"we are like a single molecule in a single cell in a whale's body trying to describe the whale" My geology professor explaining to me what "Science" is, 1973 (yes we might have been stoned)
@@gavine3977 EXACTLY! Doesn't matter to science how hard it is...the attitude being it might take a long time, but we're gonna keep doing it. Science has changed mankind and the world because we don't give up
@Rudolf Hillard we did consider the back of the turtle scenario as told by the Iroquois and didn't rule it out, but that wouldn't change the process of science😅
Way easier to listen to him than Neil Degrass Tyson. For some reason Tyson bugs me, I find he can be condescending or smug or something. Brian Cox just comes across as a guy who loves his job and loves breaking it down for us laymen who can't grasp all the maths but love the concepts.
I think this is the first time I have actually heard a narrative express the opinion on wanting to understand how the universe was started, implying that the universe had a start. What was there for all that eternity before its start, before the big bang? This concept is more mind boggling! Only humans have a start and finish concept, birth to death, start to end of work, finite time in house or job, so I suspect having something that has an infinity or eternity concept is much harder to fathom for the human mind and therefore easier or feels more comfortable to dismiss such a concept! Yet this is the most plausible of all theories or constructs, a concept or model of the universe as having no beginning and end, no-one entity to turn on the switch to get it going and no need to know who made the fire lighter. Civilisations come and go, the earth, solar system or even the milky way galaxy might need to have a beginning but the universe certainly does not.
@@captain_context9991 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...because we have a yearning to know how things are made and work and the early writers deemed this necessity and essential to the narrative. To use this construct in the first reference was to give a meaning to the question. The second is a reference to man and is a completely different context, narration and not related. Today we can make man in our image so the second reference to making man "...in our image..." is no different, we only need to accept an intelligent entity a hundred thousand years ago that could do that and I am happy to settle on the Annunaki (or another!) for now. For the universe, this is a different matter. Firstly it means total or all of, and if it was to be created would need a creation prior to its existence, a chicken and egg process that is unnecessary. This, The universe includes the physical and meta-physical, includes an existence far beyond the scope of matter, includes dark matter and energy, includes the life forces and governing structures of how it all works and how matter and life is allowed to form into and within galaxies and solar systems we see in the physical. We can understand in today's technology, the quantum leap in understanding from an informed Neanderthal to man of our times, but for the last several millennia, there are those among us who believe they must assert a finite control and limit over our understanding of the infinite vastness and beauty of the physical and meta-physical boundless planes of existence. Grasp an exponential expression raised to the power of infinity, this is the expanse of our evolving, non-cyclic universe and it will be the one story of man that has no ending.
@@captain_context9991 Welcome to the real world Capt'n... The universe has a physical and meta-physical component...hmmm the red pill might have been too much!
@@captain_context9991 Yes, Hitchhiker! If you want to see some meta-physical stuff, look into a mirror. This is digressing, the universe has always been, something that encompasses everything if infinite and forever. The H-shift was over-calculated to fit a model of a beginning because that is what human minds are comfortable with, especially scientists.
Except they can rewind the clock to the Planck time. That would imply a start. The “end” may be the big chill or eternal heat death, but why should it? That is the discussion.
@@richardrobertson1886 Again this is applying our known finite understanding and function to the universe which operates in a much more macro and infinite function...any start and end is a man-made construct and not a good model to use at the universe level which has no known boundaries in space or time. I am for cyclic galaxies across the infinite and limitless universe.
I'm a complete leyman, my education ended in high school but in later life (50 now) I have become fascinated by science. These videos are so enjoyable and create more questions than answers. What if the creation of dark energy and/or matter directly relate to black holes? Is it a coincidence that we cannot perceive black holes and therefore what happens beyond the event horizon and the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Could they be linked? Could black holes be drawing in 'real' matter and energy, then spewing out dark matter and energy and this is why we see the visible universe increasingly expanding?
"And what's outside that & what's outside that?" can be an argument in perpetual loop but suggesting only one 13.7 billion year old universe exists, is like saying we are the only living planet in an infinite cosmos, which is very silly... unless we're in a sim :/
The sheet merger mentioned at 5:20 is what I think actually happened. If spacetime is akin to fabric, then it makes sense that these "sheets" are independent from each other. This would account for the multiple dimensions that we can't see but are certain exist.
Went I was younger I was part of a religious cult and spent a lot of time trying to figure what if anything made sense anymore. I started thinking about the universe how did it get here. Is it the only one maybe there infinite number of universes and infinite means anything that can happen will and dose happen over and over well for infinite pretty mind blowing concept I was 16 at the time. I was a confused angry teen who no clue what made sense anymore what was right or wrong or how I should live.
I love studying metaphysics, and there was this post that kind of just broke my brain for a while that involved the multiverse hypothesis. I can't remember the quote they used, but it was along the lines of 'an artist births a new universe into existence similar to our own when they create art.' This person purposed the idea that it's actually the opposite; the artist is in a state of being that allows them to observe a similar universe to our own, and are creating art of what their mind has observed. So, by that logic, every painting, sculpture, book, movie, video game, and anything else considered art could potentially be a representation of another universe. Which, is both awesome to think about, but also absolutely terrifying.
Have you ever made art? Or anything what you referred to? It’s not the artist channeling another dimension…. It’s a result of our brain, and the ability to create abstract art. You can argue the subject creating said art had inspiration, or wanting to capture the essence of something. But they’re not getting information from an alternate universe brother!
@@ManorexicPanda I wasn't trying to speak in absolutes with my comment. It was a thought proposed blending the idea of the multiverse and art, not a definitive answer as to why people create art. After all, metaphysics, along with most branches of philosophy, delves into trying to understand the nature of reality itself, but at the end of the day it's still philosophy. And the main purpose to philosophy is to think.
@@L3N0R4L4N3 Look it's not your fault, but this kind of wishy washy "multiverse hypothesis" elicits that kind of reasoning. Especially when it's getting popularised by science communicators while the actual theoretical scientists find the multiverse idea mostly fallacious (which it is). It basically comes down to the Inverse Gambler's Fallacy but that's not all that is problematic with the mainstream view and approach of multiple multiverse theories/hypotheses'. Not to say that the line of thinking is entirely without merit but it's far from fleshed out enough to be presented to the public as fact or even possibility. To be clear I'm only talking about the finely tuned argument and the many worlds interpretations.
@@brakgeluid I guess you're right, but I thought it was kind of obvious I wasn't stating it as a 100% reason behind art. Honestly, I mainly left my comment because I thought it was kind of funny. My first thought with that idea was 'what if all that fan art of Doom and Animal Crossing is reality in some alternate universe?' But, you are 100% right on the idea of the multiverse not being as fleshed out as it should, though. It isn't something that is fully understood, if it even is a real possibility.
*_1_* Science goes by facts, logic, and evidence. *_2_* Arguments for the multiverse hypothesis: cosmic inflation, math constants, the observable universe Arguments against the multiverse hypothesis: falsifiability, Occam’s razor, no evidence *_3_* We see the observable universe; let’s keep finding more about it. We live on Mother Earth; let’s love her and take care of her by not destroying her for profit. We might reincarnate many times in many lives; let’s live our present life with fullness in the present moment. *_4_* Without *_love_* life is meaningless. 💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌
Brian a correction: 3:16 'This is no longer speculative'. Until there is evidence it is speculative. There is no evidence. Mathematics and Philosophy are not evidence.
no longer *just* speculative. he literally explains: there is science you can do. mathematics when involved in physics like this is evidence. so so many things have been predicted or discovered using maths. neptune was theorised using mathematics until they discovered it.
I started working on this idea after considering the curious physics involved in Season 4 of Stranger Things (don't sue me, is it worse inspiration than an apple? 😄) One question. Is the amount of Dark Matter in the universe stable, or is it increasing over time? The former makes sense, because matter can neither be created or destroyed, but does this hold for Dark Matter? The implications of a no here and that it is actually increasing in volume over time might actually support a multiverse theory, if you consider that instead of new universes separating like a cell, a universe with a certain frequency births 2 universes of slightly different frequencies, but they remain in the same location (kind of). What do you need in order to create a parallel universe? Anything with a Higgs-Boson! This primarily means anything within a galaxy, galaxy cluster etc. which is also where we see the largest amounts of Dark Matter, albeit mostly in a halo around the galaxies. What if Dark Matter WAS the proof of the multiverse? What if Dark Matter is simply the gravitational bleed through from other universes, forced out of position by the Higgs-Boson's in our own Universe? (I've scraped that part together to explain the location of Dark Matter, and it's a stretch, I know) If that was the case, and new universes were being created all the time, then A) we should see the amount of DM increasing over times, (hopefully in pulses) and B) The ratio of DM to M should be consistent from one galaxy to the next. A fun consequence of this may be that whilst there is the possibility of 2 identical universes, or more, they would be overlapped, so essentially there would still be only one. But what would happen if one of those actually had a different origin to another? What if there was one single difference between the two that, once resolved, allowed the two universes to merge? This may be the source of The Mandela Effect! (or someone just passed on some bad info that no-one checked for a while) Hey, Stranger Things only wrapped up a few weeks ago, so don't lynch me, but any thoughts?
I believe light has the highest speed in our universe. But in some another universe, there is some completely another element that has the highest speed and that is not visible to us. Only gravity in all universes can be constant. And somehow I have a counter intuitive idea that twin paradox is wrong.
How is it possible that there is a universe with slightly different laws of physics could have every event throughout history occur exactly the same way culminating in a twin of yourself at all. The theory contradicts itself.
