. When I found out about your child I cried because I'm so sorry for your loss. I love how you post videos everyday. Seriously be awesome to talk to you. I really do miss the videos you made with universal sandbox And space engine. Those videos taught me so much and made me such a nerd now. Thank you so much
I’ve always believed there was more than we could ever know and this is just beyond incredible what we’re learning in this day and age! Thank you Anton for covering this :) -Travis
hope you've been well Anton! I may look familiar bc I have followed you since the very beginning! I love your videos, you keep our brains and attention spans alive and flourishing! have a wonderful Halloween and Christmas!
Are there any current or planned space-based missions to capture a much higher resolution image of the CMB? I think that would be very fascinating to see these candidate interactions in greater detail.
No. We would actually need a time machine for a test of this hypothesis to work and there must be no positronic interference, so we would actually need to be in a different universe for the test to work.
@@neioni that microwaves go through the atmosphere with no trouble at all means that microwave emitters and microwave ovens interfere with Earth-based readings. It must be done from space. That is why we record the CMB from space. Some Earth-based measurements of the CMB show nothing at all.
The CMB is too close. if there is an edge to the universe it could be hundreds of trillions of light years away. The universe is young enough however that we could possibly still see earlier than the singularity for another few hundred million years.
Haha this is awesome, this is the first you tube i see that gets live comments popping up while i am viewing the post! Anton you are awesome! You explain in the most simple way the most difficult of science.
I recall reading a book as a young man titled, "The Universe Between," by Alan E. Nourse that proposed a theory of passing to another universe by a method extremely similar to what you have presented. There are some big differences, as I recall, but it has been 40+ years since I read the book.
It would be interesting if we could somehow look way down into the subatomic world and discover that there are other universes down there. Then we could look up and see evidence in the CMB that there are other universes out there, too. Then we'd realize the whole kit and caboodle is a fractal. It's universes all the way up and all the way down.
Yep👌Infinite fractals, or 4D. In a 4D space where there'd be no up or down, top or bottom, start or finish..it's just infinity, hurts my 3D brain trying to envision it.
This is absolutely beautifull, this mathematical equivalence of the dinamycs between quamtum systems (bose-einsten condensates) and the dinamycs of the bubble universes fluctuating out of the inflationary space time reminds me the ads-cft corresponde nse...
Thanks Anton! Really great to hear about this experiment. Regarding the interpretation, my guess is that Penrose regards another interpretation as more likely. The Hawking points could also be seen as evidence for a cyclic universe with a gravitational effect from a previous eon. The idea is that each eon ends when there is no matter left, everything is radiation. Then there is no relevant time and space (only photons). In my imagination this has always been a gigantic Bose Einstein condensate. For this explanation you don’t need to assume inflation, which seems quite random anyway. “Give me one miracle and I can explain everything”
The multiverse is not determinable because of the First Law of Thermodynamics. The only way to determine the existence of anything is to detect energy, either generated or reflected, from the thing. The First Law of Thermodynamics prevents energy from moving from one universe to another universe.
Laws of physics also states that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. Nothing except the fabric of space time. And then we discovered warp bubbles. Confirmed their existence and drew up theoretical warp drives for possibilities of future man. If there is even a small chance of a work around, humans will find it.
This is awesome. Mind-blowing. I can usually, sometimes, keep up with quantum mechanics, but this time, whooosh! Only thing I know is I feel like we are living in a Star Trek Episode.
hey man, I used to watch you ALL THE TIME as a kid, I'm only just rediscovering your old Universe sandbox videos for nostalgia, you we're the one that got me into the game, thank you!
Little did the people of the early 21st century know that their attempt would lead to experiments creating a false vacuum, and their universe would cease to exist at that moment. They never realized that this was how their universe came into existence in the first place. 🎇
You mean experiments creating a true vacuum. The vacuum would expand at the speed of light. If the Universe is infinite then the affected area would be insignificant.
@@axle.australian.patriot Kind of. Just a lower energy state. It would result in a bubble expanding at the speed of light deleting our Universe, sleep well. :)
I never understood why we don't say 'when we measure quantum effects we OBSERVE a collapse into probability' instead the repeated phrase is 'when quantum effects are measured they collapse into probability' and this often implies the observer is 'creating the other worlds by the act of measuring'. When a tree falls in the woods it doesn't make a sound because it is heard by an observer. Even with no observer it displaces particles in the atmosphere vibrating and slightly affecting the microcosm around it. The sound is just how the observer interprets the effect through a tool (ears).
Hi Anton. Hello from Canada! I'm glad that these ideas are receiving such attention and scrutiny. The only other time I recall hearing that there might be observable proof of the multiverse was that of the Great Attractor. The argument being that perhaps what is observed may be the result of influence from a alternate reality/universe containing enough mass to produce the behavior observed in our universe. I believe that this hypothesis came out of the idea of closely neighboring universes and that their "membranes or just 'branes" if they exist, their contact or even nearness, should result in measurable manifestations of their interactions... like The Great Attractor, which as far as I know, still lacks a satisfactory explanation for its massive influence over so much of that region of space. Am I way off base or are such theories still being considered by investigators of the "Many Worlds/Multiverse/Parallel Reality" constructs? Regardless, please keep sharing your knowledge in the skillful way that you do. It is a gift to be able to disseminate such a variety of concepts and discoveries in a manner that is both understandable and entertaining. (I do miss the demos and experiments with Universe Sandbox back when What Da Math was my intro to your channel).
I'm far from a physicist. I haven't even taken a physics course. But is it really that far off to say that the great attractor could just be a massive galaxy cluster? We just can't see it through our own milky way. What says that it's not a galaxy cluster? It would be both fascinating and frustrating to find out that its not, because we aren't really at a state where we can just put a periscope up above the dust lanes of the milky way and peer out towards the great attractor.
I view the Universe from a holistic perspective in which the microcosm reflects the macrocosm, therefore the scientists are on the right track by observing a small-scale experiment, as it will reveal how the Universe functions on a large scale.
Before 1924 we humans thought the Milky-way was the only Galaxy. Now we know they are all over, so perhaps in time, a year we do not know yet when we discover that this is not the only universe...
Normally I'm able to follow the reasoning behind your explanations, but this time I was left with the biggest "huh???" face ever. I mean, I love to find out about the cutting edge of science and cosmology, but this one really flew so high above my head it made astronauts envious.
I'm no physicist, but I think the strange circles in the CMB are caused by sort of "ripples" in the super early universe. I hear the reason the CMB has areas of different amounts of energy is for that reason. Slight differences in regions of the early universe were magnified when the universe expanded. Edit: What's special about these circles is that they can not be very well explained by random ripples, and it could be something even deeper. Thanks replies!
Oh wow, a hypothetical guess from a non-physicist that doesn't involve some wacky garbage and is actually well grounded???? There might be faith in humanity after all.
The reason why those ripples interesting here, is because you can predict the distribution of matter in CMB. And the patches they refer to are very very unlikely (if the distribution is correct), even after expanding. But it always can be pure chance. But for the same reason it can be anything else as well. And this theory is cool, and people are trying to prove/disprove it using experiments. So why not? I mean you can always explain everything by pure chance, but the question is whether there is a deeper reason.
@@silviavalentine3812why is that theory wanly and weird? I mean there is no single hypothesis that explains the Big Bang. So far it just happened, and this explanation theory also tackles this up. And it’s cool, and it also can be made into experiments that might prove or disprove or find something new. So I don’t see why not?
What if we're trapped in some giant loop where every 14 billion years, we figure out how to make a mini-universe, and then it grows to universe sizes...
I have "always" wondered if our universe is a little empty spot in an infinitely dense infinite mass of energy, especially after the "news" that it's expanding. It's even more fun to imagine an infinite number of such "bubbles," with ours just now beginning to merge with another one. Years ago, so long ago that I can't possibly find it, Scientific American printed a couple of paragraphs where some guy named Gott proposed something like this, except for the "merging" part. I don't remember exactly, but it was like he said the "outside" was like the opposite of a black hole. It's fun to imagine that ours and another one overlapped long ago at one "point" and suddenly the light gets here and we see a formerly hidden mass of stuff in another universe across the former edge, all of it in one direction. One person when I mentioned this said, "How do you know we don't see something like that?" I had to guess that atoms would be bigger or something like that.
Wow, this is all just so exciting. I'm always amazed by just how much scientists develop and improve on all kinds of experiments. This sounds so crazy and alien to me, yet it is so very interesting to hear about.
