In her opinion multiverse is very solid hypothesis. Even Alan Guth wouldn't go so far with his own hypothesis. She said "the guy can't be wrong". Nothing in her talk was even slightly original. Perhaps I am demanding too much from 30 years of PHD production in chain, better known as "shut up and calculate". Most of them by now struggling to swallow current observations from JW telescope. I am referring to Black holes with billion time mass of the sun, already in the dawn of their prefered model of the universe started from the scratch 13.8 billion years ago.
"It makes no sense to ask, What's outside of space-time." Time is in the universe. The universe is not in time. Existence exists and nature is its character.
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an elementary particle. It had a geometric counterpart, which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people. Q: Is the Monad (first emanation of God) the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong nuclear force? A: Leibniz's "The Monadology" is a philosophical work that explores the concept of monads as indivisible, immaterial substances that make up the fabric of reality. While the notion of monads is primarily philosophical and not directly related to modern physics, I can attempt to draw a connection between some of Leibniz's ideas and the strong nuclear force holding quarks together. Here are seven points of connection you could consider: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Leibniz's monads are indivisible and lack parts. In a similar vein, quarks are elementary particles, indivisible according to our current understanding, and are the building blocks of hadrons, the particles held together by the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In particle physics, the strong force binds quarks within hadrons, creating a complex interconnected system of particles. 3) Inherent Properties: Monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions. In particle physics, quarks are associated with intrinsic properties like color charge, which influences their interactions through the strong force. 4) Harmony: Leibniz describes monads as creating harmony in the universe. Similarly, the strong nuclear force maintains stability within atomic nuclei by balancing the repulsive electromagnetic forces between positively charged protons. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Leibniz's concept of pre-established harmony suggests that everything is synchronized by design. In particle physics, the strong force ensures that quarks interact in ways that give rise to stable particles, exhibiting a form of "harmony" in their interactions. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Leibniz's monads interact non-mechanically through perceptions. In the context of the strong force, quarks interact through the exchange of gluons, which doesn't follow classical mechanical rules but rather the principles of quantum field theory. 7) Holism: Leibniz's emphasis on the holistic nature of reality could be compared to the way quarks contribute to the overall structure and behavior of hadrons through their interactions mediated by the strong force. em·a·na·tion noun an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
I dont understand the obsession with trying to say time has a beginning. It can't. I understand the math doesnt show this yet but we obviously are missing a few variables still and we will get there.
What is the difference between spooky action at a distance and tension between two points? Now let us imagine every thing, moving backwards towards the big bang, a point of infinite density and temperature and energy. Does infinite tension make sense? So does spooky action at a distance. Singularity is the point of infinite action spread out in infinite dimensions of a line. The physics of the big bang is written in the language of metaphysics of LIFE, CONSCIOUSNESS, SOUL and FAITH etc.
As two galaxies move apart in space time, then more space time is created?😂 if there were no distance to begin with,(1 dimension or a point) then, space/distance would be created between the next point that came from the original point. Of course it would become 2D space then. I really dont know why i bother about this kind of stuff anyway. Its way above my head.😊 im just interested.
what proceeded it (the BB), something like a huge blow up of a super duper black hole, think about how to unpack the energy held in a fractal spatialized geometry, and then think if it was near instantaneous... like the demolition man,
12:50 Um, you are misrepresenting Einstein's position. When he formulated general relativity he assumed a static universe, because that was what scientists believed at the time. As such he added a "fudge factor" called the cosmological constant to his equations to make his model of the universe static. But when he was shown that the universe was not static, and was expanding, he accepted it. In fact, he said that his adding the cosmological constant to his equations was the biggest blunder of his life ... something else you misrepresented him on.
Okay wait, I just finished the whole video. Essentially, it seems like you posed that the Big bang theory is the best theory we have, but at the end you posed a megiverse which is eternal and limitless..... So this takes me back to my original point, why do we assume contraction? We assume contraction because of the box you put around the galaxies in the beginning, that's an easy way to cognate visually, but I believe it's potentially inaccurate. If you take the box off, and apply the same theories walking it backwards doesn't do anything to push them towards each other. Because there's limitless space within which life can grow.
remember that the energy is stored in fractalized space at the core, one could easily rotate , but the overall geometric shape of ALL black holes could be self similar, and quite possibly, they are, because the geometric shape to store such load of energy would be like looking at different probability or orbitals, like haploid diploid division.... remember the limit cycle is or can be converted to a volume.