What happens when it all ends? Like literally nothing exists anymore. Could it then happen all over again? So i mean could space and everything ever totally end?
I still want to know how much gravitational pull a black hole actually has at the event horizon. Obviously light can’t escape but I’m curious if you had an infinitely strong cable could you lower something in, past the event horizon, and then back out again
Theoretical, it would be crushed into subatomic particles, as I understand it. Time also slows at the event horizon, so it's debatable as to if it could even be put in from your perspective.
I imagine it wouldn’t because the black hole will disassemble the object being lowered as the rope itself at a subatomic level. The gravity itself will rip apart anything that has the misfortune of falling below the horizon.
Let's accept that your cable is infinitely strong so that you could lower it into a black hole without it breaking. Once it traverses the event horizon it will be physically impossible to pull it out because of the warping of spacetime. Your cable will appear to stretch en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification and fade to a dim red en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift as it irretrievably enters the event horizon.
@@noahf.3122 I agree with the first part but red shift generally occurs with photons or energy nothing to do with a physical object. But spaghettification I definitely agree with as it is a natural order in the process of falling into a black hole. Warping of space time I’m not sure about as for the reason for not pulling an object out of black hole. I concede there is definitely a warp in time. it’s interesting to think of the object your pulling is no longer in your realm of space time 🤔
@@SkyprinceVII Excellent thoughts! In fact, your objections relate to each other. By Einstein's theory of general relativity, an object with mass "warps" or "stretches" both space and time to create what we experience as gravity. This stretching of spacetime is so strong near a black hole that photons passing by experience gravitational redshift en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift. Next, we observe objects only by observing the light (photons) that scatters off of them. Assume we are watching the cable at a safe distance from the black hole. Light that scatters off of the cable at the section near the event horizon would experience gravitational redshift as it travels toward us. Thus, to a distance observer, the cable appears more red the closer it is to the event horizon.
or we are looking for something that doesn't exist. ... the universe is all of space and time but ... I would like you to define it better then ... provide three examples.
Just the realm of the light spectrum and what tiny portion we can see of that! Now about the things we hear, smell, taste, and "feel", and those things that we are yet to recognize in this skin we are in. That is, if we are here at all.
@@chinookvalley We can only hear part of the sound spectrum, like light. Our brains only use up to10% of it's potential. Smell, taste and even touch can be blocked or heightened. It's amazing that we know very little of our flesh cell or universe.
Another aspect of this was addressed by Dr. Stephen Meyer in his book, Return of the God Hypothesis. In Chapter 16, he points out that an inflationary-string multiverse (the only kind that skeptics can posit to seemingly account for the fine-tuning of our universe) - this multiverse itself must be extremely fine-tuned (in its universe-generating mechanism) in order to exist and to produce multiple universes, which are necessary in order to seemingly account for OUR universe’s fine-tuning as if it arose by random chance. However, this won’t work because the multiverse itself requires extreme fine-tuning to begin its production of universes! Therefore, whether it’s to account for the fine-tuning of our universe (Meyer, Chapters 7, 8, & 13) OR to account for the fine-tuning of a feasible multiverse (that could hypothetically account for the fine-tuning of our universe), an intelligent Fine-Tuner or Designer of at least one universe, and possibly of a multiverse, must exist! (Meyer, Chapter 16) In essence, a Creator God must exist; there are no realistic alternatives, as long as we precisely follow the details of this evidence. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to NOT follow the evidence where it leads, in terms of its details. This is one of several reasons why I, a former atheist, am now a believer in the Christian God, which makes the most sense considering all forms of evidence.
(9:45) *ST: **_"Multiverse defenders however contend that the description of the observable universe as one part of a multiverse can be much simpler than the description of the observable universe as the only universe."_* ... That is not a logical statement. If that were the case, then the description of a multi-multiverse (a multiverse of multiverses) would be even simpler. Likewise, a multi-multi-multiverse (a multiverse of multiple multi-multiverses) would be even simpler than all of the other descriptions. This type of thinking succumbs to infinite regression! At the end of the day, a *"single universe"* is logical, empirical, and by far the simplest description.
brilliant and enlightening if the whole world watched these videos it would be a better place. Always on the hunt for intelligent life...? this is where you find it!
Each of us A cell of awareness Imperfect and incomplete Genetic blends With uncertain ends on a fortune heart that's far too fleet - "Freewill" Neil Peart from Rush (RIP)
There is nothing strange about single photons creating a wave interference pattern. By definition a wave does not have a single position in spacetime. Wave/particle duality is a property of every single particle in the universe. The real question is, Why do particles exist at all? What causes particles to manifest from the quantum field, and once manifested what causes particles to remain stable. Each and every particle with mass holds a very large amount of energy. What exactly are magnetic fields? What exactly are electric fields? Why do magnetic and electric fields manifest as forces between charged particles? How exactly does the strong force overcome the protons electric positive charge of repulsion, but then the strong force is not so strong to fuse protons into a quark plasma? Quantum by definition means bits. The mathematics of continuous functions by definition CANNOT be used to explain or define discrete quantum bits. Just as the pressure in a gas is only explained as a statistical property, quantum properties can only be described by our mathematical continuous functions as probabilities. Fluctuations in the electromagnetic and quantum fields can be described by mathematical continuous wave equations, BUT there is no mathematics that describes discrete quantum bits. What exists between the quantum bits? To then jump to absurd conclusions such as, many worlds infinitely created, multiple states existing simultaneously, bound states of independent particles, simply shows how inadequate is our mathematics of continuous functions when it comes to describing the quantum.
We can only observe what we are a vibrational match to, therefore if our observation is limited, so are our current conclusions. "Luminous Beings are We : not this dense Matter". - Yoda to Luke during Jedi Training
There's always another question. In this case, what's outside the multiverse? Did they have a beginning and do they end? Is there a link between them, if so, what? Do they exist independent of each other?
Does the multiverse theory, which includes new laws of physics, also include new laws of mathematics? If so, could there be a universe in which pi is a rational number? Or is mathematics an inter-universal absolute?
Before it could be proven, it stays as science fiction, or for some people, better words maybe conjecture and hypothesis. You don't even need multiverse to have many worlds. A big enough universe could already have many worlds that are similar or the same to earth, they are just very far away.
Life could be just one of a number of equally interesting complex processes that could evolve on planets in this or any other universe. And, just by the way, the Mahayana Buddhist Sutras, millennia ago, always assumed an infinite number of "world systems".
From what I understand, the Big Bang theory started as a single atom that reached max mass and density with such force that it collapsed then exploded outward. Much like a star or sun that goes supernova.
In two weeks I will graduate with a degree in AstroPhysics from a major California research facility. I am not aware of one researcher who works on exotic "theories" like the Multiverse because THEY CAN NOT BE TESTED. Furthermore, most researchers laugh at "theories" like the multiverse. There may be a multiverse, but what I found out is that those who work on those theories do it [mostly] in their spare time for fun.
Hey friend call me crazy but didn't people also "laugh" at Galileo when he said that earth and other planets revole around the sun at that time THAT COULD NOT BE TESTED .. just because our understanding of things as we know now doesn't make it a joke or something to laugh at .. with that said I agree all of this is purely speculation and sounds ludicrous but to totally dismiss it and mock it sounds arrogant especially from someone as educated in this field as you say you are
@@rayfinkle7064 I'm not sure if the two are relatable. All you needed was a good telescope and observation data to see that the Sun was the center of our orbit. The premise of proving a multiverse means that we would need to somehow detect an adjacent universe. The problem with that is we will never be able to see the edge of our universe because the universe stretches further than the distance of light we can see. In other words, the light from the edge of the universe hasn't reached us. Furthermore, due to the expansion of the universe, the edge of the universe is traveling faster away from us than the speed of light. That light can fundamentally never reach us. Recall that light equals information. Information from the edge of the universe will never, not in 100 trillion years, reach us. Therefore, if the information from the edge of the universe will never reach us, nor will an adjacent universe.
@@rayfinkle7064 One more point, although researchers do laugh at some of the exotic theories, most of those who do work on them do not spend their entire career working on them. Usually just side projects.
I know im far out of my league here and please bare with me if im wrong you clearly know far more than I can ever comprehend but I think the two are relatable because he didn't have a really good telescope and had zero observational data and in his time he was laughed at for his exotic theory I guess the point im trying to make is just because we don't understand it doesn't necessarily make it unable to be or exist
@@rayfinkle7064 However, a telescope was physically possible. It was just a matter of technology catching up. Detecting the edge of the universe is not physically possible
Einstein could not figure this out alone. But instead they sampled his idea and mixed it with somebody else's theory and got the only answer being A Multiverse... so Einstein was Not wrong but his theory was limited..
Maybe black holes are escape portals to transverse between universes and dimensions. However, our physical bodies would tear asunder. Our essence or immortal being (spirit) will live on. This reminds of two Rush songs, Cygnus X-1 Book 1 and Cygnus X-1 Book 2. Give it a listen.
Great video. you've remind me of what someone once said❤️ "The mind is the man, the poor is in it and the rich is it too". This sentence is the secret of most successful investors. I once attended similar and ever since then i been waxing strong financially, and i most tell you the truth..
Cox, et al, are called "Theoretical Physicists" for a reason. We need some big advances in our understanding and our technologies before we can confirm/rule out the intricate speculations that have been proffered.