Correction: Penrose does not believe these artefacts in the CMB are evidence of a sibling universe interacting with ours at the conception. He has proposed a cyclical type of cosmology which is very fascinating but I won't go into it here. This hypothesis actually predicted these artefacts would exist and they would be left by the last black holes evaporating from the ending of the previous epoch of this universe before the big bang.
If i had to guess... if you were able to get outside the edge of the universe you may end up traveling faster than the speed of light turning you into hawking radiation as you may actually be leaving the theoretical black hole we are in, i think the safer way to test this would be to travel into a back hole past the event horizon but there would be no turning back... in theory you may enter a new universe
My understanding of many word is that; All there is in the universe is the schrodinger equation and when a quantum event happens; its data is dispersed in many worlds; but you don't know which world you are in until you have made the measurement. The universe never needs to make an observation for quantum events to occur.
Well, our universe might also be just a result of someone's creational experiment, just like this one , and we would have the perfect link between science and God. Somewhat cool😁
That would mean that there are possibly infinite universes up and infinite down. Potentially a Universe is creates by a specific type of quantum fluctuation which can happen naturally or if an intelligent species causes it.
@@WeAreTheDraiken Yes, and since the OP mentioned god, that would create an interesting conundrum. Let's assume these fluctuations are commonplace, and numerous new universes germinate continuously. In this scenario, the likelihood of any particular universe being intentionally crafted by an intelligent species is minuscule. However, this probability increases the further one ascends in the hierarchy. So the question is: if we must pass trillions upon trillions of parent universes before reaching one devised by an intelligent form, could we still label this entity as a "god"? Or would the use of that term be misplaced, especially since the parents of the universe of this entity would follow the same pattern?
Only because multiverses exist doesn't mean its infinite. It could be similar to the galaxies in our universe a finite amount. They could come in and out of existence like a cycle.
For all we know at this point we could be the result of a universe within a Multiversal structure coming into existence for mere moments in time relative to the higher scale, while relative to our own scale lasting a very long time. I can’t even begin to imagine what it would be like if it just…”popped” and everything in our universe is either destroyed instantaneously or our universe seeps into the cracks of the space between universes or something like that somehow…what it would be like to experience something like those scenarios.
We wouldn't "experience" anything as the timescales are so ridiculously huge that humanity would have long ceased to exist until anything noticable happened.
@@FutureChaosTV well I mean…I did say imagine, lol. But at the same time, I’d dare to say they both could potentially, I repeat potentially lol, be experienced if either scenarios have been happening already for a long enough time if our understand of physics still applies (namingly because it would take billions of years potentially to be observable the same way it takes that long for far reaching light to travel for long and far enough to be observable) or perhaps it’s different beyond our border into the space between universes in a way that if ours were to “pop” it could just…snap, over and done. But the other scenario, our universe bleeding out into the space between other universes, I feel like that would be something along the lines of how we are currently merging with Andromeda, we are so unaffected that if we weren’t aware of it through our studies and observations, we wouldn’t ever really realize anything until…well, I guess it would begin to look pretty wild compared to what is normal for us. Could say…it’s a bit hard to imagine, lol. But it’s all just that…imagining the possibilities. You’re right though in the sense that we very probably won’t ever know lol.
Time does not exist as real, and there was none until it was created in the Big Bang. Time will come to an end eventually and no more events will ever occur.
I love these types of videos, not sure if I remember this correctly hoping someone might be able to chime in. Doesn't the inflation energy have a half-life and when it decays it leaves behind a bubble universe? The regular inflationary expansion continues on forever. Within that bubble universe that decayed inflationary energy forms into the quark and gluon soup that later turns into the standard model and regular big bang model picks up from there? The bubble continues to grow but it's already passing over a space that was previously flattened by regular non decay inflation and hence the flat universe we live in?
Anton, your comment about the silly idea of cosmic inflation: "it's the only way to explain the smoothness of the CMB", flies in the face of a much better alternative: Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC). Please look at him in one of his many lectures where he exposes the fallacies of cosmic inflation which not only requires yet another particle, the "inflaton", but doesn't even solve the smoothness problem it pretends to do! Incidentally, the name "Hawking points" was coined by Penrose as coming from the previous universe, before our Big Bang, from the final "evaporation pop" (not the correct term) of supermassive black holes, a consequence of Hawking's radiation. The whole idea of a multiverse is rooted on the stubbornness of believing that the constants in nature are random, and we simply "lucked out" in getting those that form matter, allow it to become diverse such that it produces life, and lets it evolve until a human being, capable of being conscious that he is conscious, appears. With a straight face they claim that it's all a product of chance, and therefore all (or at least some) other possibilities must exist somewhere. Penrose doesn't go far enough, after all he is a staunchest reductionist, but it should be obvious that a sequence of consecutive universes is required if one believes in endless evolution. It is by such evolution that the constants of nature are what they are in the current universe. But that would require scientists to believe in meaning, i.e., that existence in our reality has a purpose, not only for humanity but for the universe as a whole. And that such purpose may only be achieved over multiple aeons (the word Penrose uses) of evolution. Alas, reductionist physics does not believe in meaning, just random chance. Paradoxically, it wants to discover the "God equation", as colloquially calls it Michio Kaku, that will do away with unpredictability. On one hand it's all a chance, on the other it's all predictable.
This is mind blowing. Just yesterday I watched the 100 year anniversary of the universe (discovery that the Andromeda nebula is actually a separate galaxy). Now we might be on our way to discover that there are other universes. Thanks Anton.
Seems a little absurd to comment something like this if you think this is all there is to create the universe, those explanations are just extremely simplified statements to put the rest of the statement in a context. The truth is, we don't really know, it's not just a "quantum fluctuation". You can assume whatever you'd like, but it's not scientific as we have no proof for it, which makes any clear statements about what does/doesn't exist absurd in itself.
@@mattball420 We cannot speak for the likelihood of an event if we don't know the event. I get that thinking that way is intuitive, and it may seem logical, but I am afraid that wouldn't apply to something "outside" our universe (if it even was), that may not even have our laws of nature or current understanding of how things work. For speculation, it might not even have physical dimensions or "events", or rather no relation between cause and effect, if there even is any cause or effect. There is no way to know whatsoever and you could endlessly speculate but that is not scientific. More likely is that we will never know, but I do think it is an interesting thought.
This is certainly an interesting topic and I remember it being covered before elsewhere but with a slightly different extrapolation that given the energy level of the universe and how the drop to that energy state is consistant across all space even as all space expands, it's possible that two universes that spawned next to each other but didn't touch and merge would never actually be able to interact due to the distance between them widening faster than they do. It'll be interesting to see what exactly they can determine from all this certainly.
I remain unconvinced of inflation. The idea neglects the possibility of the opposite occurring: non Bose-Einstein matter condensaton, or the far simpler and more likely reason for the observations: the density of the interstellar medium is far higher than we think, which would make things look farther away than they really are. I do, however, look forward to reviewing the results of the experiment. Oh, and great stuff, Anton. Keep being wonderful.
Finally! I have been waiting for this video! Not this video, but this theory experimented on. I was actually thinking at the beginning of this video, “ when are they going to figure out that the ‘multiverse’ IS a Bose Einstein condensate?” This is going to finally get us so much closer to the theory of everything. Thank you to whoever studied this because I’ve been meditating in this for years and just realized it myself within the past year. So excited to see what the near future of science holds. And thank you Anton for being here with this video to alleviate my worries that I’d die before anyone else even thought to look there.
"There can be only one!" Roger & Sabine. Seriously now,I believe you've got it wrong, Anton. @whatdamath I've seen Roger Penrose with Sabine Hossenfelder, tell Michio Kaku in a convention, that there's absolutely no reason to believe that there's any parallel universe. Penrose, however did provoke with the theory of cyclic universe and that gravity leaks into our existence from a more basic existence. This existence is not parallel but rather coexisting with our universe in a manner beyond our comprehension and perception. The evidence lead me to a personal belief that volume(and therefore spacetime) is native to our universe while it does not exist in that more basal universe, from which gravity is supposedly leaking into our own. I think that a better grasp of these mechanics might enable a better general, dare I say unified, model of physics that would free us from the need for dark matter, dark energy or any other dark pacts. :)
I remember when I first heard about cosmological inflation, I thought “that’s ridiculous, I don’t believe it”. And that’s still pretty much where I sit today. There’s got to be a better explanation. Maybe when the current “crisis in cosmology” is resolved.
Like what specifically is your issue? Plus I think there is a huge differences between 'the data suggests this' and 'this is an absolute fact' being said. Most things are a case of "we do not know why that happened but here are our guesses after ruling out X" by people.