JDTherrien you think you know better than the scientists? Mr. Stupid. You know nothing so better shut your mouth letting people assume you are a fool, then opening your mouth taking away any doubt.
I love science, and I've always assumed that it was correct. One thing that bothers me about the Big bang theory is that it assumes contraction based off of expansion. But that only works in a limited environment. Contraction is only forced walking backwards in a limited environment. If the environment is infinite, then expansion doesn't mean contraction, but that's counterintuitive to logic. Limitless is paradoxical which is not logical. So I think science avoids it. But I think they may be assuming too much. In the science community. I agree with Einstein that the universe has always been, but It's obviously not fixed as we do see expansion between objects. This happens because life arises out of life itself. 1 out of one as equal. Since life itself seems to be electric, and electricity and magnetism are connected, I assume that this expansion is based on this. I think science is going on the wrong track with the Big bang theory. Unpopular opinion.
Why are there discussions about the ‘beginning’ of the Universe? Let’s all agree that our “Universe “ has ALWAYS EXISTED. It (in my humble opinion) is much more logical than postulating some weird pre Universe for the Universe to “come out of”. Such ‘out of’ speculation just introduces an unknown and perhaps unknowable toy for academia to puzzle over and ‘teach’ to endless hordes of student victims.
In addition, there seems to be a tendency to claim we can ‘see’ the outer edge of our Universe - are you kidding? Assuming there is 1 atom/cc just how many cc are there before the scattering and absorption of intervening atoms prevent any possible detection of 1 more atom (and or radiation source) ? Currently our Universe is apparently getting bigger as out telescopes get larger. I’m really looking forward to new Space born telescopes whose aperture size is unlimited by rocket booster capabilities!
Thank you for posting, I appreciate the effort you put into making this video. Keep up the great work.
She should have her own tv show
Beautiful explanation.
That was beautiful. Thank you. Also, “the other UPENN” 😂 Go Quakers!!! UPenn ‘98 here.
Thank you for posting. The black holes may hold such enerygy in a fractal type of spacetime arragement. Energy can be compactified, in this way.
In her opinion multiverse is very solid hypothesis. Even Alan Guth wouldn't go so far with his own hypothesis. She said "the guy can't be wrong". Nothing in her talk was even slightly original. Perhaps I am demanding too much from 30 years of PHD production in chain, better known as "shut up and calculate". Most of them by now struggling to swallow current observations from JW telescope. I am referring to Black holes with billion time mass of the sun, already in the dawn of their prefered model of the universe started from the scratch 13.8 billion years ago.
The idea that asking what was before t0 is meaningless is itself meaningless. Given time , observation and thought it will be worked out.
"It makes no sense to ask, What's outside of space-time." Time is in the universe. The universe is not in time. Existence exists and nature is its character.
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things.
The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both.
The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an elementary particle.
It had a geometric counterpart, which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people.
Q: Is the Monad (first emanation of God) the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong nuclear force?
A: Leibniz's "The Monadology" is a philosophical work that explores the concept of monads as indivisible, immaterial substances that make up the fabric of reality. While the notion of monads is primarily philosophical and not directly related to modern physics, I can attempt to draw a connection between some of Leibniz's ideas and the strong nuclear force holding quarks together. Here are seven points of connection you could consider:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Leibniz's monads are indivisible and lack parts. In a similar vein, quarks are elementary particles, indivisible according to our current understanding, and are the building blocks of hadrons, the particles held together by the strong force.
2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In particle physics, the strong force binds quarks within hadrons, creating a complex interconnected system of particles.
3) Inherent Properties: Monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions. In particle physics, quarks are associated with intrinsic properties like color charge, which influences their interactions through the strong force.
4) Harmony: Leibniz describes monads as creating harmony in the universe. Similarly, the strong nuclear force maintains stability within atomic nuclei by balancing the repulsive electromagnetic forces between positively charged protons.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Leibniz's concept of pre-established harmony suggests that everything is synchronized by design. In particle physics, the strong force ensures that quarks interact in ways that give rise to stable particles, exhibiting a form of "harmony" in their interactions.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Leibniz's monads interact non-mechanically through perceptions. In the context of the strong force, quarks interact through the exchange of gluons, which doesn't follow classical mechanical rules but rather the principles of quantum field theory.
7) Holism: Leibniz's emphasis on the holistic nature of reality could be compared to the way quarks contribute to the overall structure and behavior of hadrons through their interactions mediated by the strong force.
em·a·na·tion
noun
an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
I dont understand the obsession with trying to say time has a beginning. It can't. I understand the math doesnt show this yet but we obviously are missing a few variables still and we will get there.
