Dr Greene makes it look so easy and relaxed meanwhile he's constantly calibrating and recalibrating the conversation for pacing, clarity, inclusion of the whole panel and overall cohesiveness. He's just an unbelievably good host and, of course, always on top of the material. Awesome presenter.
Someone linked this to me because they know I love Astronomy and Physics (and studied Quantum Physics and Mechanics in college in the 90s) but in the "comment" they left for me, basically said "look at these so-called scientists trying to undo what god created by making it all about science which can never be proven" and I just face palmed.
They only have half the story. Not even half… maybe some day someone will actually listen to what I am saying and understand how everything works. Then we won’t have to die so much.
Always like B Greene and much appreciation for finding Sir Roger Penrose and his C3 theory decades ago of cyclical big bang and his MC Escher inspiration.
This is the boldest and most intriguing idea in cosmology that I have come upon since inflation itself. I need to look into this more deeply. If true, then the implications are staggering, and many ideas from Hawking radiation to multiple universes are no longer viable or necessary.
What an astounding presentation! Many years ago I saw a similar event at Cambridge University where we were introduced to plate tectonics I feel this is going to prove to be equally profound. Four very, very clever people including THE science populariser of our age have come up with an alternative to something that has always bothered me. I can usually grasp the rough idea and communicate it but inflation (in the cosmic sense) had me utterly baffled, I feel a lot better knowing that I wasn't losing it. Utter respect to all of you especially Anna whose passion shows clearly. To have achieved so much while so young is doubly incredible, to explain it in another language with such clarity is staggering.
I have to say thank you for resuscitating my school education topics that I chose to learn, but had no way to pursue a career in my small country. I have to acknowledge Anna's courage to sit on this stage and hold her ground in the same esteem. You have inspired me so I thank you. I also want to acknowledge that I am enjoying observing the body language of the panel, it is so much fun to see it switch and change about when certain topics are being discussed 😎😁
Will save the Nobel for after we find out how old is the observable universe and what is beyond PS these are thoughts of an amateur young astronomer! Thank you
Never latch on to any hypothesis (it's not a theory yet as we have no strong observations of its predictions and wouldn't yet expect to have any evidence that would falsify it, so we can't say that we have ruled out the things that would falsify it).
@@truhartwood3170 Why assume something negative about this comment? People should "latch on" to hypotheses and consider them as they see fit. "Latch on to" doesn't have to mean "rigidly adhere." If you never latch on to a theory and pursue it, you get no where. More likely it's time to "latch off" from the standard theory of inflation.
@@mattmiller4917 just important to be as dispassionate as possible when considering various hypotheses so that we don't cherry pick data or have confirmation bias or unduly neglect or ignore other hypotheses. That's all. Even theories should only be loosely held as "the best explanation we have right now."
@@truhartwood3170 Certainly, but at the same time, we all "latch on" to ideas all the time, and becoming interested in something does not necessarily imply a lack of skepticism. There is nothing in the original comment that merited your criticism.
Your videos are a constant source of inspiration, driving me to explore further into the mysteries of the universe. Thank you for kindling my inquisitiveness.
@@michael-4k4000they recorded this last month, go on their website you’ll see them advertising the live show. First set of live shows they’ve had since before Covid. 🎉
This discussion contains many profound ideas with some usually hidden ones presented openly that are not limited to a 'cyclic cosmology'. For example, is a simulation based on a 'solid model', i.e. GR, what are the initial conditions used, i.e. spatial shear and is there an arbitrary 'sense' to it all These topics enter the discussion about one hour into the video lead with good questions by Dr. Greene. I, for one, would love to hear/see what Roger Penrose, Neil Turok and Jim Peebles have as reactions to this work.
Not only is it possible, but it very well COULD be the universe we live in. Like Paul said, the expansion was measured by observations of red shift that was millions and billions of years old...we can't actually measure what the far flung areas are doing NOW. So yes, the universe could be contracting at this moment, and we wouldn't know for many, many years
@@TheJoker-dj4yq it clearly is imaginable. Imagine the redshift would have turned out as a blue shift. Then people would have drawn the conclusions the person in the original comment was asking about. Thought experiments are never factual. That's the joke
@@TheJoker-dj4yq Contrafactual thought experiments aren't "fairy tale fantasies." They are usually an attempt to extract a general concept that might not be apparent from observation of present circumstances. One wonders why you felt compelled to spew out such a vicious low-class comment. You're obviously emotionally unbalanced. Have yourself another chaw of terbaccy and calm down, Jethro.
I remember when Brian Greene made gis pop sci debut on the discovery channel or TLC or something similar, PBS? I didn't care for his educational style at the time, but i have grown to LOVE Prof. Greene 🥰
Because time has no cause , effect and affect upon anything(s) physical existence , dynamics ( nor space its self ) . Time is not a true three dimensional dimension . Time can not change any movement by any physical thing(s) . Nor Life . A true three dimensional object could change the movement in and of themselves ; of three dimensional objects . Time in the context of the Universe doesn't matter . It doesn't . Anyway , the stop in time would not be the stop of movement . Movement is independent of time . But time is not independent of movement .
Muito obrigada queridíssimo Professor Brian Greene, abraçãoo ! Amooo demaaiiss este Planeta Terra Universo Magníficos e Fascinantes ! 😊👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻♥️♥️♥️🌍🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲⛰️🏔️🌋🌳🌴🌲🌴🌲🌴🌳🌎🪐🌕🌍🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲🌏🌕🪐🌍🌕🪐🌏🌎♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️
Don't worry, the point is, even these giant brains don't understand it all either. That's pretty much the point of discussing and trying to understand all of this.
@@LordLOC they don't , true . And discussing other theories of the Universe . ( Presented by those that know the alternative theories such as Cosmic Plasma and Electric Universe theories best ) . Not just from mainstream understanding of both theories .
@@philharmer198 There are "theories"/hypothesis and there are ideas/suggestions. "Main stream" or not. If you cannot produce a model, much less mathematics, you're just day dreaming and perhaps coming up with a theme for a science fiction movie.