@@phuzed37 We're talking about the expansion of the universe, right? The theory has the most predictive power and the most parsimony, so its the working theory. And yes, it does have evidence --- such as the redshift of distant galaxies and the precise wavelength of the CMB. What we don't have is knowledge of the causal mechanism, what the "dark energy" is --- but just because someone doesn't know what caused something doesn't mean that they don't have evidence of that something. Just because you don't understand it or cant intuit what it is doesn't make it religion. (It doesn't even feature spirituality lol.) Now, the inflationary universe has no evidence at the moment, though it sounds like if Anton is correct, someone came up with a prediction to test it by.
One reason scientists are flailing around to point to a multiverse is the Goldilocks Universe problem. There are just too many things that had to be "just right" for things to turn out the way they have. Statistically insanely improbable. So the multiverse idea helps to explain it as, "Well there are infinite universes so one of them was bound to be right".
You're a little late, I made one of them beauties about a decade ago. That's the thing with batteries, they are easy to understand, and make as well. Why did you ask? Did you make one too?
I made a mini verse battery as well, but one day it stopped working, I can’t explain why as it SHOULD last theoretically forever. After that I gave up on the idea, it’s just sitting there collecting dust in my garage. The funniest part was when someone I work with asked why I didn’t go into the miniverse to figure out the cause of the problem 😂, Yeah let me just get my magical shrink ray and a tiny spaceship to search a near infinite miniverse for the one planet that produces the electricity 🤣🤣🤣
The problem I have with this is who’s to say that our concept of physical interaction, quantum interaction, dimensions, and space even applies outside of our universe anyways? We’re making too many assumptions here.
It's just now I realised you're saying "hello wonderful person" and not "hello from prison"! I was curious how they let you make youtube videos in prison, haha. Thank you for your contributions to the world of popular science, no matter if you're in a prison, a lab, or a studio :D
I wonder if the tiniest particles are essentially universes that make up the whole and are both infinitely small and infinitely large, but at the same time invariable in size. Loop in both directions.
@@IwinMahWay Yeah, something like that. I googled for fractal universe pics, but its impossible to drew that. We can only imagine it. For now 😁 Maybe in the future...
In the middle of this discussion about astro physics quantum physics and theoretical physics regarding our universe, its macrostructure and possible embedded trace evidence supporting the existence of a multi universe - there suddenly appears stock video of a, by comparison, very down to earth *CHEMISTRY LAB*
This isn't the first hypothesis, though, its one of many and its one that has a single, solitary prediction to test it by. Anton even mentioned another hypothesis, that being the one where quantum events produce new universes.
@@Entropy3ko Anton is always overreaching and his bias is so blatant it's not close to science. He's a Clovis first guy in the time of White Sands footprints.
I think that there are at least two timelike dimensions, and phenomena moving along timelines at any angle to ours are not visible to us, though I think gravity works across all time angles; so, for example, matter occupying a timeline at an angle that differs from ours could still interact gravitationally with matter on our timeline: dark matter. Other implications: If there are more than one timelike dimensions then entropy becomes a vector rather than scalar quantity.
Did you think of this idea yourself? Because this is an incredibly clever explanation for dark matter and I haven't heard of anything like this anywhere else.
@@jonKowalski3210 I believe that this is my original thinking, yes - although there are other people who have explored paradigms where there are more dimensions of time, but I haven't seen any similar descriptions of dark matter that fit into the concepts. I have heard of notions where "dark matter is in another dimension but it's gravity leaks through to our dimension" - I have just specified that "other dimension" as a spacetime at another time-angle. So my thinking is not entirely original.
Doesn’t gravity travel between those parallel universes? I remember watching a documentary on string theory in 2006 that said that. It also said that gravity could be used and encoded, like we encode wifi, to communicate with people in parallel universes.
There definitely need to be more experiments regarding the matter. Pun intended. Different elements being used along with a slightly different experimental setup should allow scientists to formulate the data via equations that will further prove this to be factual.
@@donethos Performing experiments to test or check for something that for all we currently know, does not interact with our universe at all, is borderline impossible. There wouldn't be anything to check for, because there is no interaction, nothing to measure, no data to go off from. You can, for example, not measure the heights of a planet in another galaxy's mountains if you have no way to observe or interact with it. (Or even know that it's there at all) Funding does go a long way, but it does not magically solve the issue on how to conduct the experiments, as they wouldn't know which experiments to conduct. You can, for example, not pay someone to make a teleporter, simply because we wouldn't know how to realistically achieve that. Funding, research and knowledge must go hand in hand to progress, you can't just have one.
Here's a thought for y'all: Our universe is supposedly not headed toward a bounce back, continuing some sort of repeating (possibly endless?) cycle but rather to a "Big Rip" in which "space itself" is torn apart, a space of infinitely teensy density having expanded for quadrillions (and so on) of years into nothing until the Rip occurs. What wouldbe in the Ripped regions? Consider that. Perhaps we are indeed headed toward that, but are the answer to that question for a universe "above us" if you will, one that has itself ripped, either at the end of things for it, as postulated in our own "Big Rip" concept, or one that has had a teensy tear in it resulting in us. And that we are not only going to ourselves see an eventual Big Rip, but will experience such smaller ("localized" though since I'm not postulating a scale, necessarily, that feels an awkward word) tears/rips. Not to speak to whether quantum effects are such things, but rather moving past any concern about that, it seems that with the Lie group filled by the Standard Model, and I mean literally filled, all places spoken for, and that group being the largest possible, if there is such a thing as dark matter, as thought of now, or a future thinking, which flat does not have a place in the Standard Model of existence, perhaps the sequence of events in our universe went something like this: The Masterverse (Megaverse? Largerverse? Aboveverse? You see the problem with all this: I haven't designed catchy and appropriate terms for all the moving parts...) space-time or its different but corresponding characteristic Rips into dark matter that further differentiates. It doesn't fit into our universe model as a "thing" because it isn't "ours" until it Rips into matter/energy/spacetime. As it does, it first blobs down a level into being black holes (early on) and later in sun-sized blobs, as time passes and cohesive enough larger blobs have gone the primordial black hole route. So then ribbons of matter that later become the stretches of galaxy clusters and galaxyies we see (different than the huge areas of mostly nothing... which are the bits expanding... matter dense regions are not expanding... not really talked about, but true, look it up), and as the matter decoheres into smaller pieces, or perhaps more individual pieces might be better, suns form the same way primordial black holes did, mass centered at the sun, much less spread from it in the metamorphosis decohering into "general matter"... dust-like material perhaps, though a solar system like ours coming rather late to the game might see plenty of dust already droppped along the way from other sun creations or novas/supernovas. In fact, something like supernovas or some of the other energetic destruction events Mr. Petrov has talked about might have been direct enough to trigger a local blob of non-cohered dark matter even if only in the straw that broke the camel's back sense of additiveness. And so on. Oddly, that kind of creation path could actually have the effect of creating a "wall around the galaxy" as in the original Star Trek shows, or one around each solar system, one in which the physical properties of the universe could pass a border of extraordinarily slight change from one side to the other which could actually isolate every solar system from every other by causing catastrophic breakdown of matter crossing it as the ever so slight changes took effect. Fermi aradox anyone? Moving down the scale of size, one would then picture however many (possibly almost countless) such "levelling down" Rips in our own universe leading to lower, if you don't add demeaning freight to the word, universes coming into existence and their events appearing however they would back on our side of the Rip divide. And our own appearing up that ladder to quizzical folks in the Masterverse. ("Masterverse" to us, though it might have many similar levels above it on the ladder.) One would even wonder about effects crossing past an intervening level, so a Mastervese effect crossing into one of our Rips. Lots of things to wonder about. Explains dark matter. Although there are plenty of ideas with what I'll call "evidence" in their favor! Not like this one at all as there is no evidence to present. But the idea doesn't fail simply of its own weight, like flat-eartherism. And it WOULD explain the Fermi Paradox. Could be communication is all we'll ever have. Exchange entertainment... and patent libraries. But no "Rigellian wine" to be carried from A to B for $800,000,000,000,000 a bottle. Interstellar commerce is a joke of an idea regardless of whether this idea has merit or not! Even ships 10,000 miles long filled to the gills with trade goods couldn't make it much worthwhile. Especially since we all have all the metals and such we'll ever need and $50 plonk will always be just as good or better than Rigellian wine. Anyway. I digress. So...
