Yes…that was…or is… *not only* a *_MUST-WATCH_* *but rather* *_MUST-WATCH-AGAIN_* or *even a* *_MUST-WATCH-OVER-AND-OVER-AGAIN_* *in order to increase the own understanding and improve its perception over time*
This an assertion, nothing more, the universe. Nothing happened before the big it was just space and time. the big bang itself is cyclic , that is how you get multi verse and multi multi verses, You so out of touch oi bet you get your science from ray comfort and kent hovind. Until the hypothesis has evidence based in reality it is just hypothesis if it is that, you spraying it as fact on youtube shows your ANTI SCIENCE. ALL of Stephen the nutcase hawkings papers where hypothesis even hawking radiation is just an assertion by hawking because it has never been proven in reality. Science is about working out reality not absurd claims based on some idiot looking at the world through their arseholes.
Yes, they use to travel here and discharged us out of the galaxy into a blackhole solar system contained by blackhole emission, it was an insanely Amazonian entity. They didn't like it, everything was completely different - they even tested it by beaming ultra high energy meteorites causing the earth to go psychotic, while earth was dominated by plants, at odds with venus, also plants but jurassic - then Andromeda merged, the earth evolved into something different with civilizations and earth, and probably venus, with both at war over the sun as being in a relationship with it, while venus superveined on earth, earth went through a indefinate dark age. That ultimatum discharged venus into the sun....it's transit, which is permanent evidence of a theoretical evolution of the solar system in our universe, that if expanding, is also straying away from the milkman... and that moves faster than our containment.
I may have already watched this video an infinite number of times, but I'm still blown away by its presentation and profundity. This series suggests that perhaps the greatest accomplishment of human beings may not be what we know about the universe, but the many and varied ways we can imagine universes may come to be. Bravo!
Amazing video. Amazing concept. Always reminds me of Calvin's quote for Hobes "If people sat outside and looked at the stars each night, I'll bet they'd live a lot differently"
It may be my own confirmation bias rearing its complacent head, but whatever, another peice i consider as fascinating and awesome as the previous ones. Thanks for the great content and thanks to everybody involved for all the hard work.
Delighted to see the reaper hasnt taken you yet and you're still making amazing content. Thanks for this one of a kind channel. No one else is doing quite what you are.
@@PhilHalper1 I'd offer you some of my content to make up for all your content you've shared with me, but I don't think missus skydivephil would be okay with you getting a ton of pornography. PS Keep smiting theists
I actually came up with a extremely similar model of the Universe 50 years ago as a sick young child, and developed it over time. The difference with my model is that mine uses the shape of a 4D Klien bottle.. a 4D mobius strip.. just like the infinity sign. It consists of a flat 3D space time curved inside a 4th spacetime dimension. The whole large scale Universe is curved back into the small, spread out everywhere. The concept is fairly easy to envision if you take 'scale' as a 4th spatial dimension with Time. Space Time is 4D not 3+1. A recent paper has found evidence of Time running slower at far distances in accordance with the curved Time model. Space Time curves within inertial reference frames along the 4 spatial dimension of 'scale' and the red shift of the Universe is a direct consequences of this. There was no Big Bang, the Universe evolves from the very small and spreads out along the scale dimension towards the larger scales. Reminscent of a conveyor belt with one end the small scale Universe, and the other end large scale and it is continually moving in one direction. Out of the quantum world matter forms, accumulates into large clouds of gas of hydrogen that form galaxies that form clusters that move away towards the Universes event horizon and then back into the quantum world again. As you say the Universe creates itself. Time and 'Scale' are not a linear dimension, they are curved onto one another... the infinitesmally small being connected to the infinitely large... and the whole Universe is a 4D Blackhole. A Blackhole in the shape of a Klien bottle (4D mobius strip) Indeed the reason why an election is missing for half its spin (its a spin is 720 degrees (spin1/2)) is that it is missing on the other side of the 4D mobius for half the time. :-)
Note to self- Bill, You watched this in 2023. You enjoyed it but find something else to do for 40 minutes. You've seen this more than once. Yours truly, Bill
If the universe repeats but every time has slightly different evolution... we're in essence talking about a serial multiverse, where all universes happen one after the other (the normal multiverse assumes all of them exist simultaneously)
If the universe is a time LOOP then there is no “has a slightly different evolution” - there is only “one time” which repeats. It’s like a loop of film, every time you return to the same frame, the same image is shown. If you go backwards in the loop you will return to an earlier frame. There is no way to change the image on the celluloid in any frame. The film exists. There is no “multifilm”. So it is with the universe, at any point in spacetime, what happens is what happens and is immutable whichever direction you approach it from.
