Leonard Susskind - How Many Universes Exist?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ธ.ค. 2015
- More than one universe? It's a ridiculous question no more. How could multiple universes be generated, and can we ever find evidence, one way or another, for their actual existence?
Click here for more interviews with Leonard Susskind bit.ly/1xAleZd
Click here for more interviews on how many universes exist bit.ly/1IqQFLm
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
The very existence of existence is truly magic…I like the quote referring to ardent materialists..”You give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest…”.
Thank God for that!
He talks as though he was there when the universes were created. Yet doesn't appear to come off as arrogant. That's skill
Hey Lucifer, I think you are describing your dad x)
At last, a guy who can explain very complicated ideas to not so complicated minds like mine. Thanks Mr Susskind.
I agree. It makes interesting stuff even more interesting
The Bible explains things pretty easy. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
That is an assertion without sufficient evidence, not an explanation. Further, it appears to be blatantly incorrect, as we now know that the Earth formed significantly later than the beginning of the universe.
The Bible requires belief without evidence, science has no such requirement.
I suspect the audio is leaking to another universe.
Correct if we were able to pick up sound from all the dimensions, it would be deafening.
The greys are doing it.
@@Tsamokie Are you sure it's not the reptilians?
@@jezebulls Aaaaaah, could be. hehehe
Einstein once said that we would never be able to confirm the existence of gravitational waves. And yet, here we are in the golden age of gravitational wave observation. I think it's short sighted to say we will never be able to view pocket universes.. we simply don't know how we're going to achieve that yet.
+Jasonejc
there is fundamental difference though, i think. Gravitational waves were predicted by his theory and seeing them was only question of technology. However, pocket universes cannot be seen in principle, because of cosmological horizon. Which means that nothing which is beyond it can be seen IN PRINCIPLE, due to causality principle (or due to the fact, that light is maximal achievable speed). So in order for us to see somehow those pocket universes predicted by our theory, we need our theory to be false.
The irony is that we used his theoretical models to invent the tools needed to prove them
The smart people are pessimistic because they understand intimately the limits of what’s possible. It’s the people who don’t know much who are unrealistically optimistic (like you and me)
Let’s create a list of all the things einstein got wrong in front of other people vs got right and same for you then wager on the probability you’re ahead of the game with Susskind 😏
Will be watching more videos from this man , more informative than most on utube.
Quick summary of this video "we really don't know anything" and the more we know and understand things the more we don't know.
Dude, these theories are so freaking abstract and out there, it's just mind boggling that there are that many POSSIBILITIES for types of universes (not universes themselves), especially after spending a while flabbergasted at the theoretical size of our objective (not observable) universe... It's insane. Then on top of that, you consider the fact that the universe is equally as small as it is large.
Possibilities but highly unlikely.
We could be living in a dream of a butterfly 🦋🤯 who knows!!!
I would like to understand 10% of the stuff Leonard does, but also, explain myself as clear as he does.
If he WERE clear you'd understand as much from him.
Leonard Susskind has a golden voice
He sounds like Richard Feynman and Andrew Tanenbaum
He speaks so much like a good college Professor.
and brain...
Róbert Vörös that's a given!! For sure..
Al Pacino comes out every once in a while. Haha.
The concept of the multiverse is so mind bogglingly vast its comforting to hide in the cupboard with a pot noodle
Consider this, you essentially are infinity itself. Beyond words or description. What would infinity do with this consideration? Whatever you do next is the answer. Pot noodles and hiding, such as May be the case.
Leonard's explanation of reaching a point where we can't verify something due to the size a collider would need to be was very interesting. It made me think of the Kardashev Scale. Type III would be needed to work with a collider as large as a galaxy. We aren't even a Type I yet. Maybe in 100 years or so we can become a Type 1.
Great video, thanks. I read somewhere that Einstein spent the last years of his life, trying to disprove his own theories, now that's science.
Stephen hawking did it best, literally proved and disproved his theories and even crazier is each time people's minds were blown. I agree you're absolutely right, that's science.
They say his mistake is that in his older years, he only did mathematics. When he was younger he also visualized a lot more. Just like James Clerk Maxwell did when he came up with his equation for electromagnetism. Even if you need math to describe it and prove, one should never underestimate the power of visualization.
@Tim Hansen Of I understand it correctly, visualisation/intuition will only take you so far, especially when it comes to the likes of quantum mechanics, because many of the characteristics are so counterintuitive - so only by using mathematics, can we describe it accurately...?
@@comanchio1976 Maybe visualizing QM is basically zen meditation.
Interesting way to say "correct his theories"
""Though Earth and moon were gone
and sons and universes ceased to be
And Thou wert left alone
every Existence would exists in thee.
There is not room for Death
Nor atom that his might could render void
Since thou art Being and Breath
And what thou art may never be destroyed".
(Emily Bronte)
Cool story, bro... nte
I think the de Vinci book is strategically placed.
No Shit
Hello Captain Obvious!!
Yes
Morons
But under it is the complete Martian Chronicles series.
In the age of "smart"phones and self-driving electric cars, there's nobody there to make the sound of this video audible. However, the ads are LOUD.
Adblock
"We are rapidly coming to the end of the possibility of doing experiments within a human lifetime." ~ Leonard Susskind
The a analogy of multiple packs of cards representing the different universes is perfect!!
Why are there multiple decks of cards??? This makes no sense! This is all aburd! An atheist making things up all to avoid the reality of God. No one knows except God! He knows for sure!