"Our math describing a multiverse looks a lot like the math describing condensates. So, if condensates look like the CMB, then whatever made this universe might be a lot like our multiverse math." But if it fails, the multiverse nonsense will continue just as rigorously untestable as ever, and if it succeeds, there will be no reason but analogously similar systems to believe it.
the multiverse is real regardless of any experiment, the reason being that we know this universe exists and is real. If something is possible it will occur uncountably many times, because there is no reason for there to be a limit in the number of occurrences of possible things
Do you genuinely believe you can possibly rule out the concept of "a greater, undiscovered context to all known things"? Of course that general concept contains infinite untestable hypotheses. Science is about working with testable ones, and we just foubd a testable multiverse theory, so we're testing it. The point isn't to rule out the concept of multiverses in general, thats impossible and pointless --- the point is to see if this particular one has utility. Those other hypothesis, sure, can't be ruled out if we happen to rule this one out, but they are just idle speculation with no utility so far anyways, and so long as those who speculate about it know that... then what's the problem, exactly? Seems you just have a chip on your shoulder about the idea.
@@samanthaqiu3416 Its feasible that an event can somehow prevent itself from happening a second time ever again --- though I will grant its unlikely to apply to even one singular, solitary phenomenon. Its just one infinite set of possibility among infinite sets of possibilities with no utility or testability. Just like what I said to OP --- you can't rule out the possibility of "a greater context to everything we know to exist." You can similarly never rule out the possibility you've discovered the "largest context." So what we do is simply be ready to step through any door that appears before us that increases the scope of reality if and when it appears. You might be right that we can nebulously guess that the chance of there being a greater context is always greated than the chance there isn't based on some philosophical heuristic, but thats beyond me lol I guess what I'm saying is, never hang your hat on a theory until you know it has utility. Here we have an experiment that might show some utility to one of the possinle multiverse theories, and thats exciting, but just as you should always be prepared for a door, you should also always be prepared for a wall.
I have always had the thought that there is a recursive nature to the universe. It's also fascinating and makes total sense that the base Einstein condensates can show behaviors of vacuum and how that parallels the universe. Contradiction itself arises from the vacuum of non-contradiction
I’m not a physicist but to me multiverses makes more sense because that way the waveform is collapsing for the observer rather than the observer collapsing the waveform.
The most fascinating is that what we know now is light-years ahead of when the scientists said that we knew about everything that was to know, and in about 6 months would we know it all. And still do I think we are cavemen, trying to understand the universe, compared to what is really going on. In 10,000 years will we look back and say: "imagine, they believed that" :-)
A scientist saying they discovered everything there is to know is like a painter saying he's painted everything there is to paint. It didn't happen and it doesn't even make sense.
Imagine if those "Universe-bubles" were referring to our individual experiences, where we ourselves are at the center of "observation"... If so, "reality" would be all the overlaps between them... And we couldn't enter another "universe" without entering another persons mind/thoughts... It would explain the "observer"-problem...
Anton, this video and topic left me thinking about the time I ran out of Men's multivitamins and started taking some of my wife's Women's multivitamins. You, like I did, might think "can't be that much difference" between Men's and a Women's multivitamin, right? After 3 days of taking them, I damn near needed stirrups on my toilet. Whew! At that moment I had a profound appreciation of what giving birth might be like. I've never touched a Women's multivitamin since. Yes, there is a difference between women and men Anton, but I digress. Thanks Anton!
@@vileluca Transphobe huh? I'll have to look that word up. I'm somewhat humbled by your gracious response to my 'layman' grasp at topics such as thermodynamics, astrophysics, electrical engineering and women. It's the last one I'm finding myself listening to what's being told to me, but, well, I am married and have kids after all. I'm absolutely blessed to be speaking with a lady that obviously has scientific inclinations. That said, my anecdotal observations obviously fall short, so, would you be kind enough to give me the scientific definition of a woman?
Our universe expanding rapidly doesnt preclude other universes expanding right next to it or even in the same space as it, for a little while at least.
The multiverse idea is extremely popular among movie writers (Did you see EverythingEverywhereAllAtOnceOMG) and actors who want to play their evil twin. Who wouldn't want to act out their evil side? Um. TMI?
Remember folks, if you think you are confused about multiverse theories, just look at Marvel Studio’s writers
Love it, and so very true. 🙃👍
CORRECTION: Roger Penrose doesn't think Hawking Points are "interactions with other universes", he thinks they are the remnants of supermassive black hole evaporation from a "previous aeon", before the Big Bang.
I've heard it suggested those sites were when another 'universe' bumped next to ours, in the sense of bubbles on the water. I have not heard, until you, they were evaporated black holes. Personally I am going to go with aliens. Super civilizations or whatever.
@@nexusdrop7863throw a brick is correct. The hawking points are said to be remnants. Looking at how long it’ll take a black hole to evaporate from hawking radiation I could believe in them having an effect in the next aeon
This is correct!
I knew something was off when he said that, thanks!
My understandings concerning this topic are very much limited, yet as far as I comprehended, the multiverse idea comes largely from mathematical calculations of superstring theory. Now, Penrose along with many other theoretical and practical physicists reject that notion and string theory. The first ones because of the mathematical approach within the theory itself and the latter ones (like Sabine H.) because of the fact that this idea is not properly testable. So, my question is (if someone could clarify) what bares more probable truth? (If I may formulate it so)
Thanks 😊
So another universe then.
Hey Anton, my name is Devin. I've been watching your channel for a year and a half now. I had no idea about the world around us. You've taught me so much and I appreciate you so much. All this time I feel like you're a friend. You truly are a wonderful person. When I found out about your child I cried because I'm so sorry for your loss. I love how you post videos everyday. Seriously be awesome to talk to you. I really do miss the videos you made with universal sandbox And space engine. Those videos taught me so much and made me such a nerd now. Thank you so much
You were a nerd all along. All you needed was a permission structure and a source of knowledge and wonder. Never look back. To infinity and beyond!
@@larrybuzbee7344 Good on ya Buzz. 🚀 🤣
I’m thinking about getting a phd in quantum physics, I really enjoy science :)
@@OmegaVideoGameGod Go for it m8. It'll be a lot more rewarding than many *_other_* things that might done. I wish you luck. 😁
Bro, I had you on my sandwich the other day. Nearly as good as ham😂😂😂😂
Every time I start thinking about "but what was before that?", or "why is there even anything?", I get a very strange, anxious feeling.
I’ve always believed there was more than we could ever know and this is just beyond incredible what we’re learning in this day and age! Thank you Anton for covering this :) -Travis
Scott?
It’s dangerous to poke into the multiverse, sometimes something pokes back.
?😂
Right...Unknown entities from other universes might enter ours later on. Different universe, different law of physics, different shape and abilities.
Everyone in the comment section are wonderful people
Speak for yourself!
;-)
❤
👹
The positivity is nice for a change 😊
😂 yall wild seeing 👹 and 🫥
hope you've been well Anton! I may look familiar bc I have followed you since the very beginning! I love your videos, you keep our brains and attention spans alive and flourishing! have a wonderful Halloween and Christmas!
No matter what this study comes back with, doesn’t change that I’m grateful to be living in this world right here with you
true
this world might be sh^t but I prefer to stay here with you idiots
Just don’t change into a pickle to avoid therapy.
aww
@@hugegamer5988 lmaoo
bot
Are there any current or planned space-based missions to capture a much higher resolution image of the CMB? I think that would be very fascinating to see these candidate interactions in greater detail.
No. We would actually need a time machine for a test of this hypothesis to work and there must be no positronic interference, so we would actually need to be in a different universe for the test to work.
no need to do radio/microwave observations from space, micro/radio waves go through atmosphere with no trouble at all.
@@neioni that microwaves go through the atmosphere with no trouble at all means that microwave emitters and microwave ovens interfere with Earth-based readings.
It must be done from space.
That is why we record the CMB from space.
Some Earth-based measurements of the CMB show nothing at all.
The CMB is too close. if there is an edge to the universe it could be hundreds of trillions of light years away. The universe is young enough however that we could possibly still see earlier than the singularity for another few hundred million years.
The "resolution" of the cmb was already enhanced a few time these last few decades, i think you can find more in wikipedia if i recall well.
Great video. Super intriguing and exciting! Anton, you're simply the best.
Haha this is awesome, this is the first you tube i see that gets live comments popping up while i am viewing the post! Anton you are awesome! You explain in the most simple way the most difficult of science.
I recall reading a book as a young man titled, "The Universe Between," by Alan E. Nourse that proposed a theory of passing to another universe by a method extremely similar to what you have presented. There are some big differences, as I recall, but it has been 40+ years since I read the book.
Scientists: Discover a multiverse.