Great Great question! I bow to you Profesor Greene. Like a great book you open our minds and I thank you daily. Question: one implies a God if pre bang didn't exist. And time may be man made but pre big bang may of been a plate of gasses that came from even mutation and or evolution where and how did they start.? And think that the universe is still forming and it will expand as it cools it may slow and retract and effect gravity as the stars burn out billions and billions Of years from now; note new Suns are being born so this may take eternity. ?
I wanna know who that guy is that queues up the animations and videos of exactly what the speakers are talking about a split second after they start talking about it.. that guy deserves a raise.
Did they explain how entropy doesn’t ultimately WIN over accumulating cycles?! This was so interesting that it is worth a second watch. Many thanks for bringing such high quality content.
Have not watched yet, but isn't "the universe" pretty much the only perfectly isolated system there is? In that case, wouldn't equality satisfy entropic laws?
If considering entropy as a law is correct, then entropy follows a certain order (message). Furthermore, there is no such thing as chaos, just rearranging to a new order...which also does not follow the idea behind entropy. If entropy was a law, we wouldn't be here. The idea is flawed.
@@c-djinni we don't know, maybe we can't know. We don't know how the universe was created, what was before. For example multiverse theory where bubbels of universes keep popping up. Or brane theory, were a collision of higher dimensional branes created our universe
what they fail discuss is the causal mechanism for the expanding universe (currently reported with a large time lag) to reverse to a contracting universe in the observable space. Otherwise an excellent presentation.
there are reasons why this leads to layers of abstraction, that is necessary to do cosmology in some for or fashion, and it turns into half and half conceptual and numerical curve fitting, which is not an insult btw, this is what we have been stuck with in part since newton, but this kind of physics model is always open to changing principles, and so we shall see. this is not to say that the work already done on cosmology is wrong, or unimportant, it might just take a more complicated and constraining set of principles to make progress.
you see it depends on the coordinate interpretations, because at a certain expansion rate the rate of change in the energy density can also be corresponding in a funky way, but this only makes good physical sense for these types of equations when you define energy in a certain way, and this business has to do with derivatives of the metric and so on and the energy densities even when they are 0 and so it isn't as un-tricky as either Einstein or his contemporaries knew anything about, the essential boiled down version is that you can pick a convention and it will sort out your derivatives independently of what the energy densities actually are without changing the equations so to speak in this more involved language, so in a sense they where both right and wrong. this is the gist anyway :)
I think the Universe is dynamic & animated, & pulses like a wave, producing a series of Big Bangs like a celestial sausage machine. There is no beginning and no end, except for the birth of consciousness which was needed to give meaning to all material existence.
My belief is that the big bang was a somewhat localised event in a much larger universe. Like a rock dropped into the ocean, its effect is localised when compared to the whole universe. Maybe black holes collapse even further when they reach a critical mass, they implode more then explode
@@philharmer198we have pictures of black holes. Well, at least the event horizon. They do in fact exist and are extensively studied. Eg we've captured the gravity wave signatures of back holes merging.
@@truhartwood3170 Other theories think differently . Cosmic Plasmas and Electric Universe Theories for example . Show that black holes don't actually exist . Who Interprets the information matters . Are these waves moving out from this " black hole " or inwards ( towards the center of the , source ) ? Or Outwards ? Pictures of black holes , remind me more of currents of plasma . Like Ocean currents . A whirl pool of plasma .
@@philharmer198 The 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three scientists for groundbreaking contributions to Science. 1. Roger Penrose: Received half of the prize “for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity” - 2/3 . Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez: They jointly shared the other half “for the discovery of a supermassive compact object at the center of our galaxy”. Not only is it scientifically proven, the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT), photographed the supermassive black hole in M87* or Virgo A, as well as Sagittarius A*, central to our home in the Milky Way galaxy. They both physically exist and are 100% REAL, proven phenomena.
@@mrhassell Now take that information upon which they base their truth of black holes and give this information to the Plasma and Electric Universe theorists , make it public , this information and find out what they have to say , about this information . Do they come to the same conclusion as they do ? I doubt it .
What if spontaneous creation / destruction of matter and energy at the quantum level AND expansion / compaction at the cosmological level are not mutually exclusive? And what if the expansion is heavily biased in the spatial dimensions and the compaction is heavily biased in the temporal dimension? Can you run your models using these assumptions and see how they might influence the model's ability to describe observation?
I don’t think it by definition would rule it out, it just might not have as much of an impact as a mechanistic feature, so it would be a bug caused by Black Hole’s not a feature.
how did they get to be the same temperature? gravity on the PODE. the PODE itself would be extremely close to uniform and the mechanism that actually made the big bang expand is still not yet understood. so that could also play a part.
Consider, the universe itself is living. If it is, we can surmise that it was "born" from the interaction of other pre-existing universes like our own with an endless number of other related universes filling the proverbial night sky beyond the realm of our expanding universe. All of it is alive and growing.^
I just love science programs like these. Hypothesis are postulated and then discussed until there is nothing left but facts close to be 100% true. Religions, in contrast, postulate theories that may not be questioned and are almost 100% false, yet people can't let go of it. Like a ship that kept one safe for years, but is sinking now, goes down with those that hang on to it, while those that accept the fact, start swimming and stay on the surface, at least for a while
Couldn't this explain the Hubble Tension (around 1:16:00) if the slope of the potential energy curve is different for different methods of determining the rate assessed at different distances? Just sayin'.
Might it be that expansion and contraction are both present together, working in tandem? Galaxies can be expanding as a whole, while within each galaxy pockets of contraction might provide the smoothing until an equilibrium is obtain?
If you see a pile of broken glass on the floor, you don't know what it was until it is all put back together. In a broken state it could be a bottle or a glass. Our universe is the pile of broken glass, how can you think it was a bottle when it could have been a glass?