@@NubbinzGaming Who said God was a being? And what is consciousness, from a scientific perspective? Since you can't answer my original question or follow up question (I'm guessing), how can you know ANYTHING for sure? Isn't it true that you are a scientific fraud by claiming you do?
So, could the black holes we see be doorways to another universe, itself being an expanding universe within the black hole? And could primordial black holes possibly move around our universe
Interesting thoughts. If a species with physics breaking tech well our understanding of physics it could possibly be. Maybe the wormhole theory is correct and you could use block hole as a means of transportation. Or it could be something else entirely. Einstein’s theory of relativity states that with the math it is possible for them to exist but in the wormholes we have created they have been no larger than the head of a pin. As for primordial blacks holes moving there has been cases of blacks holes have been observed to move but only very rarely.
It makes sense as to why our universe acts in the way it does. The only thing I would speculate that in the infinite universe, would the physics be bound to a fabric or system in some way. If they did interact to infinity, there would be infinite scenarios in which all infinite universe don’t exist or exist in infinite ways. Therefore our universe can’t exist, not exist, or be infinitely different. Then, if each is independent then do the physics and particles exist or don’t the same way as ours. Would there be infinite possibilities where there’s completely different and unimaginable outcomes without anything we know. By what we observe, the field of our universe is not finite in its structure, but finite in its laws and perhaps its particles. I wonder if any of that exists, or is that structure definite.
Gravity is the only omnipresent force that we know of but don't undersand why or how it works and infinity is impossible for the human mind to grasp because we need boundaries.
The problem is that the mass of a black hole and then sucking in huge amounts of external matter would be able to be seen inside that universe so I dont think its really possible for that to be the case tbh.
There is a singularity in the center of black hole, a place where matter is compressed down to an infinitely tiny point, there, new universes created in this almost non existent point
I understand the concept but black holes consume matter and spits out radiation and over time of not consuming matter can decrease in size. Also I dont belive that your universe could suck in countless amounts of matter yet we do not notice any extra matter entering our universe it seems flawed to me. Plus where does hawkings radiation come from ? Na sorry I dont think its possible. Plus rhey have already proved that black holes could eventually consume themselves completely I dont see our univers doing that tbh
Remember for the most part Physicists are not in high demand in Academia and very limited demand in the private sector. The Successful Physicist is charming and exciting to listen to and yes brilliant in his field and that is what he has to be to Sell the goods. Their future income is dependent on selling the public Ideas, books and lectures and Etc Etc. You can’t have a secure income if you are selling a boring Idea.
Interesting theory but way too much proof in the contrary. I’m not above the thought process of living in a black hole. the stars we see are outside the event horizon and speeding away from us at the speed of light. It would also make sense why we don’t have any neighbors cause they like us are living in their own universe inside a black hole.
@@SkyprinceVII if we live in a black hole maybe it’s also possible that our universe expands. Black holes also expand when the attract matter. I love to think about these things.
“The current textbook picture…” meaning, “What’s in vogue now…” or my personal hackneyed phrase of the moment, “With all we now know…” Do you think some ‘scientist’ of his day might have advised, “President Washington, with all we now know, it’s imperative we bleed another pint of your blood.” A true scientist searches for fact and truth, not preach dogma.
I believe the multiverse is 2D and inside the multiverse are black holes and inside those black holes are 3D universes like our own and inside our 3D universes are black holes that contain 4D universes. And black holes lose mass and in turn gravity when they emit hawking radiation, so they expand just like our universe that is inside a black hole is expanding as it loses hawking radiation. And we can not see into the 2D universe because we can only see photons emitted in 3D, and light coming from the sun can't be seen as it's in 2D, and it can only be seen when a new photon in emitted from an atom, and your computer screen is in 3D as photons are coming out in the z axis, so it can be seen. And in the double slit experiment light travels through both slots when not looked at but through only one when looked at because it's travelling in 2D and has no time, so it can travel through both slits but when we look at it we view it in 3D as 2D is invisible as no light is coming out at the z axis in 2D, and there is no time passing in 2D just like there in infinite time in 4D. So it passes through both slits in 2D as there is no time but when we look at it in 3D we imbue time, so it can only go through one slit
There is nothing crazy AFTER you accept there is multiple universes. The crazy part is how you initally come to the conclusion that there must be many of universes. Why? There is not much explanation about that. This question comes from an average man so I wish there would be explanation for us too. I can see there is slight effort though.
Yeah……and in one of those universes, I died from falling in a small lake and drowning when I was two or three years old. And in another universe, I died of a heart attack at 85. In another one….I was never even born, because my grandparents both died of Cholera when they were still little kids.
I really hate this subject ! We know almost NOTHING about this Universe but always someone is coming with this " stupid idea " that could be a Multiverse. Why should we care about it if even with the light-speed it takes 4 years and a half to the nearest star from out Solar System ?? Don`t get me wrong, all respect for Brian Cox !
Its good "media science" the famous ones from media talk frequently about most entertaining theories not the ones with most credibility cos they kinda boring
@@7788Sambaboy I just hate this topic about Multiverse. What don`t you understand? Dinosaurs and other such topics are very welcome every time we talk about Science, but in this case I think the discussion is absolutely USELESS. There are trillions of episodes about Multiverse on TH-cam and every time there is a new episode on this topic. It's like an endless story ... over and over again, maybe we should start believing in Multiverse, otherwise I can't explain why we should watch this episodes.
We live in a finite world we only know finite. But we do know that everything can not be finite. But we have no way to understand eternal or infinite having a mathematical symbol for it is not understanding it. It is unbelievable stupid to suppose we can understand the eternal from the finite. Of course we say oh it is same as the finite infinite times. The one thing we can reasonably speculate is that it is not the same as the finite that we know. Experience has shown us that same as we already have is never the answer. The multi verse idea has been around for decades as it is an idea that lacks imagination, and is totally lacking in thoughtful insight. Are there any physicist with at least some imagination?
[Leibniz's contingency argument for God, clarified]: Ten whole, rational numbers 0-9 and their geometric counterparts 0D-9D. 0 and it's geometric counterpart 0D are: 1) whole 2) rational 3) not-natural (not-physical) 4) necessary 1-9 and their geometric counterparts 1D-9D are: 1) whole 2) rational 3) natural (physical) 4) contingent Newton says since 0 and 0D are "not-natural" ✅ then they are also "not-necessary" 🚫. Newton also says since 1-9 and 1D-9D are "natural" ✅ then they are also "necessary" 🚫. This is called "conflating" and is repeated throughout Newton's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic. con·flate verb combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one. Leibniz does not make these fundamental mistakes. Leibniz's "Monadology" 📚 is zero and it's geometric counterpart zero-dimensional space. 0D Monad (SNF) 1D Line (WNF) 2D Plane (EMF) 3D Volume (GF) We should all be learning Leibniz's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic. Fibonacci sequence starts with 0 for a reason. The Fibonacci triangle is 0, 1, 2 (Not 1, 2, 3). Newton's 1D-4D "natural ✅ = necessary 🚫" universe is a contradiction. Natural does not mean necessary. Similar, yet different. Not-natural just means no spatial extension; zero size; exact location only. Necessary. Newtonian nonsense will never provide a Theory of Everything. Leibniz's Law of Sufficient Reason should be required reading 📚...
one bubble, that is so huge you can't even conceive the volume of space, now you want an infinite number of infinite spaces, look I can't even deal with one huge space, which for me is everything we can see and we have no clue how big the stuff we can't see is... yet you now what infinite many of the infinite spaces. I don't know I feel like you are asking for a lot here. I mean when I sit on a beach and enjoy the sun, water and sand, and the sand which is deep, and sandy and the number of grains also seems infinitely large does not even cover all the stars, blows my mind.
The multiverse is like religion. It is an explanation for stuff we don't understand. How can Schrödinger’s cat be alive and dead at the same time? Or perhaps, what is time? We have all these wonderful mathematical equations but essentially physicists today are just a modern version of cargo cultists.
The simple fact is that we will never understand it....it is far beyond anything a human mind will every comprehend....just like the size of the universe or multiverses! Just a headache waiting to happen!
This video conflates two unrelated scientific hypothesis. The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology are not connected.
if there is a multiverse, then there would be an infinte number of how the big bang exploded, and how every atom gets collided and how every galaxies getting formed, therefore it would be an infinte amount till an second earth would appear. the only thing thats expanding is the dark matter what does not interact with anything, but there is a finite of matter in the universe, if that matter gets combined into the largest black hole, the force would be so strong that it could might interact with dark matter, therfore it could eventually contract and sucks the dark matter aswell changing it into a white hole and in time randomly creates a bing bang again, in this theorie time is infinite, and the big bang is infinite aswell
The multiverse could be quantum particles pointing to different directions of time. I think time is multidimensional, just like space, and the wave function shows a particles's distribution across all directions of time, but it will always collapse towards its highest probability of survival. Also we may be moving backwards in time, I think Einstein may have been right about hidden variables. Time may have already played out and particles, which everything in existence is made of, are basically pointing towards their highest probability of survival.
The multiverse is complex interwoven strings of times, caused by black holes. And space, together with particles are falling into them in their assigned directions.
In my opinion, I dont believe you can ever fall into a black hole, you should continuously spin around it, because a black hole is a different direction in time, and your particles are pointing towards your current direction. Basically every universe is a black hole which has collapsed into itself infinitely pulling all particles with it. And also stars are the infinite ends of black holes. Technically, stars could be the illusive white holes. So the universe is basically interwoven strings of times.
perhaps the absence of matter as the universe is ever-expanding. Dark matter I think is ruled by electro-magnetism, which is stronger than gravity and invisible. We just ca't see what it's made up of due to our physical limitations. But we know it exists in everything. Us, Earth, solar system, and the known (really unknown or undiscovered) universe. Maybe EM exists outside of all universes in its own plane where they reside inter own reality and time. Maybe even new laws exist in that "plane."