@@johnroesch2159 Thanks for saying you cannot understand the topic, without saying "I can't understand the topic!".
Very thoughtful discussion.
He's very articulate which makes it easier for people like me to understand.
*"Space is really big and has lots of stuff in it." -* Abigail Adams, aged 8.
Space has lots of stuff in it, but mostly it is just space.
Douglas Adams quote??
Coolest physicist since Einstein…
8:55 The Change in dialogue after this point greatly depresses me, not that we will somehow fail to continue our understanding of the universe, but the very real possibility that future discovery and experimentation will take 50+ years to complete (each step).
Love it.
The most fascinating thing about this, is that we are nothing else then matter arranged in a way that allows ourselves (matter itself) to ask: “What am I? Where I come from? How I came to be?” We are nothing else then a piece of universe looking back to itself, trying to understand itself. We are the stars, we are the black holes, we are the planets, the moons, the rocks, the dust, the water, the colors, the clouds, the rain, the snow… we are from the same matter then all of this, we are from all of this, we are nothing else then matter became self aware.
Nope, we are a creation of God,in his own image, the universe is so vast and big but yet God focuses on us and our little spec of dust that we consider the world. He loves us and knows us personally. The more I learn about the universe the more frightening and awesome the concept of God becomes. We are not pieces of the universe, that doesn't explain our conscious at all.
Two ways forward: yes Dr. Susskind there are two ways to explain the current theories (our understanding). But there is a third. Change the frame of how we understand the data. Like Einstein changing our understanding of electromagnetism and gravity, he expanded and fundamentally changed our perspective and thus opened a large new area of discovery and understanding. One hundred years later we seem to have reached the end of this path, much in the way physics in 1900 had played out Newton to the edge of its usefulness to describe large systems. I think the third way forward is simply to change the frame of our perspective. We need another Einstein.
9:00-10:06 The end of observation.. best comment ever..
very good interview, pleasent to watch.
No! Inflation makes more and more decks, each shuffled differently.
Yeah when he said that it hurt me cuz even I knew that analogy was wrong. Felt bad for him.
It strange when you realize that we live in a time where we have so much info at our finger tips that you do not need be an astronomer to answer the philosophical questions of space. You only need creativity.
And verifiability
You are right we have so much info at our finger tips. So why is it that some people spend most of their time posting pictures of fluffy kittens on Facebook?
@@peterhouston161 Bell curve.
@@peterhouston161 Brains full of fluff?
Very nice discussion.
6:03 I like your metaphor, he said no initially but he described exactly what you ment.
The interviewer has always been a fair minded man and I respect him as well though I cannot remember his name.
@kevin p Kohn-nell?
I think he's called Ratfaced McTurtleNeck, although I could be wrong...🤔
The interviewer looks like Bob Balaban (with a mustache). He was a character from Seinfield and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."
His name is "The Closer to Truth Guy." I actually saw him at LAX a few years ago, and almost went up and called him that, but I didn't because I was too tired and I think he was, too, so I left him alone.
Robert Lawrence Kuhn
I love these. But why is the audio always so low.
I have to reply: Math and Science Professors at this level have a reputation of being practically unhearable, and they stand directly in front of what they write on the blackboards. LOL. ( Joking as an M.S. Engineering graduate.)
turn up your volume.
Real gangsters move in silence.
morgengabe1 I think you mean ‘Real G’s move in silence like lasagna.’
Real gangstas don't quote weezy
When we value these guys more then people who can throw or catch a ball I will have faith in our species
Me too.
2019 here!
i know this vid os kindof oldish, but i cannot help thinking this:
those "analogy explanations" were used by *excellent* Ytubers (but without your level of education) so...
i was hoping for a deeper explanation
(but without the math, which i am truly having a hard time to follow)
(hate to do this-comparisons, unless i have to ( to explain in accuracy my point;)
pbs spacetime i think is at this (desired) level.
stil, a joy Doctor to see your vids and (by my autonomous nerving system a always hit like!!
:p)
keep up!!
ps:(or/and upgrade!!)
I think it is remarkable that we humans (or rather, the really, really smart ones) have reached this limit in observational evidence in our lifetimes. It seems both exhilarating and depressing at the same time. But maybe it is a signpost telling us to start looking inwards.
I love hearing intelligent people talk. man.
I loved watching Closer To Truth on WLAE TV from NOLA on Sunday mornings. Unfortunately DIRECTV has dropped this little station for our area.
Does anyone know where to buy that shirt?
Susskind is as always a joy to watch, and while I agree with most of what he has to say with regard to the idea of a multiverse, I don't think that he put enough emphasis on the limiting effects which logic has on geometry. He did touch on the idea that most other pocket universes would be sterile, but I would go much further and argue that most other pocket universes are nothing more than simple geometries of no consequence. Their physics being too limited to form complex environments. Further, their may be, and probably is only one pocket universe which is both stable and complex. I think that we probably only get one deck of cards, and while you may be able to shuffle it a lot of different ways, there is only one way which is the most logical, and only a few ways which are complex. The rest of the many possible combinations of shuffles will have few logical rules of ordering.