Zero entropy is a weird way to look at anything, as you can simply assume just limiting space/time to a point could be all entropy at the same look. It doesn't have to make sense that way of looking at entropy. Entropy is a deceiving concept. Personally it's always bugged me. Why isn't a singularity entropy anyway you look at it? Gr8! Peace ☮💜
I'm not a native in English speaker neither a physics specialist (not even a student) so I could be missing key things here, but I don't understand what could trigger the bounce phase, and besides that, how is that the smoothing process doesn't contradict entropy? Could someone help me understand this o fill in the gaps i'm missing here, please?
Waves at a beach can be very turbulent, picking up material on its way, yet on the beach the sand is flat. Gravity could be the turbulent fluid in some gravitationally overloaded universal sized black hole, by time particles can get together again still expanding compressed gravity is in the beach, calmer state.
It makes sense it's a cycle. Look out into the universe and all we see is cycles. In fact a black hole changes time into space, another black hole within could cycle it back again. Nested black holes might be the mechanism.
One thing that remains unclear to me in this discussion: If, in the cyclic model, inflation can't smooth the universe unless it was already very very smooth to start with, then how can the cyclic model produce a smooth universe even when it lacks the smoothing inflation? Or maybe I need to watch this again with greater care...
A "multi"-verse remains a SINGLE UNIVERSE composed of multiple universes (like ours, which could be inside a black hole), ETERNAL and INFINITE that is continually TRANSFORMED and manifests itself in many, infinite ways, whatever they are called: Human beings, Galaxies, Quasars, Black Holes, Dark Matter, Singularity, etc... The Universe or Multiverse only transforms: It is PURE ENERGY.... It is impossible to prove it, but it makes no sense to have a Beginning, or an END in time, or any Space LIMIT: What could be BEYOND the Space "limit" of the Multiverse? Well, ANOTHER Universe... And what could have been BEFORE the BIG BANG? Well, another Universe or Multiverse... And once ours cools down and perhaps COLLAPSES into a SINGULARITY, perhaps it will give rise to another Big Bang... ETERNAL...!!! And most importantly: That Universe-Multiverse is GOD! A God who does not reward, punish or monitor anyone. That he is not looking out for anyone. So ENJOY your life!
also, if we run with this Einsteinian dream that all relations are self defining in a sense, the size of the universe changing isn't actually what expansion means, expansion in that sense means the changing of relations inside the space. in that language the notion of a singularity just doesn't exist anymore or it changes into a different kind of statement which can just as easily have a past as any other point or volume.
When I was in high school, I thought that a universe and its energy would dissipate beyond its event horizon in akin to hawking radiation, but only after achieving entropic equilibrium; returning its energy to the environment that birthed it.
I was dead serious and fascinated by this idea. It's been my dream to chase that question. But now I know to bite my tongue and question without assumption.
The idea of a cyclical universe was popular in antiquity. Many Greek philosophers propounded this idea. It was particularly common in stoic philosophy. The idea fell out of favor however with the advent of Christianity. Writing in 400 CE, St. Augustine argued that if the universe were cyclical, Christ would have to die an infinite number of times in cycle after cycle. The Idea was then abandoned in the west for centuries. It reemerged in the 18th and 19th centuries, perhaps most notably in the works of Fredrick Nietzsche. This idea of a cyclical universe is commonly call eternal return.
And so here we are now…..and in x billion trillion giga years all the supermassive black holes evaporate into 🌑 and 🌚….😘Great session! Thanks so much! Perfect New Years launch💫💙
The competing cosmological models are pretty dependent on principles. What if the universe's minimum a(t) never was microscopic due to space requirements of its total energy content (then of an extremely nonlinear, selfinteracting system)? And time, whatever this is in the spatial bottleneck situation, could it have slowed down enough to guarantee sort of thermodynamic equilibrium to be reached without any inflationary necessity? And kind of a Feigenbaum scenario with a plethora of phase transitions would then have had the time necessary to evolve and generate complexity...
Well, all panelists were assuming that for a cyclical universe the WHOLE of universe has to expand and contract in cycles, but we have observed that local parts of the universe do contract to a singularity, each black hole observed. Mass and energy contract to a singularity and that is where a part of our universe ends and on the other side of the singularity, they are “white holes” where new universes are formed, so each black hole in our observable universe is a “bounce” but not back into our universe but into a new separate universe that we will never be able to interact with (since “light” / causality in one can no longer escape from one to another). Our universe itself is on the other side of such a black hole “bounce” in some other universe. This has been happening ad infinitum so therefore it is like the chicken and egg, there is no beginning nor end.
People argue that since there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with tens of billions of stars each with tens of planets that by the laws of statistical probabilities there must be another intelligent species somewhere in our own universe. Sure there must be other intelligent species out there in each universe but the distances are so huge that there is no possibility of these intelligent species interacting. Additionally those intelligent species in other universes behind each black hole will never be able to interact. These enormous distances explain the Fermi paradox. Our own species should be amazed by the exceptional miracle of our existence and get along with each other rather than try and exterminate the minuscule amount of intelligent life that we have in our local bit of space.
@@seeseeteevee Intelligent Life would create a Propulsion System that is beyond chemical . Distances are not shortened by speed . Duration changes , but not the distance its self .
Sounds like Rovelli, a bouncy to a white hole to time reversal and a return of information. You may or may not have to consider Heisenburge and uncertainty principal.
Time is a compactified dimension one single Planck second in size. This is why there are limits This is why there is conservation And neutron decay cosmology closed that loop only one Planck second long
with respect to this comment i just made, pauls point makes a lot of sense, but i think it is a mix, i think he thought he had some notion of self consistency baked in and the observations carried it, little did he know that to explain the broken scale in variance in the physics of atoms in the same language as curved spacetime you need the universe to expand, it turns out it cannot bounce outside very spacial cases that are ultimately local fluctuations and shouldn't really be viewed as contraction, it could never happen for a large universe like ours, but essentially the mechanisms you need to explain the broken scale invariance of matter and a lot of other feature of the forces you absolutely need expansion in the context of this ever increasing entropy to explain features that look driven and damped in equal propotions in relation to a moving definition of energy related to the broken scale invariance. but he could never have known that something as simple as self consistency could tie all these things together, and that is the curse of being a pioneer, you never know what might come next, and so we shouldn't take our principles so seriously outside understanding their application and intent in a separated way.