*drops head*. no one. ..no one he says. I'm a philosopher, so different, that "no one" actually really hurt there. smiles. so great you gave us philosophers a mention though. thank you.✍️✨ All I write is free. I write things that seem to me to be beyond another's wildest dreams. I draw comparisons, & well, as you probably know ..they tend to draw themselves. i write about time expansion/crumpling. (a Tonne of comparisons. *shudders.* Take. please. I have other things to write about.) The 99 no one. *shrugs*. I take you on a journey. ..You're gonna love it. 💃🗺️🕺. I do some inherit the world via Jacobs goats trick. collect deep thinkers who practice to be honest, &. decrease degrees of separation between us & twixt flailers alike? it's a ..rise in collective consciousness via ripple effect back of flailers, you might call it, if you like. I have no time for the who don't know what they do. no. writer. not wanting to beat head against nothing left to know anymore anymore. youwhoo, over here lol. 👋😏Howdy. *Pulls veil off of new predetermined fate, some exception. It's just beautiful. sophisticated much lol? Yes I shudder now. ..I lost my awe early last year after a few ah or so very strange experiences. about the same time I'd begun writing about echos in chambers. scariest 'place' I'd ever been. *mentally holds head*. I'd love to say you wouldn't believe the things I have to say, but sheesh, you know how it is answering questions mid asking them & not saying what you don't mean? I think you will believe them. I think you do. ..Being comparisons ourselves as much as the comparisons we draw, resonating over enough different sized reflections of ours (to ebb & flow with reality multiple times per gap twixt perfection & imperfection (a gap of time I call a ticktwixtime between you ..& you. I write all about time. come do the who runs rings around who lol.✍️✨ THANK you for this video. lol. oh you don't know how happy you've made me *inner screams with laughter & sorta cries*. I was tutored by TOM Tournament of Minds in lateral thinking in my younger post family break up lonelier years. now, as if I didn't already think awe might kill me one day, i've family like sons I'd never had as though popping up out of nowhere, & yelps popping up in my throat as I write. We're as much witnesses of our own lives as much as anyone else is, don't ya think? I have a strange explosively um influential family, & genes, that, if I had died when I was born I could still say I was one of the luckiest to had been who I was. (God help me, tsk, I'm alone. A philosopher. I floopping have an Ark on Facey, of deep thinkers practicing honesty, not just in a writer's interest but so someone can tell me if ever I finally go mad. tsk. I need to associate with the deepest thinkers. what will I ever do. sometimes, I wonder, Tom ruined my life. I feel like I've been floating out in space a long long time. loving it ..but God so alone.).
Why can't the singularity be millions of light years across? Why can't there be multiple singularities? Why can't a singularity be comprised of hundreds of black holes cannibalized by more? That would put a lot of energy to be converted to atoms and compounds and a large number of potential seeds of galaxies in one location. That could also explain multiverses.
If so, scientist from another world figured out how to switch between them. Where are they? Maby they arrieved on a different Planet. Why do we think they will arrive here? If there are other planets with intelligent life, they could arrieved there.
such evangelistic faith brian cox has. ancient philosophy clothed as science. as a chhristian i am often amazed at the faith some people have who poo poo religion.
I have come to one conclusion. Trying to figure out the Universe is for all practical considerations useless and I would like to see all these amazing minds channel their intelligence into making our lives better, here and now BEFORE the next extinction event hits us and starts the process all aver again.
Okay if we as a species know a black hole which is a object with infinite gravity exist. Than clearly multiverse should exist. Infinite is something we know about.
We need to advance all humans to the highest of our capabilities. So we can time travel, teleport and speak to other dimensions. Some of you are so far behind. We all need to work as a team
I believe we'll never know how big the universe really is and it's not multi it's uno? Everything in the universe has different parameters so as far as we know now it's not repeating?
Before the big bang there was only void. Since it was a void there were no particles to enforce the laws of physics. So at any moment, anywhere, any number of particles could spontaneously pop into existence. That void still exists beyond the edge of the stuff that came from our big bang. This means that our "universe" may not be the first, will definitely not be the last, and probably is not the only one currently.
Originally, an expanse of water covered everything in darkness. Water is the key with light being just as vital but secondary. That's if you read through ancient texts. I suppose we aren't meant to traverse from below the water to above the water. Not in this physical state.
Pure entertainment. Shysters like Brian prey on gullible people seeking to fund meaning in life. Since it's virtually impossible to disprove their claims, the tales grow taller. You just have to ask yourself one thing. Where does it end? If this universe is only one of an infinite number of other universes that make up the multiverse, is the multiverse just one of an infinite number of multiverses that make up the multi-multiverse. And so forth. Odds are that there is only one universe, that is infinite is scope, and that the big bang didn't create the universe but rather triggered the process of star formation.
o why do endless articles, documentaries, podcasts and books about ‘The Multiverse’ continue to appear without any mention of Michael Moorcock, the writer who came up with the concept and gave it its name? Moorcock wasn’t the first to use the word ‘multiverse’, as he makes clear himself, but he originated the meaning of the word as it is used today in both physics and popular fiction. The word itself is generally said to have been coined by the psychologist and philosopher William James in 1895, although as I establish in Appendix 2 below, it must have appeared significantly earlier. James and others used the word multiverse to describe our own world or universe, a single and self-contained entity, but seen from as many points of view as there are minds to perceive it - and therefore not subject to any one unique or authoritative interpretation. ‘The multiverse’ was often seen as an atheistic notion and contrasted with ‘the universe’ as ruled by a divine plan. This usage did not entirely disappear as the 20th century went on, but it remained fairly obscure. In 1963, Moorcock either re-invented the word multiverse, or it surfaced from some forgotten corner of his memory, when he used it to name a new concept in his science fiction story The Blood Red Game. The Oxford English Dictionary acknowledges Moorcock’s novel idea, and defines this newly conceived multiverse as “A hypothetical space or realm of being consisting of a number of universes, of which our own universe is only one.” The OED also recognises that this meaning of the word spread from science fiction to scientific understanding of the basis of reality, or ‘fact’.
I think we are teaching our kids one day everything will expand away from the sun wile the people on the other side are teaching their kids everything will fall into the sun one day. That's why every universe has a black hole and one sucks in light and matter while the other side spits it out.
"we are like a single molecule in a single cell in a whale's body trying to describe the whale" My geology professor explaining to me what "Science" is, 1973 (yes we might have been stoned)
Not impossible though
@@gavine3977 EXACTLY! Doesn't matter to science how hard it is...the attitude being it might take a long time, but we're gonna keep doing it. Science has changed mankind and the world because we don't give up
Interesting take, but yeah, it sounds pretty stoned. 👍
@Rudolf Hillard we did consider the back of the turtle scenario as told by the Iroquois and didn't rule it out, but that wouldn't change the process of science😅
Brian Cox has such a pleasant voice and way of explaining complex idea is a very accessible way.
Way easier to listen to him than Neil Degrass Tyson. For some reason Tyson bugs me, I find he can be condescending or smug or something. Brian Cox just comes across as a guy who loves his job and loves breaking it down for us laymen who can't grasp all the maths but love the concepts.
He's a Proper Superfast, Superstar Sizzling Sublick that Dude... He's Proper Cool ! 0️⃣👌💯👍😜1️⃣
I think this is the first time I have actually heard a narrative express the opinion on wanting to understand how the universe was started, implying that the universe had a start. What was there for all that eternity before its start, before the big bang? This concept is more mind boggling!
Only humans have a start and finish concept, birth to death, start to end of work, finite time in house or job, so I suspect having something that has an infinity or eternity concept is much harder to fathom for the human mind and therefore easier or feels more comfortable to dismiss such a concept!
Yet this is the most plausible of all theories or constructs, a concept or model of the universe as having no beginning and end, no-one entity to turn on the switch to get it going and no need to know who made the fire lighter.
Civilisations come and go, the earth, solar system or even the milky way galaxy might need to have a beginning but the universe certainly does not.
@@captain_context9991 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...because we have a yearning to know how things are made and work and the early writers deemed this necessity and essential to the narrative. To use this construct in the first reference was to give a meaning to the question.
The second is a reference to man and is a completely different context, narration and not related. Today we can make man in our image so the second reference to making man "...in our image..." is no different, we only need to accept an intelligent entity a hundred thousand years ago that could do that and I am happy to settle on the Annunaki (or another!) for now.
For the universe, this is a different matter. Firstly it means total or all of, and if it was to be created would need a creation prior to its existence, a chicken and egg process that is unnecessary. This, The universe includes the physical and meta-physical, includes an existence far beyond the scope of matter, includes dark matter and energy, includes the life forces and governing structures of how it all works and how matter and life is allowed to form into and within galaxies and solar systems we see in the physical.
We can understand in today's technology, the quantum leap in understanding from an informed Neanderthal to man of our times, but for the last several millennia, there are those among us who believe they must assert a finite control and limit over our understanding of the infinite vastness and beauty of the physical and meta-physical boundless planes of existence.
Grasp an exponential expression raised to the power of infinity, this is the expanse of our evolving, non-cyclic universe and it will be the one story of man that has no ending.
@@captain_context9991 Welcome to the real world Capt'n...