+Mark Garcia Logic based on what? Imagine a universe abiding a different set of physical rules, that are stable to the observers in it like we are in ours. They would observe the same about our conditions. For example, in their universe, positrons control charge densities, not electrons. This is a difficult subject to take out from the subjective. Otherwise, we would, in fact, say that other universes that don't obey our geometry or physics, is unsuitable for our perception of order. It really isn't possible to say, given our experience under such tightly constrained parameters. Parameters that would fail our existence, if they deviate their values on orders of the weak nuclear force. Our reality would simply crumble. Now, if I did not regard this, I would certainly claim that most other 'bubbles' are planes of no consequence. That is a far stretch don't you think? How is it that there was an effect to emerge that universe in the first place? A membrane event. There is always a consequence. I think that idea can be further developed given LISO's new detection. To be honest, I really don't know.
Susskind's reaction in 06:15 is epic... Just priceless... And I believe that it would be great if there were more real, useful, and relevant questions. It is better to use our time more efficiently when sitting in front of great men.
But the question was good. Because it made the guy explain it better. If two experts in the same field are talking, nobody else understands a thing.
Inflation and quantum fluctuations,with inflation being a 'flowering' of a universe,in a multiverse, and quantum fluctuations generating it's paricular form and structure,are powerful ideas to me.
what a rock star physicist.
hahahhahahahhahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAQHASHAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAA
They've got groupies too. Feynman was famous party animal.
At this point he doesn't know about the LIGO discovery, I think. I wonder if he'd be a little more sanguine. Otoh, he has a lecture in which he asserts that we might study quantum gravity on a desktop.
He's a worthy successor to Feynman.
dk6024 it’s the gravitational waves in the CMB that he is referring to in this situation. Gravitational waves in general doesn’t contradict string theory, just in the microwave background.
I suspect it is an endless amount as one collapse and big bangs, as for how many types is limited to the number of chemistry/energy/matter combinations that can be had. Like ocean waves just an endless process
What would be the point of a universe without life ?
That's an interesting question. Why does there need to be a point?
We are not at the end of observation unless we have observed our own minds.
Who is the guy interviewing Susskind?
Robert Lawrence Kuhn
How did inflation start and what did it start from?
If it started from an infinitely dense singularity then how could said singularity become less infinitely dense as would have to happen in order to inflate?
That would be an oxymoron.
It started in the 1970's, that's when the sub compact cars with hatch backs came into the scene because of the gas shortages when the middle East raised the price of petrol, I remember because I was 6 years old at the time! 🙄
God blew it up!
6:27 Infla[permuta]tion
The idea of our universe being a random bubble of a universe in a bubble bath multiverse is scary.. reality (all possible universes, dimensions) seems it could be infinitely big and infinitely small
It's more reasonable and logical too believe in God than the multiverse theory. So no, if you truly believe that then you are reaching.
@@StallionFernando Believing in god is nonsense at least logically.
@@ancyber6876 you would have a far greater chance of striking the lottery that us falling at the right distance from the sun, not too mention gravity, the moon, rotation of the earth, barriers around the world that protect us, how about water and air recycling itself with the water cycle and trees. Seems very illogical all that was pure luck, go bet you entire life's saving into the lottery and you have a better chance at winning than our creation from nothing.
@@StallionFernando Well I am a pantheist, so I believe that the multiverse is God itself. I know it's a weird position to hold but yep. I think there are universes spitting out everywhere...I think String Theory is correct. I think there are Big Bangs and Big Crunches going all over the place, even now. I think we're only in one of these universes. But, I do think that maybe the multiverse itself has a consciousness, it has decided that we should live in one particular universe at this time, it was decided that we should be alive talking to each other right now. It does want humanity to live and learn...it's like a weird Sci-Fi thing, but I think it's true. The random natural disasters that happen...I think it's all part of God...God doesn't have human morality and notions of good and evil like we do...which is why earthquakes kill Christians and you have murders and rapes and torture and stuff...because the real God doesn't care. It's like a lazy, passive, sometimes orderly (fine tuning our existence in the solar system), sometimes chaotic (black holes, supernovae) God, the infinite multiverse itself being God...hence why God has always been there and always will be there, because it's the Multiverse. Sorry if it sounds a bit farfetched.
@@ancyber6876 logically the possibility of a universe is so low that it pretty much becomes illogical. So you are wrong. It's more logical for a creator than randomness fine tuning everything perfectly right. Try again or he honest with yourself.
Susskind is also very intriguing. He did a talk on holograms that matched a theory of mine regarding the big bang and made me feel perhaps I could have it right...no big bang...just a giant doughnut shaped hologram that has motion that appears to be expanding on one side and contracting on the other.
What's that special chair Leonard's sitting in?
It is super comfortable and huge.
How did he get this piece?
Yeah, it does look awesome.
@@jc.1191 YES. How do we get a manufacturer or
supplier name to get the cost of the part?
I agree. As a species, we are in survivor mode right now. I do not expect much progress from observational experiments. Secondly, our best minds are not utilized for physicists and cosmology. Science is a small club relatively to all the new innovations for greed. Cosmology and the Anthropic Principle opened a reflection of our existence: Humans are very special, and our stellar environment is ripe for the taking. Our only competition is ourselves.
Well they told Max Planck when he was starting in physics that there was nothing left to discover...
But that's not even close to what's being said, in fact he said the opposite, that there is so much to discover, but that those things are harder and harder to demonstrate or prove with observational science, experiments span lifetimes, there's more to discover, but for many people living today, there isn't, because they simply don't have the time left to witness the results.
what if me and any friend of mine do a experiment, lets supose that i have a time machine, my friend jumps into a black hole...but i have A TIME MACHINE RIGHT?... so using my time machine i can revive my friend(he already passed the event horizont)...but he already passed the event horizont and he cannot be brought back in the same state like before jumping so...can i use my time traveling machine to bring back a man who already jumped into a black hole and passed the event horizont? wtf?