Свет - это упорядоченная вибрация гравитационных квантов. Постулат 2. Гравитационное поле управляет частотой и скоростью света в вакууме. Садимся в автобус, едем прямо, и при помощи ГИБРИД- гироскопа, из оптоволоконных ДВУХ не круглых катушек - измеряем скорость 30, 25, 20 м/сек. Проведем вторые 50%, эксперимента Майкельсона Морли (первые 50% длились от 1881 по 2015, почему мозгами на этом мы тормозим?) Предложение о совместной реализации изобретения. Вы ведите переговоры с специалистами по производству оптоволоконных гироскопов. Техническая консультация по ГИБРИД - гироскопу и оплата стоимости тестового устройства с меня. Мы можем для большой науки, сэкономить большие 💰. В Китае и Индии в плане строительства детекторов Г. В. Также есть запуск тяжёлых ракет с межпланетными спутниками, типа LISA и так далее. Это более 4 миллиард $, не считая других ресурсов.
How can "the universe" be functionally/computationally bounded but produce the computational irreducible virtual phenomen that we call consciousness? Maybe there's something more to being. I often feel like my subconscious knows a lot more than my ego, but it won't tell for some reason.
"computational irreducible virtual phenomen that we call consciousness? " I do not think this has a consensus among empirical philosophers, the sciences, or even many rationalist philosophers for what the definition and nature of consciousness is. Or, more that it is not ultimately a reducible and material phenomenon. Furthermore, cosmological inferences are not exactly "bound" by our on inferences on consciousness; if they are incompatible in their natures, then they need further exploration.
@@thomabow8949 Fair enough.. "cosmological inferences are not exactly 'bound' by our inference on consciousness". I was preceptively overzealous at the time when trying to communicate my thoughts. Allow me to take the time later to make my points clear.
@@thomabow8949 ya so everything that we can infer logically will also be computational. Would you agree with that at least? I should have taken more time and not thrown the term "bounded" but I did anyway so let's explore what I meant. What I mean by "how can the universe be functionally / computationally bounded" as a question, I mean about the recognizable axiomatic nature of what we consider the interior of the universe. We have quantum mechanics as a yolk and gravity as a shell. Its mathematical/computational on the inside at least. Lmk if you agree or disagree at this point.. Eventually I want to draw a teleological tautology that places a conscious arbiter at the center.
@@thomabow8949 I only now realized we're talking to each other in multiple conversations. But anyway.. You said that there's not a definition/consensus for consciousness among authorities. That's because they already conceded that conscious experience cannot be quantified or virtualized. There's absolutely plenty of smart people who don't even question it anymore because it's glaringly obvious that we can't reproduce subjective conscious experience. It's as computationally irreducible as the universal wave function/universe.
Не может ли быть так, что расширение вызвано самим квантовым явлением, которое нарушило суперсимметрию энергии и вернуло её в так называемое состояние со вновь возможностью квантового явления в этой суперсимметричной энергии?
QFT - Quantum Field Theory supports this idea, exactly as you say. I feel a little less alone in the Universe now. Thank you for making this profound remark! Спасибо
![ตรงที่เดิม - ฝน พรสุดา [ต้นฉบับ :เบส ขวางหวัน]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c5YnbGEztI8/mqdefault.jpg)
Dr Greene makes it look so easy and relaxed meanwhile he's constantly calibrating and recalibrating the conversation for pacing, clarity, inclusion of the whole panel and overall cohesiveness. He's just an unbelievably good host and, of course, always on top of the material. Awesome presenter.
You’re definitely right, Greene is great, I loved his books and I love these videos
" We should all work on something that is wrong." - Anna Ijjas. I am taking this to the bank 😤.
These talks are great, thanks for putting them out for free
Hi another Anna here, thanks for telling this amazing story Anna, and the other people in the video :D
first goes like, then i watch. brian never dissapoints. never
This was one of the best, even most important programs yet from the WSF. Thanks for letting us eavesdrop on great ideas.
Someone linked this to me because they know I love Astronomy and Physics (and studied Quantum Physics and Mechanics in college in the 90s) but in the "comment" they left for me, basically said "look at these so-called scientists trying to undo what god created by making it all about science which can never be proven" and I just face palmed.
They only have half the story. Not even half… maybe some day someone will actually listen to what I am saying and understand how everything works. Then we won’t have to die so much.
@@spiralsun1 , by all means, let us hear you!
It is the best and important program . It shows the flawed thinking . Currently .
@@spiralsun1listen to you? Who are you and what is your theory,
Thanks for the vid and engagement.
Great channel for exploring
Fantastic.Thank you so much for organising this festival, and for its live broadcadting. I have found this conversation particularly interesting.
Always like B Greene and much appreciation for finding Sir Roger Penrose and his C3 theory decades ago of cyclical big bang and his MC Escher inspiration.
This new cyclical theory seems much more promising than Penrose's, imho.
Brian is the GOAT. So captivating the way he gets science accross
incredible discussion about the bleeding edge of modern physics and cosmology.
Very nice discussion. Thank you! 👏👏👏
Great talk
Anna's directness is hilarious
this talk sheds a lot of insight into how the scientifice oligarchy works to stifle new, emerging, and innovative ideas.
This is the boldest and most intriguing idea in cosmology that I have come upon since inflation itself. I need to look into this more deeply. If true, then the implications are staggering, and many ideas from Hawking radiation to multiple universes are no longer viable or necessary.
True. This is a landmark idea that may form the basis of the origin of the universe.
He must be a joy to be interviewed by like this. Professor Greene is so perceptive, insightful and masterful in the art of scientific communication.
WSF never disappoints :)
I love these, they are so thought expanding. They make you know not one person is in charge. We will all be a part of that particle in the end.
much expanding. so universe. wow
Maybe you’ll be just a particle in the end, but not me. Speak for yourself..
So fascinating and inspiring.