The universe has a physical and meta-physical component...hmmm the red pill might have been too much!
@@captain_context9991 Yes, Hitchhiker! If you want to see some meta-physical stuff, look into a mirror.
This is digressing, the universe has always been, something that encompasses everything if infinite and forever. The H-shift was over-calculated to fit a model of a beginning because that is what human minds are comfortable with, especially scientists.
Except they can rewind the clock to the Planck time. That would imply a start. The “end” may be the big chill or eternal heat death, but why should it? That is the discussion.
@@richardrobertson1886 Again this is applying our known finite understanding and function to the universe which operates in a much more macro and infinite function...any start and end is a man-made construct and not a good model to use at the universe level which has no known boundaries in space or time. I am for cyclic galaxies across the infinite and limitless universe.
I'm a complete leyman, my education ended in high school but in later life (50 now) I have become fascinated by science. These videos are so enjoyable and create more questions than answers. What if the creation of dark energy and/or matter directly relate to black holes? Is it a coincidence that we cannot perceive black holes and therefore what happens beyond the event horizon and the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Could they be linked? Could black holes be drawing in 'real' matter and energy, then spewing out dark matter and energy and this is why we see the visible universe increasingly expanding?
nice theories. i love stewing on these things 😅
The answers maybe staring us in the face but we mere humans are constrained by our five senses
Is it easier to accept a finite universe or an infinite universe?
"And what's outside that & what's outside that?" can be an argument in perpetual loop but suggesting only one 13.7 billion year old universe exists, is like saying we are the only living planet in an infinite cosmos, which is very silly... unless we're in a sim :/
The sheet merger mentioned at 5:20 is what I think actually happened. If spacetime is akin to fabric, then it makes sense that these "sheets" are independent from each other. This would account for the multiple dimensions that we can't see but are certain exist.
Went I was younger I was part of a religious cult and spent a lot of time trying to figure what if anything made sense anymore. I started thinking about the universe how did it get here. Is it the only one maybe there infinite number of universes and infinite means anything that can happen will and dose happen over and over well for infinite pretty mind blowing concept I was 16 at the time. I was a confused angry teen who no clue what made sense anymore what was right or wrong or how I should live.
@uPtrade OK congratulations on turning on coffee maker?
I wonder how many people never learn?
@@jonathanjollimore4794 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
What was the name of the cult?
@@BigCheeseExplosion Jehovah's Witnesses
I love studying metaphysics, and there was this post that kind of just broke my brain for a while that involved the multiverse hypothesis. I can't remember the quote they used, but it was along the lines of 'an artist births a new universe into existence similar to our own when they create art.' This person purposed the idea that it's actually the opposite; the artist is in a state of being that allows them to observe a similar universe to our own, and are creating art of what their mind has observed. So, by that logic, every painting, sculpture, book, movie, video game, and anything else considered art could potentially be a representation of another universe. Which, is both awesome to think about, but also absolutely terrifying.
Have you ever made art? Or anything what you referred to? It’s not the artist channeling another dimension…. It’s a result of our brain, and the ability to create abstract art.
You can argue the subject creating said art had inspiration, or wanting to capture the essence of something. But they’re not getting information from an alternate universe brother!
Your belief is your belief. But to think every human on earth to ever create a piece of art is channeling another “universe” is preposterous to me
@@ManorexicPanda I wasn't trying to speak in absolutes with my comment. It was a thought proposed blending the idea of the multiverse and art, not a definitive answer as to why people create art. After all, metaphysics, along with most branches of philosophy, delves into trying to understand the nature of reality itself, but at the end of the day it's still philosophy. And the main purpose to philosophy is to think.
@@L3N0R4L4N3 Look it's not your fault, but this kind of wishy washy "multiverse hypothesis" elicits that kind of reasoning. Especially when it's getting popularised by science communicators while the actual theoretical scientists find the multiverse idea mostly fallacious (which it is). It basically comes down to the Inverse Gambler's Fallacy but that's not all that is problematic with the mainstream view and approach of multiple multiverse theories/hypotheses'. Not to say that the line of thinking is entirely without merit but it's far from fleshed out enough to be presented to the public as fact or even possibility. To be clear I'm only talking about the finely tuned argument and the many worlds interpretations.
@@brakgeluid I guess you're right, but I thought it was kind of obvious I wasn't stating it as a 100% reason behind art. Honestly, I mainly left my comment because I thought it was kind of funny. My first thought with that idea was 'what if all that fan art of Doom and Animal Crossing is reality in some alternate universe?' But, you are 100% right on the idea of the multiverse not being as fleshed out as it should, though. It isn't something that is fully understood, if it even is a real possibility.
Thanks!
You are very generous. Thank you again :)
@@ScienceTime24 💖
*_1_* Science goes by facts, logic, and evidence.
*_2_* Arguments for the multiverse hypothesis: cosmic inflation, math constants, the observable universe
Arguments against the multiverse hypothesis: falsifiability, Occam’s razor, no evidence
*_3_* We see the observable universe; let’s keep finding more about it. We live on Mother Earth; let’s love her and take care of her by not destroying her for profit. We might reincarnate many times in many lives; let’s live our present life with fullness in the present moment.
*_4_* Without *_love_* life is meaningless. 💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌
Nice
5:27 Neil Turok was hypothesizing this idea years ago, may have seen it on an old Brian Cox episode if i recall
Brian a correction: 3:16 'This is no longer speculative'. Until there is evidence it is speculative. There is no evidence. Mathematics and Philosophy are not evidence.
How many things were discovered to be true after first being discovered solely through mathematics?
@@NubbinzGaming Name one
@@PanglossDr black holes, higgs boson
no longer *just* speculative. he literally explains: there is science you can do. mathematics when involved in physics like this is evidence. so so many things have been predicted or discovered using maths. neptune was theorised using mathematics until they discovered it.
I created universe all by myself merely by imagining to do so.
Fascinating documentary, however the pop up adverts are annoying.
I started working on this idea after considering the curious physics involved in Season 4 of Stranger Things (don't sue me, is it worse inspiration than an apple? 😄)
One question. Is the amount of Dark Matter in the universe stable, or is it increasing over time? The former makes sense, because matter can neither be created or destroyed, but does this hold for Dark Matter? The implications of a no here and that it is actually increasing in volume over time might actually support a multiverse theory, if you consider that instead of new universes separating like a cell, a universe with a certain frequency births 2 universes of slightly different frequencies, but they remain in the same location (kind of).
What do you need in order to create a parallel universe? Anything with a Higgs-Boson! This primarily means anything within a galaxy, galaxy cluster etc. which is also where we see the largest amounts of Dark Matter, albeit mostly in a halo around the galaxies. What if Dark Matter WAS the proof of the multiverse? What if Dark Matter is simply the gravitational bleed through from other universes, forced out of position by the Higgs-Boson's in our own Universe? (I've scraped that part together to explain the location of Dark Matter, and it's a stretch, I know) If that was the case, and new universes were being created all the time, then A) we should see the amount of DM increasing over times, (hopefully in pulses) and B) The ratio of DM to M should be consistent from one galaxy to the next.
A fun consequence of this may be that whilst there is the possibility of 2 identical universes, or more, they would be overlapped, so essentially there would still be only one. But what would happen if one of those actually had a different origin to another? What if there was one single difference between the two that, once resolved, allowed the two universes to merge? This may be the source of The Mandela Effect! (or someone just passed on some bad info that no-one checked for a while)
Hey, Stranger Things only wrapped up a few weeks ago, so don't lynch me, but any thoughts?
I believe light has the highest speed in our universe. But in some another universe, there is some completely another element that has the highest speed and that is not visible to us. Only gravity in all universes can be constant. And somehow I have a counter intuitive idea that twin paradox is wrong.
How is it possible that there is a universe with slightly different laws of physics could have every event throughout history occur exactly the same way culminating in a twin of yourself at all. The theory contradicts itself.
@@jpeoples Your twin might have a different life though, different career, something different
What happens when it all ends? Like literally nothing exists anymore. Could it then happen all over again? So i mean could space and everything ever totally end?
I still want to know how much gravitational pull a black hole actually has at the event horizon. Obviously light can’t escape but I’m curious if you had an infinitely strong cable could you lower something in, past the event horizon, and then back out again
Theoretical, it would be crushed into subatomic particles, as I understand it. Time also slows at the event horizon, so it's debatable as to if it could even be put in from your perspective.
I imagine it wouldn’t because the black hole will disassemble the object being lowered as the rope itself at a subatomic level. The gravity itself will rip apart anything that has the misfortune of falling below the horizon.
Let's accept that your cable is infinitely strong so that you could lower it into a black hole without it breaking. Once it traverses the event horizon it will be physically impossible to pull it out because of the warping of spacetime. Your cable will appear to stretch en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification and fade to a dim red en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift as it irretrievably enters the event horizon.
@@noahf.3122 I agree with the first part but red shift generally occurs with photons or energy nothing to do with a physical object. But spaghettification I definitely agree with as it is a natural order in the process of falling into a black hole. Warping of space time I’m not sure about as for the reason for not pulling an object out of black hole. I concede there is definitely a warp in time. it’s interesting to think of the object your pulling is no longer in your realm of space time 🤔
@@SkyprinceVII Excellent thoughts! In fact, your objections relate to each other. By Einstein's theory of general relativity, an object with mass "warps" or "stretches" both space and time to create what we experience as gravity. This stretching of spacetime is so strong near a black hole that photons passing by experience gravitational redshift en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift. Next, we observe objects only by observing the light (photons) that scatters off of them. Assume we are watching the cable at a safe distance from the black hole. Light that scatters off of the cable at the section near the event horizon would experience gravitational redshift as it travels toward us. Thus, to a distance observer, the cable appears more red the closer it is to the event horizon.