Disney: Files a C&D to the other universes for infringing on their IP.
It would be interesting if we could somehow look way down into the subatomic world and discover that there are other universes down there. Then we could look up and see evidence in the CMB that there are other universes out there, too. Then we'd realize the whole kit and caboodle is a fractal. It's universes all the way up and all the way down.
Yep👌Infinite fractals, or 4D.
In a 4D space where there'd be no up or down, top or bottom, start or finish..it's just infinity, hurts my 3D brain trying to envision it.
🤯
but that is what I am saying for years there have to be 'pocket' universes or sub-atomic universes as well.
We are the "Who" that Horton heard!
Also... everybody knows, it's *_turtles_* all the way down.
Turtles on the Back of Elephants...
This is absolutely beautifull, this mathematical equivalence of the dinamycs between quamtum systems (bose-einsten condensates) and the dinamycs of the bubble universes fluctuating out of the inflationary space time reminds me the ads-cft corresponde nse...
Thanks Anton! Really great to hear about this experiment. Regarding the interpretation, my guess is that Penrose regards another interpretation as more likely. The Hawking points could also be seen as evidence for a cyclic universe with a gravitational effect from a previous eon. The idea is that each eon ends when there is no matter left, everything is radiation. Then there is no relevant time and space (only photons). In my imagination this has always been a gigantic Bose Einstein condensate. For this explanation you don’t need to assume inflation, which seems quite random anyway. “Give me one miracle and I can explain everything”
The multiverse is not determinable because of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
The only way to determine the existence of anything is to detect energy, either generated or reflected, from the thing.
The First Law of Thermodynamics prevents energy from moving from one universe to another universe.
Laws of physics also states that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. Nothing except the fabric of space time.
And then we discovered warp bubbles. Confirmed their existence and drew up theoretical warp drives for possibilities of future man.
If there is even a small chance of a work around, humans will find it.
This is awesome. Mind-blowing. I can usually, sometimes, keep up with quantum mechanics, but this time, whooosh! Only thing I know is I feel like we are living in a Star Trek Episode.
hey man, I used to watch you ALL THE TIME as a kid, I'm only just rediscovering your old Universe sandbox videos for nostalgia, you we're the one that got me into the game, thank you!
Little did the people of the early 21st century know that their attempt would lead to experiments creating a false vacuum, and their universe would cease to exist at that moment.
They never realized that this was how their universe came into existence in the first place. 🎇
You mean experiments creating a true vacuum. The vacuum would expand at the speed of light. If the Universe is infinite then the affected area would be insignificant.
A False vacuum? Like the absence of space time.
@@axle.australian.patriot Kind of. Just a lower energy state. It would result in a bubble expanding at the speed of light deleting our Universe, sleep well. :)
The stock film shots of scientists working at a whiteboard or whatever always cracks me up lol
I really enjoy learning through your content. Thank You ❤️
I never understood why we don't say 'when we measure quantum effects we OBSERVE a collapse into probability' instead the repeated phrase is 'when quantum effects are measured they collapse into probability' and this often implies the observer is 'creating the other worlds by the act of measuring'.
When a tree falls in the woods it doesn't make a sound because it is heard by an observer. Even with no observer it displaces particles in the atmosphere vibrating and slightly affecting the microcosm around it. The sound is just how the observer interprets the effect through a tool (ears).
Hi Anton. Hello from Canada! I'm glad that these ideas are receiving such attention and scrutiny. The only other time I recall hearing that there might be observable proof of the multiverse was that of the Great Attractor. The argument being that perhaps what is observed may be the result of influence from a alternate reality/universe containing enough mass to produce the behavior observed in our universe. I believe that this hypothesis came out of the idea of closely neighboring universes and that their "membranes or just 'branes" if they exist, their contact or even nearness, should result in measurable manifestations of their interactions... like The Great Attractor, which as far as I know, still lacks a satisfactory explanation for its massive influence over so much of that region of space. Am I way off base or are such theories still being considered by investigators of the "Many Worlds/Multiverse/Parallel Reality" constructs?
Regardless, please keep sharing your knowledge in the skillful way that you do. It is a gift to be able to disseminate such a variety of concepts and discoveries in a manner that is both understandable and entertaining. (I do miss the demos and experiments with Universe Sandbox back when What Da Math was my intro to your channel).
I'm far from a physicist. I haven't even taken a physics course. But is it really that far off to say that the great attractor could just be a massive galaxy cluster? We just can't see it through our own milky way. What says that it's not a galaxy cluster? It would be both fascinating and frustrating to find out that its not, because we aren't really at a state where we can just put a periscope up above the dust lanes of the milky way and peer out towards the great attractor.
I view the Universe from a holistic perspective in which the microcosm reflects the macrocosm, therefore the scientists are on the right track by observing a small-scale experiment, as it will reveal how the Universe functions on a large scale.
Before 1924 we humans thought the Milky-way was the only Galaxy. Now we know they are all over, so perhaps in time, a year we do not know yet when we discover that this is not the only universe...
Always informative, entertaining brother!!
Normally I'm able to follow the reasoning behind your explanations, but this time I was left with the biggest "huh???" face ever. I mean, I love to find out about the cutting edge of science and cosmology, but this one really flew so high above my head it made astronauts envious.
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 🙏😁
I'm no physicist, but I think the strange circles in the CMB are caused by sort of "ripples" in the super early universe. I hear the reason the CMB has areas of different amounts of energy is for that reason. Slight differences in regions of the early universe were magnified when the universe expanded.
Edit: What's special about these circles is that they can not be very well explained by random ripples, and it could be something even deeper. Thanks replies!
You're right, it's called the barion acoustic oscillation.
Oh wow, a hypothetical guess from a non-physicist that doesn't involve some wacky garbage and is actually well grounded????
There might be faith in humanity after all.
He was talking about: "very special, otherwise unexplainable" circles. What you're saying is just the usual explanation to most usual features of CMB
The reason why those ripples interesting here, is because you can predict the distribution of matter in CMB. And the patches they refer to are very very unlikely (if the distribution is correct), even after expanding.
But it always can be pure chance.
But for the same reason it can be anything else as well.
And this theory is cool, and people are trying to prove/disprove it using experiments.
So why not?
I mean you can always explain everything by pure chance, but the question is whether there is a deeper reason.
@@silviavalentine3812why is that theory wanly and weird?
I mean there is no single hypothesis that explains the Big Bang.
So far it just happened, and this explanation theory also tackles this up.
And it’s cool, and it also can be made into experiments that might prove or disprove or find something new.
So I don’t see why not?
Interesting to think our own universe can be someone's science experiment.
I just got back from the multiverse. Boy, are my arms tired.
Very underrated comment
I pooped my shirts
Your Towel was Wet & Heavy? ☺️
Very interesting indeed. Let's see what comes out of it.
What if we're trapped in some giant loop where every 14 billion years, we figure out how to make a mini-universe, and then it grows to universe sizes...
Thanks Anton. Always love your videos. ❤
I have "always" wondered if our universe is a little empty spot in an infinitely dense infinite mass of energy, especially after the "news" that it's expanding. It's even more fun to imagine an infinite number of such "bubbles," with ours just now beginning to merge with another one. Years ago, so long ago that I can't possibly find it, Scientific American printed a couple of paragraphs where some guy named Gott proposed something like this, except for the "merging" part. I don't remember exactly, but it was like he said the "outside" was like the opposite of a black hole. It's fun to imagine that ours and another one overlapped long ago at one "point" and suddenly the light gets here and we see a formerly hidden mass of stuff in another universe across the former edge, all of it in one direction. One person when I mentioned this said, "How do you know we don't see something like that?" I had to guess that atoms would be bigger or something like that.
Wow, this is all just so exciting. I'm always amazed by just how much scientists develop and improve on all kinds of experiments. This sounds so crazy and alien to me, yet it is so very interesting to hear about.
So our entire Universe might just be a micro-bubble in someone's glass of beer.
Champagne, no doubt.
We could be a rat fart
@@TmackSD184our universe is full of rat farts. I talk to them every day.
God: Hold my Beer
Correction: Penrose does not believe these artefacts in the CMB are evidence of a sibling universe interacting with ours at the conception.
He has proposed a cyclical type of cosmology which is very fascinating but I won't go into it here. This hypothesis actually predicted these artefacts would exist and they would be left by the last black holes evaporating from the ending of the previous epoch of this universe before the big bang.