No, time ceases to exist past an event horizon. That is the theoretical understand, at least.
so thats why time machines like in the movies will never be possibe
well if you invented the time machine after he jumped in you wouldn't be able to go back to that point anyways.
what are you talking about? I think you really don't know anything about event horizons or what happens to the time coordinate as one passes the event horizon.
Anyone know where to find that shirt?
If we're using a deck of cards as the example, I would equate inflation to the difference in blackjack to the difference between double deck and a shoe (six or eight decks).
Did I get the general concept?
Wow, the nutcases are really out and about in this comment section.
Arn't they always..
always everywhere
Yes indeed here you are ...
dayummmm straittttt, gurrllll!
So atheists, God is absurd.... But unproven hypothetical infinite universes and vacuums are ok... Laughable!
With that logic there’s a near infinite pocket within the total infinity that has life on every planet.
It's illogical and has zero evidence for it. The reason for the multiverse theory is because the most logical explanation for our universe is God, physicist know that the probability of it all coming from nothing or a mere coincidence is so low that it practically doesn't exist and God is a much more logical answer. They reject God and know they can't accept it as a mere coincidence or from nothingness so they came up with the multiverse theory that doesn't really answer the God question or make it go away.
@@StallionFernando but but but who created god? Who is creator of god? Or he just magically appeared out if nowhere. How logical.
@@addhyaaj6025 He didn’t magically appeared If he needs to be created he is not the creator.Creator of everything doesn’t need a creator.You can say he appeared just by himself.
The notion of Consciousness is steeped in mystery and debate, and although it is still generally considered to be human only, there are now schools of thought emerging that believe some animals have ‘consciousness’ as well. The idea that it is an attribute unique to us as human beings arises from the fact that we have an awareness of ourselves and the world we live in, unlike most or any of the other creatures. This awareness we have forms the basis of ‘the self’.
The reason for our becoming self-conscious, or self-aware, creatures will become apparent later on, when we begin exploring the nature of being human in greater detail. But this human self-consciousness is something quite different in nature to the reality of the Consciousness that lies behind and within everything to appear as the myriad forms in existence.
Consciousness inhabits and animates creation and its creatures not unlike the power that flows through a computer to make it work in accordance with the hardware and software of the device. By this analogy, the specific physical characteristics of a creature’s body constitute the hardware, and the programming of its mind the software.
These things are important to understand because if this conceptual ground is not firm, the model we build from here will not endure, and its potential value will be lost. What all this is pointing to is that what you really are―what we all are―is an eternal, unlimited energy source capable of creating and experiencing events. What you are is this creative source, this Consciousness. Who you are is how this Consciousness works through you to express as something unique in the world.
Powerful creative Consciousness is your true and essential nature, but of course, you experience your life through the limitations of a human body, so it may not seem that you are an all-powerful being at times, or indeed ever. By its very nature, the body exists as some ‘thing’ and is, therefore, a limitation or restriction of ‘everything else possible’, to become something specific and useful―a human being. And then it must be remembered that these bodies we inhabit are a product of Mother Earth, and have developed for good reasons. Although today there are many philosophes, theories and just sheer guesses put forward to explain the purpose of our existence, none of them fully describe or satisfactorily explain the original intention for our emergence.
Some bodies born into this world have, or will develop over time, physical or mental attributes that further alter the creative opportunities and experiences available to them in a lifetime. The influence of our national culture, the general culture of our times, and the impact of our upbringing by parents and other significant people also become major influences that can place limitations on our thinking and power. Other restrictions occur as a result of the pains we might experience in life, the emotions that often get buried in the body as a result, and the accumulating limited beliefs they then give rise to. There is also the concept of ‘karmic debt’ that will limit opportunities, and this too will be discussed later in the work.
The state of your own evolved Consciousness is another factor affecting personal power. All these things limit the opportunities you have in life, and so it can be seen that although your true nature is something quite grand, you find yourself in very limiting circumstances. But it is important to keep perspective. Your essential nature is a free and unlimited Consciousness, a potential capable of eternal creation and experience. And this Consciousness was the reality before the Universe that we know emerged.
I think there is at least one universe.. just my two cents
He's right. The rate that we approach the limits to experimentation and observation shows a signficant flaw in our methods. It shows, that as Stephen Wolfram put it, our conventional axioms may not be suitable in the future. We may have to invent or 'discover' an entirely new mathematics. For example, there is no proof, observation or reproduction of inflation over the scale of an entire universe. Anisotropy could simply be fooling us. But, because the mathematics we invented are so consistent and successful, we have accepted it at large. Now we are finding galaxies and stars, that, based on our science, 'should not exist'. Now I find that very silly for us to say. We'll get it right one of these days, in the very far, unforseeable future. New generations will look back on us, like we look back on the heliocentric model. Good luck, humans.
there won't be any more generations
Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean we should stop thinking about these foundational, motivational, existential questions. I love it. It is what drives me to study physics.
Study the bible, it's more secrets in it that God would like to show you Himself. More exciting too.
Khalil Parkinson *cough cough* BULLSHIT *cough cough*
Just remember not to wear linen and wool together! (Leviticus 19:19?, Deuteronomy also).