It's mind blowing that we don't understand or even see the majority of what the reality we live in is made of...
Is it really mind blowing? The opposite would truly be mind blowing.
or we are looking for something that doesn't exist.
... the universe is all of space and time but
... I would like you to define it better then
... provide three examples.
Just the realm of the light spectrum and what tiny portion we can see of that! Now about the things we hear, smell, taste, and "feel", and those things that we are yet to recognize in this skin we are in. That is, if we are here at all.
@@chinookvalley We can only hear part of the sound spectrum, like light. Our brains only use up to10% of it's potential. Smell, taste and even touch can be blocked or heightened. It's amazing that we know very little of our flesh cell or universe.
funny to think that Cox long term scientist colleague was Dr Janis Bowlls...
therefore effectively their team being comprised of Cox and Bowlls
They’re studying Uranus.
Simple and elegant
Another aspect of this was addressed by Dr. Stephen Meyer in his book, Return of the God Hypothesis. In Chapter 16, he points out that an inflationary-string multiverse (the only kind that skeptics can posit to seemingly account for the fine-tuning of our universe) - this multiverse itself must be extremely fine-tuned (in its universe-generating mechanism) in order to exist and to produce multiple universes, which are necessary in order to seemingly account for OUR universe’s fine-tuning as if it arose by random chance. However, this won’t work because the multiverse itself requires extreme fine-tuning to begin its production of universes! Therefore, whether it’s to account for the fine-tuning of our universe (Meyer, Chapters 7, 8, & 13) OR to account for the fine-tuning of a feasible multiverse (that could hypothetically account for the fine-tuning of our universe), an intelligent Fine-Tuner or Designer of at least one universe, and possibly of a multiverse, must exist! (Meyer, Chapter 16) In essence, a Creator God must exist; there are no realistic alternatives, as long as we precisely follow the details of this evidence. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to NOT follow the evidence where it leads, in terms of its details. This is one of several reasons why I, a former atheist, am now a believer in the Christian God, which makes the most sense considering all forms of evidence.
Brian Cox "This is the largest example of inflation that we know of." Joe Biden "Hold my...ahh...you know..."
the thing
"how is the universe so finely tuned for life?"
Seems to me, it isn't, necessarily. Seems more like life is finely tuned for the universe
I love this video so much.
This is mind blowing concept!! ♥️⚛️🔬
Blows ya Cap Right #ONorOFF Baby.!! 0️⃣😜1️⃣
(9:45) *ST: **_"Multiverse defenders however contend that the description of the observable universe as one part of a multiverse can be much simpler than the description of the observable universe as the only universe."_* ... That is not a logical statement. If that were the case, then the description of a multi-multiverse (a multiverse of multiverses) would be even simpler. Likewise, a multi-multi-multiverse (a multiverse of multiple multi-multiverses) would be even simpler than all of the other descriptions. This type of thinking succumbs to infinite regression!
At the end of the day, a *"single universe"* is logical, empirical, and by far the simplest description.
brilliant and enlightening if the whole world watched these videos it would be a better place. Always on the hunt for intelligent life...? this is where you find it!
Everyone is a universe. I’m in mine and you are in yours, all of us interconnected by consciousness. So take care of your universe my friend
Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
on a fortune heart
that's far too fleet - "Freewill" Neil Peart from Rush (RIP)
There is nothing strange about single photons creating a wave interference pattern. By definition a wave does not have a single position in spacetime. Wave/particle duality is a property of every single particle in the universe. The real question is, Why do particles exist at all? What causes particles to manifest from the quantum field, and once manifested what causes particles to remain stable. Each and every particle with mass holds a very large amount of energy. What exactly are magnetic fields? What exactly are electric fields? Why do magnetic and electric fields manifest as forces between charged particles? How exactly does the strong force overcome the protons electric positive charge of repulsion, but then the strong force is not so strong to fuse protons into a quark plasma?
Quantum by definition means bits. The mathematics of continuous functions by definition CANNOT be used to explain or define discrete quantum bits. Just as the pressure in a gas is only explained as a statistical property, quantum properties can only be described by our mathematical continuous functions as probabilities. Fluctuations in the electromagnetic and quantum fields can be described by mathematical continuous wave equations, BUT there is no mathematics that describes discrete quantum bits. What exists between the quantum bits? To then jump to absurd conclusions such as, many worlds infinitely created, multiple states existing simultaneously, bound states of independent particles, simply shows how inadequate is our mathematics of continuous functions when it comes to describing the quantum.
We can only observe what we are a vibrational match to, therefore if our observation is limited, so are our current conclusions.
"Luminous Beings are We : not this dense Matter". - Yoda to Luke during Jedi Training
@@tombondcrispy6585 No, there is another
There's always another question. In this case, what's outside the multiverse? Did they have a beginning and do they end? Is there a link between them, if so, what? Do they exist independent of each other?
The concept of infinity means there is no inside or outside, something the human mind finds hard to deal with.
Does the multiverse theory, which includes new laws of physics, also include new laws of mathematics? If so, could there be a universe in which pi is a rational number? Or is mathematics an inter-universal absolute?
Before it could be proven, it stays as science fiction, or for some people, better words maybe conjecture and hypothesis.
You don't even need multiverse to have many worlds. A big enough universe could already have many worlds that are similar or the same to earth, they are just very far away.
Very far in terms of distance.
That's what I said.
Life could be just one of a number of equally interesting complex processes that could evolve on planets in this or any other universe.
And, just by the way, the Mahayana Buddhist Sutras, millennia ago, always assumed an infinite number of "world systems".
And the creator of the Universe revealed himself in the Lord Jesus Christ
If they collided before the big bang? Then from what or which separate direction did both collided?
From what I understand, the Big Bang theory started as a single atom that reached max mass and density with such force that it collapsed then exploded outward. Much like a star or sun that goes supernova.
In two weeks I will graduate with a degree in AstroPhysics from a major California research facility.
I am not aware of one researcher who works on exotic "theories" like the Multiverse because THEY CAN NOT BE TESTED. Furthermore, most researchers laugh at "theories" like the multiverse.
There may be a multiverse, but what I found out is that those who work on those theories do it [mostly] in their spare time for fun.
Hey friend call me crazy but didn't people also "laugh" at Galileo when he said that earth and other planets revole around the sun at that time THAT COULD NOT BE TESTED .. just because our understanding of things as we know now doesn't make it a joke or something to laugh at .. with that said I agree all of this is purely speculation and sounds ludicrous but to totally dismiss it and mock it sounds arrogant especially from someone as educated in this field as you say you are
@@rayfinkle7064 I'm not sure if the two are relatable.
All you needed was a good telescope and observation data to see that the Sun was the center of our orbit.
The premise of proving a multiverse means that we would need to somehow detect an adjacent universe.
The problem with that is we will never be able to see the edge of our universe because the universe stretches further than the distance of light we can see. In other words, the light from the edge of the universe hasn't reached us.
Furthermore, due to the expansion of the universe, the edge of the universe is traveling faster away from us than the speed of light. That light can fundamentally never reach us.
Recall that light equals information. Information from the edge of the universe will never, not in 100 trillion years, reach us.
Therefore, if the information from the edge of the universe will never reach us, nor will an adjacent universe.
@@rayfinkle7064 One more point, although researchers do laugh at some of the exotic theories, most of those who do work on them do not spend their entire career working on them. Usually just side projects.
I know im far out of my league here and please bare with me if im wrong you clearly know far more than I can ever comprehend but I think the two are relatable because he didn't have a really good telescope and had zero observational data and in his time he was laughed at for his exotic theory I guess the point im trying to make is just because we don't understand it doesn't necessarily make it unable to be or exist
@@rayfinkle7064 However, a telescope was physically possible. It was just a matter of technology catching up. Detecting the edge of the universe is not physically possible
I think the answer is that we need to somehow clone Einstein.
Einstein could not figure this out alone. But instead they sampled his idea and mixed it with somebody else's theory and got the only answer being A Multiverse... so Einstein was Not wrong but his theory was limited..
For a second, I thought the narrator was the Geico lizard from those commercials 🦎 😆
Either there is not an infinite number of universes OR it is impossible to share information between universes.
An unfortunate outcome of uncritical thinking is that the people who do it are very conclusive whilst being uninformed.
Maybe black holes are escape portals to transverse between universes and dimensions. However, our physical bodies would tear asunder. Our essence or immortal being (spirit) will live on.
This reminds of two Rush songs, Cygnus X-1 Book 1 and Cygnus X-1 Book 2. Give it a listen.
Great video. you've remind me of what someone once said❤️ "The mind is the man, the poor is in it and the rich is it too". This sentence is the secret of most successful investors. I once attended similar and ever since then i been waxing strong financially, and i most tell you the truth..
Hi. Totally random, how did you insert emoji? Mine seem turned off
Cox, et al, are called "Theoretical Physicists" for a reason. We need some big advances in our understanding and our technologies before we can confirm/rule out the intricate speculations that have been proffered.
Big Bang, as in proven fact or just another idea? Please explain what caused the initial expansion.
Not a conscious being that wants you to follow certain rules. That's for sure.
@@NubbinzGaming Who said God was a being? And what is consciousness, from a scientific perspective?