If i had to guess... if you were able to get outside the edge of the universe you may end up traveling faster than the speed of light turning you into hawking radiation as you may actually be leaving the theoretical black hole we are in, i think the safer way to test this would be to travel into a back hole past the event horizon but there would be no turning back... in theory you may enter a new universe
Or die 😂 and the rest of us would never know which 😢
My understanding of many word is that;
All there is in the universe is the schrodinger equation and when a quantum event happens; its data is dispersed in many worlds; but you don't know which world you are in until you have made the measurement. The universe never needs to make an observation for quantum events to occur.
Well, our universe might also be just a result of someone's creational experiment, just like this one , and we would have the perfect link between science and God. Somewhat cool😁
That would mean that there are possibly infinite universes up and infinite down.
Potentially a Universe is creates by a specific type of quantum fluctuation which can happen naturally or if an intelligent species causes it.
@@WeAreTheDraiken Yes, and since the OP mentioned god, that would create an interesting conundrum. Let's assume these fluctuations are commonplace, and numerous new universes germinate continuously. In this scenario, the likelihood of any particular universe being intentionally crafted by an intelligent species is minuscule. However, this probability increases the further one ascends in the hierarchy. So the question is: if we must pass trillions upon trillions of parent universes before reaching one devised by an intelligent form, could we still label this entity as a "god"? Or would the use of that term be misplaced, especially since the parents of the universe of this entity would follow the same pattern?
Thanks a lot for all your hard work.
Only because multiverses exist doesn't mean its infinite. It could be similar to the galaxies in our universe a finite amount. They could come in and out of existence like a cycle.
‘Parallel universe’ is really just a way of saying that there are other outcomes that were equally plausible.
For all we know at this point we could be the result of a universe within a Multiversal structure coming into existence for mere moments in time relative to the higher scale, while relative to our own scale lasting a very long time. I can’t even begin to imagine what it would be like if it just…”popped” and everything in our universe is either destroyed instantaneously or our universe seeps into the cracks of the space between universes or something like that somehow…what it would be like to experience something like those scenarios.
Love this comment. Keep thinking man! And keep sharing your ideas with the world.
We wouldn't "experience" anything as the timescales are so ridiculously huge that humanity would have long ceased to exist until anything noticable happened.
@@FutureChaosTV well I mean…I did say imagine, lol. But at the same time, I’d dare to say they both could potentially, I repeat potentially lol, be experienced if either scenarios have been happening already for a long enough time if our understand of physics still applies (namingly because it would take billions of years potentially to be observable the same way it takes that long for far reaching light to travel for long and far enough to be observable) or perhaps it’s different beyond our border into the space between universes in a way that if ours were to “pop” it could just…snap, over and done. But the other scenario, our universe bleeding out into the space between other universes, I feel like that would be something along the lines of how we are currently merging with Andromeda, we are so unaffected that if we weren’t aware of it through our studies and observations, we wouldn’t ever really realize anything until…well, I guess it would begin to look pretty wild compared to what is normal for us.
Could say…it’s a bit hard to imagine, lol. But it’s all just that…imagining the possibilities. You’re right though in the sense that we very probably won’t ever know lol.
Time does not exist as real, and there was none until it was created in the Big Bang. Time will come to an end eventually and no more events will ever occur.
I love these types of videos, not sure if I remember this correctly hoping someone might be able to chime in. Doesn't the inflation energy have a half-life and when it decays it leaves behind a bubble universe? The regular inflationary expansion continues on forever. Within that bubble universe that decayed inflationary energy forms into the quark and gluon soup that later turns into the standard model and regular big bang model picks up from there? The bubble continues to grow but it's already passing over a space that was previously flattened by regular non decay inflation and hence the flat universe we live in?
We need to study what we have evidence for, not what may be possible. Too many things that may be possible likely aren't there at all.
Everything is possible idiot
Pursuing what may be possible is how we advance our ability to study anything. Every study has its merit whether or not it's proven
Anton, your comment about the silly idea of cosmic inflation: "it's the only way to explain the smoothness of the CMB", flies in the face of a much better alternative: Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC). Please look at him in one of his many lectures where he exposes the fallacies of cosmic inflation which not only requires yet another particle, the "inflaton", but doesn't even solve the smoothness problem it pretends to do!
Incidentally, the name "Hawking points" was coined by Penrose as coming from the previous universe, before our Big Bang, from the final "evaporation pop" (not the correct term) of supermassive black holes, a consequence of Hawking's radiation.
The whole idea of a multiverse is rooted on the stubbornness of believing that the constants in nature are random, and we simply "lucked out" in getting those that form matter, allow it to become diverse such that it produces life, and lets it evolve until a human being, capable of being conscious that he is conscious, appears. With a straight face they claim that it's all a product of chance, and therefore all (or at least some) other possibilities must exist somewhere.
Penrose doesn't go far enough, after all he is a staunchest reductionist, but it should be obvious that a sequence of consecutive universes is required if one believes in endless evolution. It is by such evolution that the constants of nature are what they are in the current universe.
But that would require scientists to believe in meaning, i.e., that existence in our reality has a purpose, not only for humanity but for the universe as a whole. And that such purpose may only be achieved over multiple aeons (the word Penrose uses) of evolution.
Alas, reductionist physics does not believe in meaning, just random chance. Paradoxically, it wants to discover the "God equation", as colloquially calls it Michio Kaku, that will do away with unpredictability. On one hand it's all a chance, on the other it's all predictable.
This is mind blowing. Just yesterday I watched the 100 year anniversary of the universe (discovery that the Andromeda nebula is actually a separate galaxy).
Now we might be on our way to discover that there are other universes.
Thanks Anton.
separate galaxy doesn't mean other universe.
smartest american@@websparrow
Not going to happen.
You don't need to be smart to make conclusions, just have and use a brain@@Joettyy
dude we were talking bout universes not galaxies where in the video does it say galaxies lmfao@@websparrow
thanks for the information anton. i look forward to future updates on this topic
Seems a little absurd to assume that the only quantum fluctuation to ever happen was the one that spat us out
Seems a little absurd to comment something like this if you think this is all there is to create the universe, those explanations are just extremely simplified statements to put the rest of the statement in a context.
The truth is, we don't really know, it's not just a "quantum fluctuation". You can assume whatever you'd like, but it's not scientific as we have no proof for it, which makes any clear statements about what does/doesn't exist absurd in itself.
@@FunFindsYT whatever it was is more likely to have happened multiple time than being unique
@@mattball420 We cannot speak for the likelihood of an event if we don't know the event. I get that thinking that way is intuitive, and it may seem logical, but I am afraid that wouldn't apply to something "outside" our universe (if it even was), that may not even have our laws of nature or current understanding of how things work.
For speculation, it might not even have physical dimensions or "events", or rather no relation between cause and effect, if there even is any cause or effect. There is no way to know whatsoever and you could endlessly speculate but that is not scientific. More likely is that we will never know, but I do think it is an interesting thought.
Correct if you follow the edicts of Occam's razor.@@mattball420
Correct if you follow the edicts of Occam's razor.@@mattball420
This is certainly an interesting topic and I remember it being covered before elsewhere but with a slightly different extrapolation that given the energy level of the universe and how the drop to that energy state is consistant across all space even as all space expands, it's possible that two universes that spawned next to each other but didn't touch and merge would never actually be able to interact due to the distance between them widening faster than they do. It'll be interesting to see what exactly they can determine from all this certainly.
Love your videos, hopefully one day soon we start making some real progress again.
I remain unconvinced of inflation. The idea neglects the possibility of the opposite occurring: non Bose-Einstein matter condensaton, or the far simpler and more likely reason for the observations: the density of the interstellar medium is far higher than we think, which would make things look farther away than they really are.
I do, however, look forward to reviewing the results of the experiment.
Oh, and great stuff, Anton. Keep being wonderful.
Thanks Anton, if there is one, very likely there are more.
That smile at the end reminded me of when the terminator smiles in Terminator 2.
Finally! I have been waiting for this video! Not this video, but this theory experimented on. I was actually thinking at the beginning of this video, “ when are they going to figure out that the ‘multiverse’ IS a Bose Einstein condensate?” This is going to finally get us so much closer to the theory of everything. Thank you to whoever studied this because I’ve been meditating in this for years and just realized it myself within the past year. So excited to see what the near future of science holds. And thank you Anton for being here with this video to alleviate my worries that I’d die before anyone else even thought to look there.
"There can be only one!"
Roger & Sabine.
Seriously now,I believe you've got it wrong, Anton. @whatdamath
I've seen Roger Penrose with Sabine Hossenfelder, tell Michio Kaku in a convention, that there's absolutely no reason to believe that there's any parallel universe.