+CloserToTruth1 Any good book that discusses string theory both in a detailed mathematical way and also good in writing? I' not looking for a bad written book that only the author can understand
Wow loved this
I hope I'm as smart as him in some other univerce
I hope you are too because you can't even spell "universe" correctly.
According to him, you are
@@esra_erimez Universal spelling varies.
This comment section is horrible for a good video
There are many, genuine web sites available for intellectual discusion. TH-cam ain't one of them. Good video though.
We are basically at the limit then based on current observational limits, we can't really observe further, so we need to start thinking out of the box.
woaah... totally amazed ! much needed ! it was a boost
mind blowing . not just 10^500 universes out there ...10^500 different catergories of universes each repeated over and over. sheesh.
The word universe is a problem since that should cover everything that exists in nature, not just our little part.
As if we weren't insignificant enough
It seems like we are blind mice in a dark room banging into walls trying to figure out where we are and the nature of our cage.
Or ignoring the big questions because the answers are now too technical, and just getting on with our lives as best we can. I did a degree in philosophy including mathematical logic and the latter suits me much better.
George Stone Yeah,I know the feeling,that happens to me too-but it's only when I fail to leave straight after my 5th pint!
Poetry really.. that is a perfect description 👌
Yes. Just as in the Twilight Zone episode "Five Characters in Search of an Exit"
The question is .. multiverses is fine.. these exist but how does this affect my life and how about death? We should explore the outer world as our consciousness questions it but what about the consciousness itself? When I die physically how do my 'I' survive it???
Robert Lawrence Kuhn's questions are so smart, I half suspect that he already knows the answers to them!
i can confirm with no hesitation there is at least one
I can confirm there's at least 2, yours and mine...
I didn’t know that John Malkovich had a hobby interest in String Theory.
I watched another video which mentioned even our solar system is atypical. Star systems and planets discovered so far are most likely different from ours. But it might due to measurement bias as caused by the limitations of current technology.
I think everything has a reason or purpose. I've never seen anything that didn't. So all those stars and planets aren't just there to be there. Also I think we are so far apart from other planets so we can never get there. We have a hard enough time dealing with ourselves, much less another whole world.
When one universe isn't enough.
Bet you can't inflate just one.
No? I'll see myself out.
This guy is kinda sus, you can even say he is of the Susskind
Süss = sweet, Kind = child. Süsskind = sweet child. Basic German. Strange name.
So, we are a pocket universe within the the QCs Universe. 10 to the 500 is the string theory tally of how many ways there are to combine strings.
In English Universe means ONE! any and all dimensions, wormholes, black-holes etc are aspects of the One Universe!
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave!
Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles,
and our experience-able Universe.
Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness".
Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely.
We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment.
Our job is to make it interesting!
This isnt science its philosophy
Personally, I would keep the interviewer's face off-screen as much as possible. I'm not sure why, but I find it highly distracting.
I have always belived life is rare in our universe , never mind intelligent life, or life that is self aware, i.e., aware it's alive.. It is discussed here as being possibly rare and I agree.
It suits your ego.
What is the design on his t-shirt?
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. - Nikola Tesla
Sounds like Scientology.
To be fair, Tesla was proven wrong in that case.
Sounds like many a physicist actually. We know the models are not telling us the actual nature which is why new models are worked on all the time.
psyeffect you are absolutely right
the math is good
Man, this interviewer is a parody of pretension.
I don't understand why anyone would think information is lost inside a black hole. From anyone's perspective outside the event horizon of a black hole, nothing ever goes inside a black hole. It just freezes on the boundary of the black hole. So information would always be accessible from outside the black hole. And from the perspective of a person going past the event horizon then information is also accessible. So what's the mystery?
Hi ,
A particle moving in a transmission medium.
Kinetic energy of a particle ( charge) moving at the velocity of v has two different values:
Kinetic energy of a particle ( charge)
Tkin id =mc^2 [ln |1-v/c|+ (v/c) / (1-v/c) ] in direction of motion of a particle ( charge)
It is realy as Newton´s kinetic energy,
where v is velocity of a particle ( charge) .
Kinetic energy of a particle ( charge) Tkin ad = mc^2 [ln |1+v/c|- (v/c) / (1+v/c) ] against direction of motion of a particle ( charge)
It is realy as Maxwell´s electromagnetic wave energy,
where v is velocity of a particle ( charge).
Corrected Third Newton's law of motion :
All movements in physics are based on principle of action - reaction and on velocity of stable particles ( e-, p+,n0, D, He-3, α ).
Action, as a motion of stable charged particles ( e-, p+,n0, D, He-3, α ), is characterized speeds up in source along ellipse or quasi- elipse ( excentricity e -> 0 ).
Action creates unstable particles ( leptons μ−, τ−, baryons, mesons ), bosons W +, W-, Z (= particles = β electrons moving at nearly the speed of light )in direction of motion of stable particles ( e-, p+,n0, D, He-3, alfa ).
Reaction creates into transmission medium, the electromagnetic waves, as unstable “particles” - neutrínos νe, νμ, ντ , mesons π0, π+ , π- , η , K and gamma rays (=waves of extremely high frequency >1019 Hz ) - against direction of motion of stable particles ( e-, p+,n0, D, He-3, alfa ).