What an astounding presentation! Many years ago I saw a similar event at Cambridge University where we were introduced to plate tectonics I feel this is going to prove to be equally profound. Four very, very clever people including THE science populariser of our age have come up with an alternative to something that has always bothered me. I can usually grasp the rough idea and communicate it but inflation (in the cosmic sense) had me utterly baffled, I feel a lot better knowing that I wasn't losing it. Utter respect to all of you especially Anna whose passion shows clearly. To have achieved so much while so young is doubly incredible, to explain it in another language with such clarity is staggering.
I have to say thank you for resuscitating my school education topics that I chose to learn, but had no way to pursue a career in my small country. I have to acknowledge Anna's courage to sit on this stage and hold her ground in the same esteem. You have inspired me so I thank you. I also want to acknowledge that I am enjoying observing the body language of the panel, it is so much fun to see it switch and change about when certain topics are being discussed 😎😁
Roger Penrose Cyclic Cosmology
I would like to know what Penrose thinks of this idea. I could be wrong, but some aspects of it seem compatible with his concept.
Another exceptional World Science Festival event.
We will see..... never assume as it makes ans ASS out of U & Me.... 😅
Remarkable, these concepts and their explanations. All potential Nobel winners
Will save the Nobel for after we find out how old is the observable universe and what is beyond PS these are thoughts of an amateur young astronomer! Thank you
Nice job 😅😮🎉
"Establishment Participation" cookies.
amazing idea, and an amazing video. I need a second watch.. but still beautiful.
CCC is art. I just love it
I've latched onto this theory since we first heard of it
Never latch on to any hypothesis (it's not a theory yet as we have no strong observations of its predictions and wouldn't yet expect to have any evidence that would falsify it, so we can't say that we have ruled out the things that would falsify it).
@@truhartwood3170 Why assume something negative about this comment? People should "latch on" to hypotheses and consider them as they see fit. "Latch on to" doesn't have to mean "rigidly adhere." If you never latch on to a theory and pursue it, you get no where. More likely it's time to "latch off" from the standard theory of inflation.
@@mattmiller4917 just important to be as dispassionate as possible when considering various hypotheses so that we don't cherry pick data or have confirmation bias or unduly neglect or ignore other hypotheses. That's all. Even theories should only be loosely held as "the best explanation we have right now."
@@truhartwood3170 Certainly, but at the same time, we all "latch on" to ideas all the time, and becoming interested in something does not necessarily imply a lack of skepticism. There is nothing in the original comment that merited your criticism.
Your videos are a constant source of inspiration, driving me to explore further into the mysteries of the universe. Thank you for kindling my inquisitiveness.
Erhhm thanks…How about a donation instead.
😅
Great respect for the skills of the facilitator here.
Brian Greene is absolutely the best science presenter of our time. We're lucky to have him in the here and now.
Salesman of the decade.
Amazing - Thank you Brian Greene/Team .. amazing content
Attended this live! Was a great show in NYC. Thanks Brian
Dude it just came out lol. U couldn't have been there
@@michael-4k4000they recorded this last month, go on their website you’ll see them advertising the live show. First set of live shows they’ve had since before Covid. 🎉
@@michael-4k4000 what??
Another really excellent panel discussion! - I wish I had the maths to understand all this stuff as well as the panel members . .
Amazing talk, great theory strong again. ....
This discussion contains many profound ideas with some usually hidden ones presented openly that are not limited to a 'cyclic cosmology'. For example, is a simulation based on a 'solid model', i.e. GR, what are the initial conditions used, i.e. spatial shear and is there an arbitrary 'sense' to it all These topics enter the discussion about one hour into the video lead with good questions by Dr. Greene. I, for one, would love to hear/see what Roger Penrose, Neil Turok and Jim Peebles have as reactions to this work.
I hope they weigh in on this idea as well. I've been looking for reactions but haven't found them.
thank you so much.
It makes you wonder if we lived in a contracting universe what would our theories of the origin be... Great episode!! Thank you!
That’s a great thought
Not only is it possible, but it very well COULD be the universe we live in. Like Paul said, the expansion was measured by observations of red shift that was millions and billions of years old...we can't actually measure what the far flung areas are doing NOW. So yes, the universe could be contracting at this moment, and we wouldn't know for many, many years
@@TheJoker-dj4yq it clearly is imaginable. Imagine the redshift would have turned out as a blue shift. Then people would have drawn the conclusions the person in the original comment was asking about.
Thought experiments are never factual. That's the joke
@@TheJoker-dj4yq Contrafactual thought experiments aren't "fairy tale fantasies." They are usually an attempt to extract a general concept that might not be apparent from observation of present circumstances. One wonders why you felt compelled to spew out such a vicious low-class comment. You're obviously emotionally unbalanced. Have yourself another chaw of terbaccy and calm down, Jethro.
@@TheJoker-dj4yqHahahaha if we focused on what we only knew to be possible then science wouldn't be done.
Right now, Penrose's take on conformal cyclic cosmology makes more sense to me.
I remember when Brian Greene made gis pop sci debut on the discovery channel or TLC or something similar, PBS? I didn't care for his educational style at the time, but i have grown to LOVE Prof. Greene 🥰
fantastic panel.
💭 💭💭💭
If time in the whole universe stops for billions of years long then resumes, we wouldn’t be able to notice!
🤯🤯 🤯
Because time has no cause , effect and affect upon anything(s) physical existence , dynamics ( nor space its self ) . Time is not a true three dimensional dimension . Time can not change any movement by any physical thing(s) . Nor Life . A true three dimensional object could change the movement in and of themselves ; of three dimensional objects .
Time in the context of the Universe doesn't matter . It doesn't . Anyway , the stop in time would not be the stop of movement .
Movement is independent of time . But time is not independent of movement .
Great show
Muito obrigada queridíssimo Professor Brian Greene, abraçãoo ! Amooo demaaiiss este Planeta Terra Universo Magníficos e Fascinantes ! 😊👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻♥️♥️♥️🌍🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲⛰️🏔️🌋🌳🌴🌲🌴🌲🌴🌳🌎🪐🌕🌍🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲🌳🌴🌲🌏🌕🪐🌍🌕🪐🌏🌎♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️
This is surely interesting. But what got the cycle going in the first place? What started the first expansion/contraction?