Penrose, however did provoke with the theory of cyclic universe and that gravity leaks into our existence from a more basic existence.
This existence is not parallel but rather coexisting with our universe in a manner beyond our comprehension and perception.
The evidence lead me to a personal belief that volume(and therefore spacetime) is native to our universe while it does not exist in that more basal universe, from which gravity is supposedly leaking into our own.
I think that a better grasp of these mechanics might enable a better general, dare I say unified, model of physics that would free us from the need for dark matter, dark energy or any other dark pacts. :)
I remember when I first heard about cosmological inflation, I thought “that’s ridiculous, I don’t believe it”. And that’s still pretty much where I sit today. There’s got to be a better explanation. Maybe when the current “crisis in cosmology” is resolved.
Agreed 👍🏻
I currently sit where you do as well
It it is a belief with zero evidence, I cannot distinguish it from religion.
Like what specifically is your issue? Plus I think there is a huge differences between 'the data suggests this' and 'this is an absolute fact' being said. Most things are a case of "we do not know why that happened but here are our guesses after ruling out X" by people.
@@phuzed37 We're talking about the expansion of the universe, right?
The theory has the most predictive power and the most parsimony, so its the working theory. And yes, it does have evidence --- such as the redshift of distant galaxies and the precise wavelength of the CMB. What we don't have is knowledge of the causal mechanism, what the "dark energy" is --- but just because someone doesn't know what caused something doesn't mean that they don't have evidence of that something.
Just because you don't understand it or cant intuit what it is doesn't make it religion. (It doesn't even feature spirituality lol.)
Now, the inflationary universe has no evidence at the moment, though it sounds like if Anton is correct, someone came up with a prediction to test it by.
@@phuzed37we can see the universe though
One reason scientists are flailing around to point to a multiverse is the Goldilocks Universe problem. There are just too many things that had to be "just right" for things to turn out the way they have. Statistically insanely improbable. So the multiverse idea helps to explain it as, "Well there are infinite universes so one of them was bound to be right".
Say we make a tiny multiverse, and somehow we actually created our own universe?
Thinking about making a self-charging battery?
You're a little late, I made one of them beauties about a decade ago.
That's the thing with batteries, they are easy to understand, and make as well.
Why did you ask? Did you make one too?
I made a mini verse battery as well, but one day it stopped working, I can’t explain why as it SHOULD last theoretically forever. After that I gave up on the idea, it’s just sitting there collecting dust in my garage. The funniest part was when someone I work with asked why I didn’t go into the miniverse to figure out the cause of the problem 😂, Yeah let me just get my magical shrink ray and a tiny spaceship to search a near infinite miniverse for the one planet that produces the electricity 🤣🤣🤣
The fact there is anything at all is mind boggling
Be careful, you might accidentally create another universe.
The problem I have with this is who’s to say that our concept of physical interaction, quantum interaction, dimensions, and space even applies outside of our universe anyways? We’re making too many assumptions here.
Absolutely mind blowing.
Is it just me, feeling we’re on the edge of major scientific breakthroughs?
Yes but not regarding the multivverse nonsense
It's just now I realised you're saying "hello wonderful person" and not "hello from prison"! I was curious how they let you make youtube videos in prison, haha. Thank you for your contributions to the world of popular science, no matter if you're in a prison, a lab, or a studio :D
I wonder if the tiniest particles are essentially universes that make up the whole and are both infinitely small and infinitely large, but at the same time invariable in size. Loop in both directions.
Or fractals
@@IwinMahWay Yeah, something like that. I googled for fractal universe pics, but its impossible to drew that. We can only imagine it. For now 😁
Maybe in the future...
Yeah, they already did that on the _Twilight Zone._
In the middle of this discussion about astro physics quantum physics and theoretical physics regarding our universe, its macrostructure and possible embedded trace evidence supporting the existence of a multi universe - there suddenly appears stock video of a, by comparison, very down to earth *CHEMISTRY LAB*
Absolutely ridiculous that this is what they hypothesize first over the thousands of more logical explanations
This isn't the first hypothesis, though, its one of many and its one that has a single, solitary prediction to test it by. Anton even mentioned another hypothesis, that being the one where quantum events produce new universes.
I agree with you. Astro physics is the only science that's always correct until it's not.
They do not. Anton is overreaching
@@Entropy3ko Anton is always overreaching and his bias is so blatant it's not close to science. He's a Clovis first guy in the time of White Sands footprints.
Thanks for your science education. This topic is intriguing.
Where is all this extra energy coming from to create while extra universes?
We don't know, obviously, but if they're like ours, through a singularity.
Gravitation is negative energy so a universe requires zero energy
Bingo! Infinite scale dimensional energy is physically unsustainable and impossible.. Energy doesn't come from nothing. Basic laws of thermodynamics
@@TTime685 It doesn't??
@@JohnDoe-qz1qlA singularity isn't nothing
i find the idea of the multiverse to be just amazing i can not get enough of these studies and experiments
I think that there are at least two timelike dimensions, and phenomena moving along timelines at any angle to ours are not visible to us, though I think gravity works across all time angles; so, for example, matter occupying a timeline at an angle that differs from ours could still interact gravitationally with matter on our timeline: dark matter. Other implications: If there are more than one timelike dimensions then entropy becomes a vector rather than scalar quantity.
I’m of the opinion time is only our description of state, i.e there is no time dimension
Did you think of this idea yourself? Because this is an incredibly clever explanation for dark matter and I haven't heard of anything like this anywhere else.
@@jonKowalski3210 I believe that this is my original thinking, yes - although there are other people who have explored paradigms where there are more dimensions of time, but I haven't seen any similar descriptions of dark matter that fit into the concepts. I have heard of notions where "dark matter is in another dimension but it's gravity leaks through to our dimension" - I have just specified that "other dimension" as a spacetime at another time-angle. So my thinking is not entirely original.
Doesn’t gravity travel between those parallel universes?
I remember watching a documentary on string theory in 2006 that said that.
It also said that gravity could be used and encoded, like we encode wifi, to communicate with people in parallel universes.
I can't look at anything in media anymore without being codswalloped in the mouth by multiverse wackery. So yes, you might say we've heard of it. lol
Codswalloped, eh. That's a fun word.
Nice explanation and beautiful graphics! I really appreciate your epistemological humility and lack 0f sensationalism!
There definitely need to be more experiments regarding the matter. Pun intended. Different elements being used along with a slightly different experimental setup should allow scientists to formulate the data via equations that will further prove this to be factual.
Can it be simulated using beer bubbles?
Much easier said than done
@@FunFindsYT Not with the proper funding and physicists.
@@donethosstill much easier said than done. I don't think Einstein would say his theories were easy to come up with for example.
@@donethos
Performing experiments to test or check for something that for all we currently know, does not interact with our universe at all, is borderline impossible. There wouldn't be anything to check for, because there is no interaction, nothing to measure, no data to go off from. You can, for example, not measure the heights of a planet in another galaxy's mountains if you have no way to observe or interact with it. (Or even know that it's there at all)
Funding does go a long way, but it does not magically solve the issue on how to conduct the experiments, as they wouldn't know which experiments to conduct.
You can, for example, not pay someone to make a teleporter, simply because we wouldn't know how to realistically achieve that.
Funding, research and knowledge must go hand in hand to progress, you can't just have one.
Here's a thought for y'all: Our universe is supposedly not headed toward a bounce back, continuing some sort of repeating (possibly endless?) cycle but rather to a "Big Rip" in which "space itself" is torn apart, a space of infinitely teensy density having expanded for quadrillions (and so on) of years into nothing until the Rip occurs. What wouldbe in the Ripped regions?
Consider that. Perhaps we are indeed headed toward that, but are the answer to that question for a universe "above us" if you will, one that has itself ripped, either at the end of things for it, as postulated in our own "Big Rip" concept, or one that has had a teensy tear in it resulting in us. And that we are not only going to ourselves see an eventual Big Rip, but will experience such smaller ("localized" though since I'm not postulating a scale, necessarily, that feels an awkward word) tears/rips.