Since you can't answer my original question or follow up question (I'm guessing), how can you know ANYTHING for sure? Isn't it true that you are a scientific fraud by claiming you do?
@@MrVanhovey Try to make a discovery before you die than just mocking people who are trying to understand reality.
So, could the black holes we see be doorways to another universe, itself being an expanding universe within the black hole? And could primordial black holes possibly move around our universe
Interesting thoughts. If a species with physics breaking tech well our understanding of physics it could possibly be. Maybe the wormhole theory is correct and you could use block hole as a means of transportation. Or it could be something else entirely. Einstein’s theory of relativity states that with the math it is possible for them to exist but in the wormholes we have created they have been no larger than the head of a pin. As for primordial blacks holes moving there has been cases of blacks holes have been observed to move but only very rarely.
The more I learn about the multi-verse, the more plausible it seems to me.
How a system emerges from anything other than a system, is the confusing bit. I don't think science nor religion could give a true answer to that.
It makes sense as to why our universe acts in the way it does. The only thing I would speculate that in the infinite universe, would the physics be bound to a fabric or system in some way. If they did interact to infinity, there would be infinite scenarios in which all infinite universe don’t exist or exist in infinite ways. Therefore our universe can’t exist, not exist, or be infinitely different. Then, if each is independent then do the physics and particles exist or don’t the same way as ours. Would there be infinite possibilities where there’s completely different and unimaginable outcomes without anything we know.
By what we observe, the field of our universe is not finite in its structure, but finite in its laws and perhaps its particles. I wonder if any of that exists, or is that structure definite.
Gravity is the only omnipresent force that we know of but don't undersand why or how it works and infinity is impossible for the human mind to grasp because we need boundaries.
The problem is that the mass of a black hole and then sucking in huge amounts of external matter would be able to be seen inside that universe so I dont think its really possible for that to be the case tbh.
There is a singularity in the center of black hole, a place where matter is compressed down to an infinitely tiny point, there, new universes created in this almost non existent point
I understand the concept but black holes consume matter and spits out radiation and over time of not consuming matter can decrease in size. Also I dont belive that your universe could suck in countless amounts of matter yet we do not notice any extra matter entering our universe it seems flawed to me. Plus where does hawkings radiation come from ? Na sorry I dont think its possible. Plus rhey have already proved that black holes could eventually consume themselves completely I dont see our univers doing that tbh
Remember for the most part Physicists are not in high demand in Academia and very limited demand in the private sector. The Successful Physicist is charming and exciting to listen to and yes brilliant in his field and that is what he has to be to Sell the goods. Their future income is dependent on selling the public Ideas, books and lectures and Etc Etc. You can’t have a secure income if you are selling a boring Idea.
If we live in a black hole, could new stars an planet’s in our universe be made out of stuff that was sucked into that black hole?
I think its all information
Interesting theory but way too much proof in the contrary. I’m not above the thought process of living in a black hole. the stars we see are outside the event horizon and speeding away from us at the speed of light. It would also make sense why we don’t have any neighbors cause they like us are living in their own universe inside a black hole.
@@SkyprinceVII if we live in a black hole maybe it’s also possible that our universe expands. Black holes also expand when the attract matter.
I love to think about these things.
Why other universes would have different laws of physics and nature?
why would they not? (just same question asked a different way)
What started the multiverse?
God. He also created multi-dimensions.
They need a hadron collider in space in zero gravity, although the conditions inside the collider are probably the same anyway, I don’t really know
“The current textbook picture…” meaning, “What’s in vogue now…” or my personal hackneyed phrase of the moment, “With all we now know…”
Do you think some ‘scientist’ of his day might have advised, “President Washington, with all we now know, it’s imperative we bleed another pint of your blood.”
A true scientist searches for fact and truth, not preach dogma.
most scientists follow/preach dogma as a belief (cult) system with its own laws and rules, but as absolute. Similar to religion.
Are not theories suppose be testable ?
I believe the multiverse is 2D and inside the multiverse are black holes and inside those black holes are 3D universes like our own and inside our 3D universes are black holes that contain 4D universes. And black holes lose mass and in turn gravity when they emit hawking radiation, so they expand just like our universe that is inside a black hole is expanding as it loses hawking radiation. And we can not see into the 2D universe because we can only see photons emitted in 3D, and light coming from the sun can't be seen as it's in 2D, and it can only be seen when a new photon in emitted from an atom, and your computer screen is in 3D as photons are coming out in the z axis, so it can be seen. And in the double slit experiment light travels through both slots when not looked at but through only one when looked at because it's travelling in 2D and has no time, so it can travel through both slits but when we look at it we view it in 3D as 2D is invisible as no light is coming out at the z axis in 2D, and there is no time passing in 2D just like there in infinite time in 4D. So it passes through both slits in 2D as there is no time but when we look at it in 3D we imbue time, so it can only go through one slit
There is nothing crazy AFTER you accept there is multiple universes. The crazy part is how you initally come to the conclusion that there must be many of universes. Why? There is not much explanation about that. This question comes from an average man so I wish there would be explanation for us too. I can see there is slight effort though.
Or maybe the role of the black holes is just to "feed" other Universe
Maybe we should just accept what mathematics is telling us - there are an infinite number of parallel universes.
Yeah……and in one of those universes, I died from falling in a small lake and drowning when I was two or three years old. And in another universe, I died of a heart attack at 85. In another one….I was never even born, because my grandparents both died of Cholera when they were still little kids.
I’m here now 😄
A hole in the stretching fabric of soace/time.
Just a theory, any thoughts would be appreciated.
is it correct to portray them in bubbles? as far as we know our universe is prrfectly flat
I really hate this subject ! We know almost NOTHING about this Universe but always someone is coming with this " stupid idea " that could be a Multiverse. Why should we care about it if even with the light-speed it takes 4 years and a half to the nearest star from out Solar System ??
Don`t get me wrong, all respect for Brian Cox !
Its good "media science" the famous ones from media talk frequently about most entertaining theories not the ones with most credibility cos they kinda boring
if you hate it, why are you watching? why do we care about dinosaurs? in every scientific endeavor we always start off with knowing "almost NOTHING"
@@7788Sambaboy I just hate this topic about Multiverse. What don`t you understand? Dinosaurs and other such topics are very welcome every time we talk about Science, but in this case I think the discussion is absolutely USELESS. There are trillions of episodes about Multiverse on TH-cam and every time there is a new episode on this topic. It's like an endless story ... over and over again, maybe we should start believing in Multiverse, otherwise I can't explain why we should watch this episodes.
We live in a finite world we only know finite. But we do know that everything can not be finite. But we have no way to understand eternal or infinite having a mathematical symbol for it is not understanding it. It is unbelievable stupid to suppose we can understand the eternal from the finite. Of course we say oh it is same as the finite infinite times. The one thing we can reasonably speculate is that it is not the same as the finite that we know.
Experience has shown us that same as we already have is never the answer.
The multi verse idea has been around for decades as it is an idea that lacks imagination, and is totally lacking in thoughtful insight. Are there any physicist with at least some imagination?
I agree. Otherwise, we would see it. We aren't meant to see the infinite , yet. Not in this physical form.
[Leibniz's contingency argument for God, clarified]:
Ten whole, rational numbers 0-9 and their geometric counterparts 0D-9D.
0 and it's geometric counterpart 0D are:
1) whole
2) rational
3) not-natural (not-physical)
4) necessary
1-9 and their geometric counterparts 1D-9D are:
1) whole
2) rational
3) natural (physical)
4) contingent
Newton says since 0 and 0D are
"not-natural" ✅
then they are also
"not-necessary" 🚫.
Newton also says since 1-9 and 1D-9D are "natural" ✅
then they are also
"necessary" 🚫.
This is called "conflating" and is repeated throughout Newton's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic.
con·flate
verb
combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one.
Leibniz does not make these fundamental mistakes.
Leibniz's "Monadology" 📚 is zero and it's geometric counterpart zero-dimensional space.
0D Monad (SNF)
1D Line (WNF)
2D Plane (EMF)
3D Volume (GF)
We should all be learning Leibniz's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic.
Fibonacci sequence starts with 0 for a reason. The Fibonacci triangle is 0, 1, 2 (Not 1, 2, 3).
Newton's 1D-4D "natural ✅ =
necessary 🚫" universe is a contradiction.
Natural does not mean necessary. Similar, yet different.
Not-natural just means no spatial extension; zero size; exact location only. Necessary.
Newtonian nonsense will never provide a Theory of Everything.
Leibniz's Law of Sufficient Reason should be required reading 📚...
Really, really, really fast expansion? Isn't that what EVERY explosion is anyway, by definition?
one bubble, that is so huge you can't even conceive the volume of space, now you want an infinite number of infinite spaces, look I can't even deal with one huge space, which for me is everything we can see and we have no clue how big the stuff we can't see is... yet you now what infinite many of the infinite spaces. I don't know I feel like you are asking for a lot here. I mean when I sit on a beach and enjoy the sun, water and sand, and the sand which is deep, and sandy and the number of grains also seems infinitely large does not even cover all the stars, blows my mind.
So every Universe is considered as a closed system?
Yes, a loop.
Why does my TH-cam can't play videos.
The multiverse is like religion. It is an explanation for stuff we don't understand. How can Schrödinger’s cat be alive and dead at the same time? Or perhaps, what is time? We have all these wonderful mathematical equations but essentially physicists today are just a modern version of cargo cultists.