I'm not sure I fully understand this stuff, but thanks for producing such great content!!!
Don't worry, the point is, even these giant brains don't understand it all either. That's pretty much the point of discussing and trying to understand all of this.
@@LordLOC they don't , true .
And discussing other theories of the Universe . ( Presented by those that know the alternative theories such as Cosmic Plasma and Electric Universe theories best ) . Not just from mainstream understanding of both theories .
@@philharmer198 There are "theories"/hypothesis and there are ideas/suggestions. "Main stream" or not.
If you cannot produce a model, much less mathematics, you're just day dreaming and perhaps coming up with a theme for a science fiction movie.
@@readynowforever3676 Agreed .
@@readynowforever3676 true .
Great Great question! I bow to you Profesor Greene. Like a great book you open our minds and I thank you daily.
Question: one implies a God if pre bang didn't exist. And time may be man made but pre big bang may of been a plate of gasses that came from even mutation and or evolution where and how did they start.?
And think that the universe is still forming and it will expand as it cools it may slow and retract and effect gravity as the stars burn out billions and billions Of years from now; note new Suns are being born so this may take eternity.
?
Very well done, thank you. Peace 😎 ✌️
I am not sure about the 'Big Bang' but my mind is blown by this episode. Wow!
I like the Roger Penrose theory, way more elegant!
I wanna know who that guy is that queues up the animations and videos of exactly what the speakers are talking about a split second after they start talking about it.. that guy deserves a raise.
interesting. I need to re watch so I can better understand, but their idea does make sense.
Did they explain how entropy doesn’t ultimately WIN over accumulating cycles?! This was so interesting that it is worth a second watch. Many thanks for bringing such high quality content.
Have not watched yet, but isn't "the universe" pretty much the only perfectly isolated system there is? In that case, wouldn't equality satisfy entropic laws?
@@c-djinni If. But we just don't know what the universe is, what's beyond. So we just don't know. The speculation is interesting though
If considering entropy as a law is correct, then entropy follows a certain order (message). Furthermore, there is no such thing as chaos, just rearranging to a new order...which also does not follow the idea behind entropy. If entropy was a law, we wouldn't be here. The idea is flawed.
@@Mutation80 There's nothing "beyond the universe", as that would (by definition) be included in the universe.
@@c-djinni we don't know, maybe we can't know. We don't know how the universe was created, what was before. For example multiverse theory where bubbels of universes keep popping up. Or brane theory, were a collision of higher dimensional branes created our universe
I'm eager to see this talk.
what they fail discuss is the causal mechanism for the expanding universe (currently reported with a large time lag) to reverse to a contracting universe in the observable space. Otherwise an excellent presentation.
50 minutes in and nobody has mentioned Sir Roger Penrose... huh?
Great expert!!❤
Very thought provoking
there are reasons why this leads to layers of abstraction, that is necessary to do cosmology in some for or fashion, and it turns into half and half conceptual and numerical curve fitting, which is not an insult btw, this is what we have been stuck with in part since newton, but this kind of physics model is always open to changing principles, and so we shall see. this is not to say that the work already done on cosmology is wrong, or unimportant, it might just take a more complicated and constraining set of principles to make progress.
you see it depends on the coordinate interpretations, because at a certain expansion rate the rate of change in the energy density can also be corresponding in a funky way, but this only makes good physical sense for these types of equations when you define energy in a certain way, and this business has to do with derivatives of the metric and so on and the energy densities even when they are 0 and so it isn't as un-tricky as either Einstein or his contemporaries knew anything about, the essential boiled down version is that you can pick a convention and it will sort out your derivatives independently of what the energy densities actually are without changing the equations so to speak in this more involved language, so in a sense they where both right and wrong. this is the gist anyway :)
The universe won’t ever end
I think the Universe is dynamic & animated, & pulses like a wave, producing a series of Big Bangs like a celestial sausage machine. There is no beginning and no end, except for the birth of consciousness which was needed to give meaning to all material existence.
Needed by us, maybe. But why would a human invention like meaning be needed for a physical process?
My belief is that the big bang was a somewhat localised event in a much larger universe. Like a rock dropped into the ocean, its effect is localised when compared to the whole universe.
Maybe black holes collapse even further when they reach a critical mass, they implode more then explode
Galactic localization . Galactic creation . Not the Universe .
Black holes are mathematical concepts . They don't actually physically exist .
@@philharmer198we have pictures of black holes. Well, at least the event horizon. They do in fact exist and are extensively studied. Eg we've captured the gravity wave signatures of back holes merging.
@@truhartwood3170 Other theories think differently . Cosmic Plasmas and Electric Universe Theories for example . Show that black holes don't actually exist . Who Interprets the information matters .
Are these waves moving out from this " black hole " or inwards ( towards the center of the , source ) ? Or Outwards ?
Pictures of black holes , remind me more of currents of plasma . Like Ocean currents . A whirl pool of plasma .
@@philharmer198 The 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three scientists for groundbreaking contributions to Science. 1. Roger Penrose: Received half of the prize “for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity” - 2/3 . Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez: They jointly shared the other half “for the discovery of a supermassive compact object at the center of our galaxy”. Not only is it scientifically proven, the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT), photographed the supermassive black hole in M87* or Virgo A, as well as Sagittarius A*, central to our home in the Milky Way galaxy. They both physically exist and are 100% REAL, proven phenomena.
@@mrhassell Now take that information upon which they base their truth of black holes and give this information to the Plasma and Electric Universe theorists , make it public , this information and find out what they have to say , about this information . Do they come to the same conclusion as they do ? I doubt it .
Great show! Extremely interesting 🤔. Fantastic questions.
science is awesome! :)
What if spontaneous creation / destruction of matter and energy at the quantum level AND expansion / compaction at the cosmological level are not mutually exclusive? And what if the expansion is heavily biased in the spatial dimensions and the compaction is heavily biased in the temporal dimension? Can you run your models using these assumptions and see how they might influence the model's ability to describe observation?