Accompanying activity of reaction on movement of stable particles in the transmission medium are waves, or “unstable particles“ respectively , i.e. neutrinos and mesons.
vixra.org/author/lubomir_vlcek
Extraordinary proofs:
vixra.org/pdf/1506.0207v1.pdf
New Trends in Physics CD Rom /book, Elementes Pictures, Spheres in Nuclei, Forecasted Nuclei
vixra.org/pdf/1504.0082v1.pdf
One Blink of Electron is the Basis Amount of Kinetic Energy 6.62606957x10-34 Js
vixra.org/pdf/1503.0056v1.pdf
Confirmation of the Theory Under Discussion Wave-Particle Duality as Kinetic Energy Against and in Direction of Motion in Discussion Group Theoretical Physics !!!! Eureka !!!!
vixra.org/pdf/1502.0184v1.pdf
Einstein's Theory of Relativity Can not Explain ...
vixra.org/pdf/1501.0199v1.pdf
Corrected Newton´s Laws of Motion
vixra.org/pdf/1501.0198v1.pdf
Principles for the Theory and Its Agreement with Experiment
vixra.org/pdf/1501.0197v1.pdf
Wave - Particle Duality as Kinetic Energy Against and In Direction of Motion.
vixra.org/pdf/1412.0131v1.pdf
Improvement of Classical Physics
vixra.org/pdf/1412.0125v1.pdf
Kinetic Energy According to Einstein and According the Latest Knowledge
vixra.org/pdf/1411.0533v1.pdf
Form of Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field is Asymmetrical.
vixra.org/pdf/1411.0531v1.pdf
Form of the Interference Field is Non-Linear
vixra.org/pdf/1411.0530v1.pdf
Kinetic Energy of a Charge Moving at the Velocity of V Has Two Different Values
vixra.org/pdf/1409.0090v1.pdf
Three Objections to Modern Physics
vixra.org/pdf/1408.0185v1.pdf
Protons Are Perfectly Stable or Their Lifetime is Enormous
vixra.org/pdf/1408.0133v1.pdf
Please Read my Articles in More Detail.
vixra.org/pdf/1405.0355v1.pdf
Movement Principles of Ufo
vixra.org/pdf/1405.0334v1.pdf
Kinetic Energy
vixra.org/pdf/1405.0308v1.pdf
Who is Right?
vixra.org/pdf/1405.0307v1.pdf
What is Quark?
vixra.org/pdf/1405.0237v1.pdf
L.vlcek Vixra, Getcited, Book, CD, Conferences 14.5.2014
vixra.org/pdf/1404.0471v1.pdf
Superheavy Spherical Nuclei. Island of Stability
vixra.org/pdf/1404.0369v1.pdf
Neutrino Oscillations
vixra.org/pdf/1404.0279v1.pdf
Physics is Easy
vixra.org/pdf/1404.0273v1.pdf
Particles, Waves and Trends in Physics
vixra.org/pdf/1404.0268v1.pdf
Physics is Beautiful
vixra.org/pdf/1404.0261v1.pdf
Introduction to my Two Articles Physics is Easy and Physics is Beautiful
vixra.org/pdf/1404.0253v1.pdf
Orbit Radius and Speed of the Sun Around the Center of Gravity of the Solar System
vixra.org/pdf/1404.0248v1.pdf
Spectral line Hα
vixra.org/pdf/1404.0246v1.pdf
Shortened Great Table of Elementary Particles
vixra.org/pdf/1404.0243v1.pdf
Great Table of Elementary Particles
vixra.org/pdf/1404.0238v1.pdf
Movement Principles of the Fast-Spinning Bodies
vixra.org/pdf/1404.0130v1.pdf
Nuclear Fusion
Critical examination of fundamentals in physics
www.trendsinphysics.info/
academia.edu
tuke.academia.edu/LubomirVlcek
L. Vlcek, : New Trends in Physics, Slovak Academic Press, Bratislava 1996,
ISBN 80-85665-64-6.
Presentation on European Phys. Soc. 10th Gen. Conf. - Trends in Physics ( EPS 10) Sevilla ,
E 9. -13 September 1996,
www.trendsinphysics.info/
vixra.org/pdf/1502.0184v1.pdf
Einstein's theory of relativity can not explain ...
Abstract
1. Movement principles of the fast-spinning pulsars, (vixra.org/pdf/1404.0238v1.pdf
Movement Principles of the Fast-Spinning Bodies )
2. Nuclear Fusion , ( vixra.org/pdf/1404.0130v1.pdf )
3. Wave - Particle Duality as Kinetic Energy Against and In Direction of Motion
4. the 4th Maxwell's equation, (2.38) in www.trendsinphysics.info/kniha/2-1.html#2-1-3
5. Lorentz equals without the help of Space-Time,
(2.23) - (2.27) in www.trendsinphysics.info/kniha/2-1.html#2-1-3
6.Confinement of quarks (vixra.org/pdf/1405.0307v1.pdf What is Quark? )
7. Great Table of Elementary Particles ( vixra.org/pdf/1404.0243v1.pdf )
8. Spectral line Hα ( vixra.org/pdf/1404.0248v1.pdf ň
9. Neutrino Oscillations ( vixra.org/pdf/1404.0369v1.pdf )
10. Form of the interference field must be non-linear. ( vixra.org/pdf/1411.0531v1.pdf )
11.Form of Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field must be asymmetrical.