An interesting concept
The simple fact is that we will never understand it....it is far beyond anything a human mind will every comprehend....just like the size of the universe or multiverses! Just a headache waiting to happen!
This video conflates two unrelated scientific hypothesis. The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology are not connected.
if there is a multiverse, then there would be an infinte number of how the big bang exploded, and how every atom gets collided and how every galaxies getting formed, therefore it would be an infinte amount till an second earth would appear. the only thing thats expanding is the dark matter what does not interact with anything, but there is a finite of matter in the universe, if that matter gets combined into the largest black hole, the force would be so strong that it could might interact with dark matter, therfore it could eventually contract and sucks the dark matter aswell changing it into a white hole and in time randomly creates a bing bang again, in this theorie time is infinite, and the big bang is infinite aswell
The multiverse could be quantum particles pointing to different directions of time.
I think time is multidimensional, just like space, and the wave function shows a particles's distribution across all directions of time, but it will always collapse towards its highest probability of survival.
Also we may be moving backwards in time, I think Einstein may have been right about hidden variables. Time may have already played out and particles, which everything in existence is made of, are basically pointing towards their highest probability of survival.
The multiverse is complex interwoven strings of times, caused by black holes. And space, together with particles are falling into them in their assigned directions.
In my opinion, I dont believe you can ever fall into a black hole, you should continuously spin around it, because a black hole is a different direction in time, and your particles are pointing towards your current direction.
Basically every universe is a black hole which has collapsed into itself infinitely pulling all particles with it. And also stars are the infinite ends of black holes. Technically, stars could be the illusive white holes.
So the universe is basically interwoven strings of times.
Plot twist, gravity is actually darkmatter
perhaps the absence of matter as the universe is ever-expanding. Dark matter I think is ruled by electro-magnetism, which is stronger than gravity and invisible. We just ca't see what it's made up of due to our physical limitations. But we know it exists in everything. Us, Earth, solar system, and the known (really unknown or undiscovered) universe. Maybe EM exists outside of all universes in its own plane where they reside inter own reality and time. Maybe even new laws exist in that "plane."
What is in between multiverse bubbles???? 😮😮😮😮
*drops head*. no one. ..no one he says. I'm a philosopher, so different, that "no one" actually really hurt there.
smiles. so great you gave us philosophers a mention though. thank you.✍️✨
All I write is free. I write things that seem to me to be beyond another's wildest dreams. I draw comparisons, & well, as you probably know ..they tend to draw themselves. i write about time expansion/crumpling. (a Tonne of comparisons. *shudders.* Take. please. I have other things to write about.)
The 99 no one. *shrugs*. I take you on a journey. ..You're gonna love it. 💃🗺️🕺. I do some inherit the world via Jacobs goats trick. collect deep thinkers who practice to be honest, &. decrease degrees of separation between us & twixt flailers alike? it's a ..rise in collective consciousness via ripple effect back of flailers, you might call it, if you like. I have no time for the who don't know what they do. no. writer. not wanting to beat head against nothing left to know anymore anymore. youwhoo, over here lol. 👋😏Howdy. *Pulls veil off of new predetermined fate, some exception. It's just beautiful.
sophisticated much lol?
Yes I shudder now. ..I lost my awe early last year after a few ah or so very strange experiences. about the same time I'd begun writing about echos in chambers. scariest 'place' I'd ever been. *mentally holds head*. I'd love to say you wouldn't believe the things I have to say, but sheesh, you know how it is answering questions mid asking them & not saying what you don't mean? I think you will believe them. I think you do. ..Being comparisons ourselves as much as the comparisons we draw, resonating over enough different sized reflections of ours (to ebb & flow with reality multiple times per gap twixt perfection & imperfection (a gap of time I call a ticktwixtime between you ..& you. I write all about time. come do the who runs rings around who lol.✍️✨ THANK you for this video. lol. oh you don't know how happy you've made me *inner screams with laughter & sorta cries*. I was tutored by TOM Tournament of Minds in lateral thinking in my younger post family break up lonelier years. now, as if I didn't already think awe might kill me one day, i've family like sons I'd never had as though popping up out of nowhere, & yelps popping up in my throat as I write. We're as much witnesses of our own lives as much as anyone else is, don't ya think? I have a strange explosively um influential family, & genes, that, if I had died when I was born I could still say I was one of the luckiest to had been who I was. (God help me, tsk, I'm alone. A philosopher. I floopping have an Ark on Facey, of deep thinkers practicing honesty, not just in a writer's interest but so someone can tell me if ever I finally go mad. tsk. I need to associate with the deepest thinkers. what will I ever do. sometimes, I wonder, Tom ruined my life. I feel like I've been floating out in space a long long time. loving it ..but God so alone.).
Why can't the singularity be millions of light years across? Why can't there be multiple singularities? Why can't a singularity be comprised of hundreds of black holes cannibalized by more? That would put a lot of energy to be converted to atoms and compounds and a large number of potential seeds of galaxies in one location. That could also explain multiverses.
If there are multiple singularities, then they are not singularities. 😉
Okay nice theory.... Now please explain the quantum realm.
Would you understand it if he did?
If so, scientist from another world figured out how to switch between them. Where are they? Maby they arrieved on a different Planet. Why do we think they will arrive here? If there are other planets with intelligent life, they could arrieved there.
such evangelistic faith brian cox has. ancient philosophy clothed as science. as a chhristian i am often amazed at the faith some people have who poo poo religion.
I have come to one conclusion. Trying to figure out the Universe is for all practical considerations useless and I would like to see all these amazing minds channel their intelligence into making our lives better, here and now BEFORE the next extinction event hits us and starts the process all aver again.
Okay if we as a species know a black hole which is a object with infinite gravity exist. Than clearly multiverse should exist. Infinite is something we know about.
We need to advance all humans to the highest of our capabilities. So we can time travel, teleport and speak to other dimensions. Some of you are so far behind. We all need to work as a team
Based on that nonsensical garbage you have just typed it seems that you’re quite far behind too.
Star Trek will never be. We're too young in our "evolution" to peacefully exist beyond our current programming of self-destruction.
@@HumansAreShitFactories please inform me kind sir?
I believe we'll never know how big the universe really is and it's not multi it's uno? Everything in the universe has different parameters so as far as we know now it's not repeating?
but ever expanding at a rate exceeding new birth. Hence, dark matter? Something has to replace what was displaced. Nature abhors a vacuum.
@@jjkhawaiian in order to know about more than one we have to know how big our universe is first?
There are a number of infinite things that are bigger than us (humans).
We are just a tiny, TINY spec of the Universal Ecosystem.
Before the big bang there was only void. Since it was a void there were no particles to enforce the laws of physics. So at any moment, anywhere, any number of particles could spontaneously pop into existence.
That void still exists beyond the edge of the stuff that came from our big bang. This means that our "universe" may not be the first, will definitely not be the last, and probably is not the only one currently.
Originally, an expanse of water covered everything in darkness. Water is the key with light being just as vital but secondary. That's if you read through ancient texts. I suppose we aren't meant to traverse from below the water to above the water. Not in this physical state.
Like a shaving foam from gel. That's how I picture it. Endlessly expanding foam.
😊😊Multiverse of Madness of Earths 🌎 created by God
I saw a flying pig this morning.
If there is a multiverse is real is it like the Rick and Morty multiverse? Or Marvel?
It just all sounds a bit hard to believe.
Pure entertainment. Shysters like Brian prey on gullible people seeking to fund meaning in life. Since it's virtually impossible to disprove their claims, the tales grow taller.
You just have to ask yourself one thing. Where does it end? If this universe is only one of an infinite number of other universes that make up the multiverse, is the multiverse just one of an infinite number of multiverses that make up the multi-multiverse. And so forth.
Odds are that there is only one universe, that is infinite is scope, and that the big bang didn't create the universe but rather triggered the process of star formation.
You can’t mention the Multiverse without Micheal Moorcock.
o why do endless articles, documentaries, podcasts and books about ‘The Multiverse’ continue to appear without any mention of Michael Moorcock, the writer who came up with the concept and gave it its name?
Moorcock wasn’t the first to use the word ‘multiverse’, as he makes clear himself, but he originated the meaning of the word as it is used today in both physics and popular fiction. The word itself is generally said to have been coined by the psychologist and philosopher William James in 1895, although as I establish in Appendix 2 below, it must have appeared significantly earlier. James and others used the word multiverse to describe our own world or universe, a single and self-contained entity, but seen from as many points of view as there are minds to perceive it - and therefore not subject to any one unique or authoritative interpretation. ‘The multiverse’ was often seen as an atheistic notion and contrasted with ‘the universe’ as ruled by a divine plan. This usage did not entirely disappear as the 20th century went on, but it remained fairly obscure.
In 1963, Moorcock either re-invented the word multiverse, or it surfaced from some forgotten corner of his memory, when he used it to name a new concept in his science fiction story The Blood Red Game. The Oxford English Dictionary acknowledges Moorcock’s novel idea, and defines this newly conceived multiverse as “A hypothetical space or realm of being consisting of a number of universes, of which our own universe is only one.” The OED also recognises that this meaning of the word spread from science fiction to scientific understanding of the basis of reality, or ‘fact’.
What you think dreams are maybe when you dream it’s another you
I think we are teaching our kids one day everything will expand away from the sun wile the people on the other side are teaching their kids everything will fall into the sun one day. That's why every universe has a black hole and one sucks in light and matter while the other side spits it out.
Paul Steinhardt explains this well
Lost my TH-cam comments and I like it that way.
The bagel with *everything* on it.