Not to speak to whether quantum effects are such things, but rather moving past any concern about that, it seems that with the Lie group filled by the Standard Model, and I mean literally filled, all places spoken for, and that group being the largest possible, if there is such a thing as dark matter, as thought of now, or a future thinking, which flat does not have a place in the Standard Model of existence, perhaps the sequence of events in our universe went something like this:
The Masterverse (Megaverse? Largerverse? Aboveverse? You see the problem with all this: I haven't designed catchy and appropriate terms for all the moving parts...) space-time or its different but corresponding characteristic Rips into dark matter that further differentiates. It doesn't fit into our universe model as a "thing" because it isn't "ours" until it Rips into matter/energy/spacetime. As it does, it first blobs down a level into being black holes (early on) and later in sun-sized blobs, as time passes and cohesive enough larger blobs have gone the primordial black hole route. So then ribbons of matter that later become the stretches of galaxy clusters and galaxyies we see (different than the huge areas of mostly nothing... which are the bits expanding... matter dense regions are not expanding... not really talked about, but true, look it up), and as the matter decoheres into smaller pieces, or perhaps more individual pieces might be better, suns form the same way primordial black holes did, mass centered at the sun, much less spread from it in the metamorphosis decohering into "general matter"... dust-like material perhaps, though a solar system like ours coming rather late to the game might see plenty of dust already droppped along the way from other sun creations or novas/supernovas. In fact, something like supernovas or some of the other energetic destruction events Mr. Petrov has talked about might have been direct enough to trigger a local blob of non-cohered dark matter even if only in the straw that broke the camel's back sense of additiveness. And so on. Oddly, that kind of creation path could actually have the effect of creating a "wall around the galaxy" as in the original Star Trek shows, or one around each solar system, one in which the physical properties of the universe could pass a border of extraordinarily slight change from one side to the other which could actually isolate every solar system from every other by causing catastrophic breakdown of matter crossing it as the ever so slight changes took effect. Fermi aradox anyone?
Moving down the scale of size, one would then picture however many (possibly almost countless) such "levelling down" Rips in our own universe leading to lower, if you don't add demeaning freight to the word, universes coming into existence and their events appearing however they would back on our side of the Rip divide. And our own appearing up that ladder to quizzical folks in the Masterverse. ("Masterverse" to us, though it might have many similar levels above it on the ladder.) One would even wonder about effects crossing past an intervening level, so a Mastervese effect crossing into one of our Rips. Lots of things to wonder about.
Explains dark matter. Although there are plenty of ideas with what I'll call "evidence" in their favor! Not like this one at all as there is no evidence to present. But the idea doesn't fail simply of its own weight, like flat-eartherism. And it WOULD explain the Fermi Paradox. Could be communication is all we'll ever have. Exchange entertainment... and patent libraries. But no "Rigellian wine" to be carried from A to B for $800,000,000,000,000 a bottle. Interstellar commerce is a joke of an idea regardless of whether this idea has merit or not! Even ships 10,000 miles long filled to the gills with trade goods couldn't make it much worthwhile. Especially since we all have all the metals and such we'll ever need and $50 plonk will always be just as good or better than Rigellian wine.
Anyway. I digress. So...
"Our math describing a multiverse looks a lot like the math describing condensates. So, if condensates look like the CMB, then whatever made this universe might be a lot like our multiverse math." But if it fails, the multiverse nonsense will continue just as rigorously untestable as ever, and if it succeeds, there will be no reason but analogously similar systems to believe it.
the multiverse is real regardless of any experiment, the reason being that we know this universe exists and is real. If something is possible it will occur uncountably many times, because there is no reason for there to be a limit in the number of occurrences of possible things
Do you genuinely believe you can possibly rule out the concept of "a greater, undiscovered context to all known things"? Of course that general concept contains infinite untestable hypotheses.
Science is about working with testable ones, and we just foubd a testable multiverse theory, so we're testing it. The point isn't to rule out the concept of multiverses in general, thats impossible and pointless --- the point is to see if this particular one has utility. Those other hypothesis, sure, can't be ruled out if we happen to rule this one out, but they are just idle speculation with no utility so far anyways, and so long as those who speculate about it know that... then what's the problem, exactly?
Seems you just have a chip on your shoulder about the idea.
@@samanthaqiu3416 Its feasible that an event can somehow prevent itself from happening a second time ever again --- though I will grant its unlikely to apply to even one singular, solitary phenomenon. Its just one infinite set of possibility among infinite sets of possibilities with no utility or testability.
Just like what I said to OP --- you can't rule out the possibility of "a greater context to everything we know to exist." You can similarly never rule out the possibility you've discovered the "largest context." So what we do is simply be ready to step through any door that appears before us that increases the scope of reality if and when it appears.
You might be right that we can nebulously guess that the chance of there being a greater context is always greated than the chance there isn't based on some philosophical heuristic, but thats beyond me lol
I guess what I'm saying is, never hang your hat on a theory until you know it has utility. Here we have an experiment that might show some utility to one of the possinle multiverse theories, and thats exciting, but just as you should always be prepared for a door, you should also always be prepared for a wall.
@@samanthaqiu3416I disagree with you, because there is no reason for anything that's unobservable to exist.
@@merotheusDid I exist before you read this comment??? 🤔
Good to know that the players have different servers to choose from.
I have always had the thought that there is a recursive nature to the universe. It's also fascinating and makes total sense that the base Einstein condensates can show behaviors of vacuum and how that parallels the universe. Contradiction itself arises from the vacuum of non-contradiction
Bose-Einstein.
Amazing job! Thank you so much, sir!
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Anton talked sense.... but now!
Found the quack in the comments.
Can't help but notice one of your other comments is comparing cells to cars, to which I say ---- LOL. LMAO.
I’m not a physicist but to me multiverses makes more sense because that way the waveform is collapsing for the observer rather than the observer collapsing the waveform.
The most fascinating is that what we know now is light-years ahead of when the scientists said that we knew about everything that was to know, and in about 6 months would we know it all.
And still do I think we are cavemen, trying to understand the universe, compared to what is really going on.
In 10,000 years will we look back and say: "imagine, they believed that" :-)
Science is iterative, there's always more to learn and models to improve.
A scientist saying they discovered everything there is to know is like a painter saying he's painted everything there is to paint.
It didn't happen and it doesn't even make sense.
In a way, apart from curiosity,it doesn't really matter if other Universes exist as it's not possible to observe them or travel between them.
Damn just thinking there's a multiverse version me out there who is rich out there. I'm happy and sad that isn't me. 😅
Imagine if those "Universe-bubles" were referring to our individual experiences, where we ourselves are at the center of "observation"...
If so, "reality" would be all the overlaps between them...
And we couldn't enter another "universe" without entering another persons mind/thoughts...
It would explain the "observer"-problem...
Anton, this video and topic left me thinking about the time I ran out of Men's multivitamins and started taking some of my wife's Women's multivitamins. You, like I did, might think "can't be that much difference" between Men's and a Women's multivitamin, right? After 3 days of taking them, I damn near needed stirrups on my toilet. Whew! At that moment I had a profound appreciation of what giving birth might be like. I've never touched a Women's multivitamin since. Yes, there is a difference between women and men Anton, but I digress. Thanks Anton!
You are either FOS or delusional.
wow ok transphobe
Mental disorders need treatment and understanding.
@@vileluca Transphobe huh? I'll have to look that word up. I'm somewhat humbled by your gracious response to my 'layman' grasp at topics such as thermodynamics, astrophysics, electrical engineering and women.
It's the last one I'm finding myself listening to what's being told to me, but, well, I am married and have kids after all. I'm absolutely blessed to be speaking with a lady that obviously has scientific inclinations. That said, my anecdotal observations obviously fall short, so, would you be kind enough to give me the scientific definition of a woman?
How the hell does a wierdolike you find a wife?
The proposed experiments are really cool, both figuratively and literally!
I hope the other mes are doing well
Same here
It is NOT many worlds/parallel worlds
I hope our dimension is the only one where bad stuff happens.
@@prydainianspy4625The probability of that is infantecimally low.
@@420Khatz hopefully the probability of you being a buzzkill in less dimensions is higher
Expansion is always described as being so rapid that its doubtful there could be any interaction of the Expansion multiverse idea.
Our universe expanding rapidly doesnt preclude other universes expanding right next to it or even in the same space as it, for a little while at least.
Never. You can only not exclude it. In fact I'm not sure the experiment proves anything at all.
You can exclude it as you cannot have nothingness between universes, ergo can only have 1 universe
@@ExistenceUniversity Why not?
Thanks for covering this very exciting study and sharing ideas
The multiverse idea is extremely popular among movie writers (Did you see EverythingEverywhereAllAtOnceOMG) and actors who want to play their evil twin. Who wouldn't want to act out their evil side? Um. TMI?
if we found a "multi" verse wouldn't' it just be a more gigantic "uni" verse?
Didn't Stewie Griffin invent a device that would allow a person to travel from one universe to another in the multi-verse.
next thing we know, we get a guy named rick in his garage inventing multiversal travel