Does this theory rule out the "need" for quantum gravity in black hole physics as well?
Anyway, really interesting talk. Thank you!
I don’t think it by definition would rule it out, it just might not have as much of an impact as a mechanistic feature, so it would be a bug caused by Black Hole’s not a feature.
how did they get to be the same temperature? gravity on the PODE. the PODE itself would be extremely close to uniform and the mechanism that actually made the big bang expand is still not yet understood. so that could also play a part.
How did we get the low entropy of the big bang?😅
Wonderful!
Scientists fight to learn, not to kill.
Consider, the universe itself is living. If it is, we can surmise that it was "born" from the interaction of other pre-existing universes like our own with an endless number of other related universes filling the proverbial night sky beyond the realm of our expanding universe. All of it is alive and growing.^
I just love science programs like these. Hypothesis are postulated and then discussed until there is nothing left but facts close to be 100% true. Religions, in contrast, postulate theories that may not be questioned and are almost 100% false, yet people can't let go of it. Like a ship that kept one safe for years, but is sinking now, goes down with those that hang on to it, while those that accept the fact, start swimming and stay on the surface, at least for a while
I come here because I have no friends that want to talk about these things. (insert tears)
You're not alone...me too 😂
Couldn't this explain the Hubble Tension (around 1:16:00) if the slope of the potential energy curve is different for different methods of determining the rate assessed at different distances? Just sayin'.
amazing
Might it be that expansion and contraction are both present together, working in tandem? Galaxies can be expanding as a whole, while within each galaxy pockets of contraction might provide the smoothing until an equilibrium is obtain?
No, since the smoothing is on a cosmic scale, what's happening in galaxies wouldn't account for it.
If you see a pile of broken glass on the floor, you don't know what it was until it is all put back together. In a broken state it could be a bottle or a glass. Our universe is the pile of broken glass, how can you think it was a bottle when it could have been a glass?
It's nice to see such brilliant people laugh at pure nervousness when there is not a shred of humor. Eases my anxiety.
Grow some hair on your chest nerd
Zero entropy is a weird way to look at anything, as you can simply assume just limiting space/time to a point could be all entropy at the same look. It doesn't have to make sense that way of looking at entropy. Entropy is a deceiving concept. Personally it's always bugged me. Why isn't a singularity entropy anyway you look at it? Gr8! Peace ☮💜
I'm not a native in English speaker neither a physics specialist (not even a student) so I could be missing key things here, but I don't understand what could trigger the bounce phase, and besides that, how is that the smoothing process doesn't contradict entropy? Could someone help me understand this o fill in the gaps i'm missing here, please?
Waves at a beach can be very turbulent, picking up material on its way, yet on the beach the sand is flat. Gravity could be the turbulent fluid in some gravitationally overloaded universal sized black hole, by time particles can get together again still expanding compressed gravity is in the beach, calmer state.
I like the theory presented by the lady!
What about Penrose and Meissner with aeons theory?
It makes sense it's a cycle. Look out into the universe and all we see is cycles. In fact a black hole changes time into space, another black hole within could cycle it back again. Nested black holes might be the mechanism.
This is really good. Im always sceptical of things that seem bolted on to fix problems - inflation, dark matter etc
Only it's not, unlike this idea those ideas are based on actual physics and observations
One thing that remains unclear to me in this discussion: If, in the cyclic model, inflation can't smooth the universe unless it was already very very smooth to start with, then how can the cyclic model produce a smooth universe even when it lacks the smoothing inflation?
Or maybe I need to watch this again with greater care...
A "multi"-verse remains a SINGLE UNIVERSE composed of multiple universes (like ours, which could be inside a black hole), ETERNAL and INFINITE that is continually TRANSFORMED and manifests itself in many, infinite ways, whatever they are called: Human beings, Galaxies, Quasars, Black Holes, Dark Matter, Singularity, etc...
The Universe or Multiverse only transforms: It is PURE ENERGY....
It is impossible to prove it, but it makes no sense to have a Beginning, or an END in time, or any Space LIMIT:
What could be BEYOND the Space "limit" of the Multiverse? Well, ANOTHER Universe...
And what could have been BEFORE the BIG BANG? Well, another Universe or Multiverse... And once ours cools down and perhaps COLLAPSES into a SINGULARITY, perhaps it will give rise to another Big Bang... ETERNAL...!!!
And most importantly: That Universe-Multiverse is GOD!
A God who does not reward, punish or monitor anyone. That he is not looking out for anyone. So ENJOY your life!
also, if we run with this Einsteinian dream that all relations are self defining in a sense, the size of the universe changing isn't actually what expansion means, expansion in that sense means the changing of relations inside the space. in that language the notion of a singularity just doesn't exist anymore or it changes into a different kind of statement which can just as easily have a past as any other point or volume.
Nothing begin and will never end...
When I was in high school, I thought that a universe and its energy would dissipate beyond its event horizon in akin to hawking radiation, but only after achieving entropic equilibrium; returning its energy to the environment that birthed it.
I was dead serious and fascinated by this idea. It's been my dream to chase that question. But now I know to bite my tongue and question without assumption.
I don't understand the last stage of contraction must be made faster than light, will be needed a great amount of energy.
The idea of a cyclical universe was popular in antiquity. Many Greek philosophers propounded this idea. It was particularly common in stoic philosophy. The idea fell out of favor however with the advent of Christianity. Writing in 400 CE, St. Augustine argued that if the universe were cyclical, Christ would have to die an infinite number of times in cycle after cycle. The Idea was then abandoned in the west for centuries. It reemerged in the 18th and 19th centuries, perhaps most notably in the works of Fredrick Nietzsche. This idea of a cyclical universe is commonly call eternal return.
And so here we are now…..and in x billion trillion giga years all the supermassive black holes evaporate into 🌑 and 🌚….😘Great session! Thanks so much! Perfect New Years launch💫💙
Anna and Brian had a lot of chemistry... HUBA HUBA
The competing cosmological models are pretty dependent on principles. What if the universe's minimum a(t) never was microscopic due to space requirements of its total energy content (then of an extremely nonlinear, selfinteracting system)? And time, whatever this is in the spatial bottleneck situation, could it have slowed down enough to guarantee sort of thermodynamic equilibrium to be reached without any inflationary necessity? And kind of a Feigenbaum scenario with a plethora of phase transitions would then have had the time necessary to evolve and generate complexity...