( vixra.org/pdf/1411.0533v1.pdf )
12.Kinetic energy of a charge moving at the velocity of v has two different values:
Kinetic energy against direction of motion as wave Tkin ad = mc2 [ln |1+v/c|- (v/c)/(1+v/c)]
Kinetic energy in direction of motion as particle Tkin id = mc2 [ln|1-v/c|+ (v/c)/(1-v/c)]
( vixra.org/pdf/1411.0530v1.pdf , vixra.org/pdf/1405.0334v1.pdf , vixra.org/pdf/1409.0090v1.pdf Three Objections to Modern Physics )
13. Yukawa potential
1905 A.E. : Einstein ´s theory Tkin =mc^2 - mo c^2
1996: Tkin id =mc^2 [ln |1-v/c|+ (v/c) / (1-v/c) ]
Tkin ad = mc^2 [ln |1+v/c|- (v/c) / (1+v/c) ]
Einstein's theory works for v < 0.1c.
v/c.......Tkin ad .................Tkin id ...............Tkin (A.E.)
0.1..... 0.00439 mc^2...0.0057 mc^2....0.0050 mo c^2
0.2.....0.0156 mc^2.....0.0268 mc^2......0.0200 mo c^2
0.3.....0.0316 mc^2.....0.0719 mc^2......0.0480 mo c^2
0.4.....0.0508 mc^2.....0.1558 mc^2......0.0910 mo c^2
0.5.....0.0722 mc^2.....0.3068 mc^2......0.1550 mo c^2
0.6.....0.0950 mc^2.....0.5837 mc^2......0.2500 mo c^2
0.7.....0.1174 mc^2.....1.1293 mc^2.......0.4010 mo c^2
0.8.....0.1434 mc^2.....2.3905 mc^2......0.6670 mo c^2
0.9.....0.1680 mc^2.....6.6974 mc^2......1.2930 mo c^2
0.99...0.1906 mc^2....94.3948 m^c2.....6.9200 mo c^2
1……....0.1931 mc^2..........infinite....................infinite
www.trendsinphysics.info/
Why relativity works in some cases and fails in others ?
Like Newton's theory works for small speeds v
You should not be so flamboyant and bold and as to advertise your submissions of papers to the catalogue of VIXRA. It may impress those who don't know, but those who do know vixra, know it to be a catalogue for kooks, weirdos and charlatans who promote things like 'an electric universe' and other anti-science nonsense. After you say 'Hi' then the next 4 lines, then you introduce 'Tkin id'. What does this represent ? If you want to do Maths for the public, then you should at least define your terminology.
Graeme J2,
Read, read, read!
Do not be lazy!
Please!
New-Trends-in-Physics-Extraordinary-proofs.
biocoreopen.org/ijnme/New-Trends-in-Physics-Extraordinary-proofs.pdf
In string theory Is there possible in those ‘cards’ a probability of a bubble universe which doesn’t/didn’t/wouldn’t ever expand? Okay then why doesn’t it just suck in all them other bubbles of universes?
If we measure the classical electric field around a single electron, how far does it extend? So it can go to some limit of the Universe that resembles the horizon of a Black Hole, and can appear that it can never go through. But just like in the case of the BH, the interior information is connected to the exterior, so in case of some multiple universes they must be connected. And according to QM, the Universes should be correlated like in quantum entanglement. These would make up a single big universe. But with all these bubbles we go back to where we started. The bubbles may be contained in another big bubble, and so on. To me it looks like the conditions for life happened as the universe aged, because initially it could support life, and in the future it won't support it neither.
it extends to any distance less than infinity...
So much for Occam's Razor (if that even applies to this)
How do they define universe?
It really doesn't matter anyway,we will never truly know and we can only live and focus on one at a time so just be thankful and live in this one right here right now and don't bother yourself worrying over silly and trivial stuff like what brand of shampoo faeries wash their hair with!
Did you know that there is no inherent illumination or luminosity in photons? “Light,” as such, cannot be found there. Photons are, perhaps, ‘packets’ of energy which have the properties of both spread-out waves and localized particles. Photons only take on the appearance of being luminous as they arise within consciousness, in our mind’s eye. It may be that photons are spread-out energy potentials that fill the immensity of space, and only take on the appearance of being a localized discrete particle of “light” when we become aware of them in consciousness, in this actualized awareness we call mind. Thus, you are the light of the kosmos. This “light” is only arising in us. The world outside of a mind is perfectly ‘dark,’ or empty, unactualized in any way. Of course, what else could it be? What would perceive it as illuminated, or as any “thing”?
All of our thoughts are the activity of consciousness, modulations of that consciousness, incarnations within that pure consciousness, rays shining from inside that consciousness. We are agents of that consciousness, emerging from within that consciousness. All there is to experience is the knowing of it, and that knowing is God’s own Self in us, living in us, the source of our life, the energy of consciousness itself.
We could say that God lives in us, since consciousness seems to have become localized in this particular body-mind. Or we could say that we live in God, since all that we perceive arises in that consciousness, including our body-mind. Thus, Jesus was right to say, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (John 14:10-11, 20). Both are true, and they are true of us as well. We are arising within God, and God is arising within us as well. Sometimes this is called “mutual indwelling,” the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father, also called perichoresis or co-inherence in Christian terminology.
God is the field of consciousness in which all knowing occurs, in which all thoughts and perceptions and feelings and sensations arise, like waves in the ocean. Our body-mind and its thoughts are like localizations within that consciousness, temporary manifestations of that Ultimate Reality, expressions of that consciousness, that being, that One.