Is she rejecting all multiverse theory?
The multiverse is a tenuous hypothesis. There's no evidence for it. The same goes for string theory.
@@Amazing_MarkI disagree. The Multiverse is a *sublime*
hypothesis.
What is the difference between spooky action at a distance and tension between two points? Now let us imagine every thing, moving backwards towards the big bang, a point of infinite density and temperature and energy. Does infinite tension make sense? So does spooky action at a distance. Singularity is the point of infinite action spread out in infinite dimensions of a line. The physics of the big bang is written in the language of metaphysics of LIFE, CONSCIOUSNESS, SOUL and FAITH etc.
WTF?! 🙄
As two galaxies move apart in space time, then more space time is created?😂 if there were no distance to begin with,(1 dimension or a point) then, space/distance would be created between the next point that came from the original point. Of course it would become 2D space then. I really dont know why i bother about this kind of stuff anyway. Its way above my head.😊 im just interested.
what proceeded it (the BB), something like a huge blow up of a super duper black hole, think about how to unpack the energy held in a fractal spatialized geometry, and then think if it was near instantaneous... like the demolition man,
think about how the space would unravel.
How does a fractal, vol;umetric decompress itself, or unpack itself?
12:50 Um, you are misrepresenting Einstein's position. When he formulated general relativity he assumed a static universe, because that was what scientists believed at the time. As such he added a "fudge factor" called the cosmological constant to his equations to make his model of the universe static. But when he was shown that the universe was not static, and was expanding, he accepted it. In fact, he said that his adding the cosmological constant to his equations was the biggest blunder of his life ... something else you misrepresented him on.
Okay wait, I just finished the whole video. Essentially, it seems like you posed that the Big bang theory is the best theory we have, but at the end you posed a megiverse which is eternal and limitless..... So this takes me back to my original point, why do we assume contraction? We assume contraction because of the box you put around the galaxies in the beginning, that's an easy way to cognate visually, but I believe it's potentially inaccurate. If you take the box off, and apply the same theories walking it backwards doesn't do anything to push them towards each other. Because there's limitless space within which life can grow.
remember that the energy is stored in fractalized space at the core, one could easily rotate , but the overall geometric shape of ALL black holes could be self similar, and quite possibly, they are, because the geometric shape to store such load of energy would be like looking at different probability or orbitals, like haploid diploid division.... remember the limit cycle is or can be converted to a volume.
JDTherrien you think you know better than the scientists? Mr. Stupid. You know nothing so better shut your mouth letting people assume you are a fool, then opening your mouth taking away any doubt.
there may have been already archaic black holes from the previous epoch.
I love science, and I've always assumed that it was correct. One thing that bothers me about the Big bang theory is that it assumes contraction based off of expansion. But that only works in a limited environment. Contraction is only forced walking backwards in a limited environment. If the environment is infinite, then expansion doesn't mean contraction, but that's counterintuitive to logic. Limitless is paradoxical which is not logical. So I think science avoids it. But I think they may be assuming too much. In the science community. I agree with Einstein that the universe has always been, but It's obviously not fixed as we do see expansion between objects. This happens because life arises out of life itself. 1 out of one as equal. Since life itself seems to be electric, and electricity and magnetism are connected, I assume that this expansion is based on this. I think science is going on the wrong track with the Big bang theory. Unpopular opinion.
At 39:31 she voices this opposition to Infinity, opposition to paradox.
the first stars died like how the black hole should die...
1. “Something must ALWAYS exist OR THERE WOULD BE NOTHING (including this comment)
Why are there discussions about the ‘beginning’ of the Universe? Let’s all agree that our “Universe “ has ALWAYS EXISTED. It (in my humble opinion) is much more logical than postulating some weird pre Universe for the Universe to “come out of”. Such ‘out of’ speculation just introduces an unknown and perhaps unknowable toy for academia to puzzle over and ‘teach’ to endless hordes of student victims.
In addition, there seems to be a tendency to claim we can ‘see’ the outer edge of our Universe - are you kidding? Assuming there is 1 atom/cc just how many cc are there before the scattering and absorption of intervening atoms prevent any possible detection of 1 more atom (and or radiation source) ? Currently our Universe is apparently getting bigger as out telescopes get larger. I’m really looking forward to new Space born telescopes whose aperture size is unlimited by rocket booster capabilities!
The big bang fairy tale
Wrong on two counts. The universe neither has a beginning nor an end. It's eternal.