Well, all panelists were assuming that for a cyclical universe the WHOLE of universe has to expand and contract in cycles, but we have observed that local parts of the universe do contract to a singularity, each black hole observed. Mass and energy contract to a singularity and that is where a part of our universe ends and on the other side of the singularity, they are “white holes” where new universes are formed, so each black hole in our observable universe is a “bounce” but not back into our universe but into a new separate universe that we will never be able to interact with (since “light” / causality in one can no longer escape from one to another). Our universe itself is on the other side of such a black hole “bounce” in some other universe. This has been happening ad infinitum so therefore it is like the chicken and egg, there is no beginning nor end.
People argue that since there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with tens of billions of stars each with tens of planets that by the laws of statistical probabilities there must be another intelligent species somewhere in our own universe. Sure there must be other intelligent species out there in each universe but the distances are so huge that there is no possibility of these intelligent species interacting. Additionally those intelligent species in other universes behind each black hole will never be able to interact. These enormous distances explain the Fermi paradox. Our own species should be amazed by the exceptional miracle of our existence and get along with each other rather than try and exterminate the minuscule amount of intelligent life that we have in our local bit of space.
@@seeseeteevee Intelligent Life would create a Propulsion System that is beyond chemical .
Distances are not shortened by speed . Duration changes , but not the distance its self .
There is no beginning and no end other than,
The Eternal Now. (universe in T.E.N. dimensions)
Twelve.
Sounds like Rovelli, a bouncy to a white hole to time reversal and a return of information. You may or may not have to consider Heisenburge and uncertainty principal.
Time is a compactified dimension one single Planck second in size.
This is why there are limits
This is why there is conservation
And neutron decay cosmology closed that loop only one Planck second long
When was this talk?
with respect to this comment i just made, pauls point makes a lot of sense, but i think it is a mix, i think he thought he had some notion of self consistency baked in and the observations carried it, little did he know that to explain the broken scale in variance in the physics of atoms in the same language as curved spacetime you need the universe to expand, it turns out it cannot bounce outside very spacial cases that are ultimately local fluctuations and shouldn't really be viewed as contraction, it could never happen for a large universe like ours, but essentially the mechanisms you need to explain the broken scale invariance of matter and a lot of other feature of the forces you absolutely need expansion in the context of this ever increasing entropy to explain features that look driven and damped in equal propotions in relation to a moving definition of energy related to the broken scale invariance. but he could never have known that something as simple as self consistency could tie all these things together, and that is the curse of being a pioneer, you never know what might come next, and so we shouldn't take our principles so seriously outside understanding their application and intent in a separated way.
Свет - это упорядоченная вибрация гравитационных квантов. Постулат 2. Гравитационное поле управляет частотой и скоростью света в вакууме.
Садимся в автобус, едем прямо, и при помощи ГИБРИД- гироскопа, из оптоволоконных ДВУХ не круглых катушек - измеряем скорость 30, 25, 20 м/сек. Проведем вторые 50%, эксперимента Майкельсона Морли (первые 50% длились от 1881 по 2015, почему мозгами на этом мы тормозим?)
Предложение о совместной реализации изобретения. Вы ведите переговоры с специалистами по производству оптоволоконных гироскопов. Техническая консультация по ГИБРИД - гироскопу и оплата стоимости тестового устройства с меня.
Мы можем для большой науки, сэкономить большие 💰. В Китае и Индии в плане строительства детекторов Г. В. Также есть запуск тяжёлых ракет с межпланетными спутниками, типа LISA и так далее. Это более 4 миллиард $, не считая других ресурсов.
How can "the universe" be functionally/computationally bounded but produce the computational irreducible virtual phenomen that we call consciousness?
Maybe there's something more to being. I often feel like my subconscious knows a lot more than my ego, but it won't tell for some reason.
"computational irreducible virtual phenomen that we call consciousness? " I do not think this has a consensus among empirical philosophers, the sciences, or even many rationalist philosophers for what the definition and nature of consciousness is. Or, more that it is not ultimately a reducible and material phenomenon. Furthermore, cosmological inferences are not exactly "bound" by our on inferences on consciousness; if they are incompatible in their natures, then they need further exploration.
@@thomabow8949 Fair enough.. "cosmological inferences are not exactly 'bound' by our inference on consciousness". I was preceptively overzealous at the time when trying to communicate my thoughts. Allow me to take the time later to make my points clear.
@@thomabow8949 ya so everything that we can infer logically will also be computational. Would you agree with that at least?
I should have taken more time and not thrown the term "bounded" but I did anyway so let's explore what I meant.
What I mean by "how can the universe be functionally / computationally bounded" as a question, I mean about the recognizable axiomatic nature of what we consider the interior of the universe.
We have quantum mechanics as a yolk and gravity as a shell. Its mathematical/computational on the inside at least.
Lmk if you agree or disagree at this point..
Eventually I want to draw a teleological tautology that places a conscious arbiter at the center.
@@thomabow8949 I only now realized we're talking to each other in multiple conversations.
But anyway..
You said that there's not a definition/consensus for consciousness among authorities. That's because they already conceded that conscious experience cannot be quantified or virtualized.
There's absolutely plenty of smart people who don't even question it anymore because it's glaringly obvious that we can't reproduce subjective conscious experience.
It's as computationally irreducible as the universal wave function/universe.
Не может ли быть так, что расширение вызвано самим квантовым явлением, которое нарушило суперсимметрию энергии и вернуло её в так называемое состояние со вновь возможностью квантового явления в этой суперсимметричной энергии?
I was thinking something similar last night. Extreme symmetry at the start, yet a quantum particle tripped out of balance somehow.
QFT - Quantum Field Theory supports this idea, exactly as you say. I feel a little less alone in the Universe now. Thank you for making this profound remark! Спасибо