God becomes veiled and hidden from our awareness when the thoughts that arise in and from consciousness believe they are something separate and discrete from the consciousness in which they are arising. The thoughts form a separate entity, a dualistic subjective ego, a separate self identity, an independent being, an “Adam/Eve,” which thinks it is apart from infinite nondual divine consciousness and Ultimate Reality. This seems to be the “Fall,” the beginning of duality and separateness and alienation from God’s Presence.
But how could thoughts be separate from the consciousness in which they have arisen? They can’t, but that is exactly what our thoughts and our self-identification with them think they are. It is a kind of psychological illusion. The thoughts take on their own separate identity apart from pure nondual consciousness, forming a self, a person, an entity, seemingly cut off from its own source and essence.
Once we look at it like this, it seems impossible, and that is because it is. Our ‘self’ is never actually separate from the source in which it arises, thoughts are never separate from the consciousness in which they emerge, the wave is not separate from the ocean. The thoughts that make up our ‘self’ are just finite actualizations or relative localizations of the infinite potential of absolute consciousness, or Divine Being, or Ultimate Reality. In Christian symbolism we call this the incarnation of God. In Buddhism it is the Dharmakaya that incarnates as the Nirmanakaya Buddha. In Hinduism it is Brahman that manifests itself as each Atman. God becomes incarnate in reality, in the flesh, embodied, in us and all things.
There is no time, no space, nowhere we can go, nowhere we can be, that will be outside of this Presence of God, outside of this consciousness, beyond the borders of God, or the Ultimate Reality. God is always present, and is Presence itself, awareness itself, consciousness itself, the “spirit of life” within us, from which we derive all being, all knowing, all our substance, every thought, every sensation. It all arises in God. This is perhaps why, in order to pierce the veil and know God directly, contemplative practices such as meditation help train us to transcend thought, to go back to the source of thought itself, beyond all thoughts of self, to recognize that from which it all arises, this pure open vastness of nondual unitive at-one consciousness.
Do you see why we cannot “think” God? Nothing that arises in consciousness as a thought will be that consciousness in which it is arising. No relative finite manifestation in consciousness can be the absolute pure infinite consciousness, even though every manifestation or relativization or actualization of that consciousness is made up of nothing other than that consciousness. God is Present even while we are trying to comprehend God, even in the midst of that very comprehension. God is what makes that attempt at comprehension even possible. God is the very field in which we are trying to know God. When we let go of the trying, the conceptualization, surrendering the thoughts that are trying to know themselves, and rest in the pure still silent open awareness of being, that is when the realization of God may dawn on us, as us.
We try to use something that is finite to define the infinite?
Does anyone have any observable evidence, and I mean anything to matter how small, to support the idea they were multiple universes? If we can prove there are multiple universities, what would we do with that knowledge? Isn’t that kind of like saying all pigs can fly but only when we’re not looking?
I don't believe anything is truly random. Unpredictable? Of course. I believe the arguments about random in electrons and other particles has more to do with the way we model these components than any true inherent randomness. And without randomness, the idea of generating new universes falls apart.
Let's start here.
In the beginning, that which Is is all there was, and there was nothing else.
So in the beginning, that which Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. Yet All That Is could not know itself - because All That Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. And so, All That Is...was not. For in the absence of something else, All That Is, is not.
This is the great Is/Not Is to which mystics have referred from the beginning of time.
Now All That Is knew it was all there was - but this was not enough, for it could only know its utter magnificence conceptually, not experiencially. Yet the experience of itself is that for which it longed, for it wanted to know what it felt like to be so magnificent. Still, this was impossible, because the very term "magnificent" is a relative term. All That Is could not know what it felt like to be magnificent unless that which is not showed up. In the absence of that which is not, that which IS, is not. Do you understand this?
The one thing that All That Is knew is that there was nothing else. And so it could, and would, never know Itself from a reference point outside of Itself. Such a point did not exist. Only one reference point existed, and that was the single place within. The "Is-Not Is." The Am-Not Am.
Still, the All of Everything chose to know Itself experiencially.
This energy - this pure, unseen, unheard, unobserved, and therefore unknown-by-anyone-else energy - chose to experience Itself as the utter magnificence It was. In order to do this, It realized It would have to use a reference point within.
It reasoned, quite correctly, that any portion of Itself would necessarily have to be less than the whole, and that if it thus simply divided Itself - becoming, in one glorious moment, that which is this, and that which is that. For the first time, this and that existed, quite apart from each other. And still, both existed simultaneously. As did all that was neither.
Thus, three elements suddenly existed: that which is here. That which is there. And that which is neither here nor there - but which must exist for here and there to exist.
It is the nothing which holds the everything. It is the non-space which holds the space. It is the all which holds the parts.
Now this nothing which holds the everything is what some people call God. Yet that is not accurate, either, for it suggests that there is something God is not - namely, everything that is not "nothing." But I Am All Things - seen and unseen - so this description of Me as the Great Unseen - the No-Thing, or Space Between, an essentially Eastern mystical definition of God, is no more accurate than the essentially Western practical description of God as all that is seen. Those who believe that God is All That Is and All That Is Not, are those whose understanding is correct.
Now in creating that which is "here" and that which is "there," God made it possible for God to know Itself. In the moment of this explosion from within, God created 'relativity' - the greatest gift God ever gave to Itself. Thus, relationship is the greatest gift God ever gave to you, a point to be discussed in detail later.