@@duncanmcneill7088 Maybe it's not a loop, but a spiral. There could be some hidden variables that describe an end state which are carried into the next big bang, causing differences. Or maybe the quantum fluctuations give it all a random start every time. Everything's up for grabs with these theories until someone comes along and proves or disproves portions of these hypotheses.
I was already completely devoted to the genius of Sir Roger Penrose ... but when I discovered that he, and his father, INVENTED the "Never-ending Staircase" and gave the design to MC Escher .... I was so blown away that ANYTHING he says is now MY GOSPEL! SO .... "Cyclic Conformal Cosmology" MUST BE TRUE!!!
This is entertaining for everyone who has knowledge about the common theories. The only thing that bugs me is the odds of a second me or you in a different cycle. Even with ininity involved the chances for a second Sol System, earth, humans, human history e.g. wars, illness and so forth.... chance is infinitifly slim. I still think everyone of us is infinitifly lucky to be around right now. Cheers
Aren't electrons and quarks "monopoles"? Always very glad to see the best astrophysical channel out there releasing another episode. TY. But so many questions!
We are in the part of the cycle in which what we experience as consciousness can exist...and time is articulated...this is a limited time...entropy brought us here...after a period this point of articulated time we dissappear...until entropy is at that point in which it can exist as conscious thought.
As far as I can tell this is the essence of the Penrose model...to cycle through entropy you begin at the eternal point...Once all entropy has been cycled through and the last form of matter goes poof...all that remains is the energy of the universe...without matter to drive space time and entropy space time and entropy end...and simultaneously begin.
Thank you Skydive Phil! This model really speaks to me. I know it sounds nuts but I think I've seen the future affect the past. As long as there is free will and true randomness. Seeing a future event, even a few seconds out would have an effect on you wouldn't it?
I don't understand a single word of what's being said in this video, but somehow everything I hear makes perfect sense. As if life wasn't already confusing enough... Thanks 🤭
What about ‘Conformal Non-Orientable Topology Cosmology’, where ‘space time’ inverts in a ‘black hole’. At the so-called ‘singularity’ and ‘Big Bang’ ‘white hole’ emerges in a different dimension to create a new ‘baby universe’ among the complex of multiple universes. The concept is an adaptation from ‘Black Hole Cosmology’. This superstructure of a multi-dimensional multiverse, I call the ‘’Mobiverse’.
No, it’s just my crazy idea. It’s a blend of some concepts from different hypotheses with a twist of my own. Most things we observe in nature operate on some kind of repeating cycle looped systems, the ‘Multiverse’ (or Mobiverse) is most likely the same. The Cosmos emerged from the ‘quantum field’ and it’s been recycling and reproducing new baby universes ever since. We happen to be in a universe where the physics are conducive to life, and in our case intelligent sentient life.
They didn't mention how fields would make it through the ending/begining phase of the cycle, the Higgs field for example. A random change in the formation of a new field at the beginning phase of the cycle seems that it would produce a differently ordered universe. If something guarantees that fields have the exact properties of the previous universe, what would that thing be?
I‘m just a layman when it comes to cosmology.. but this question always haunted me: do you people think every „moment“ is eternal and our consciousness is traveling through this eternal „moments“ and causality is just an illusion i perceive. I‘m just an eternal image on the canvas called universe? Or do you think time is real and every moment that passes is gone forever and the universe always keeps evolving and changing. Personally when i think about it i‘d say the first one, because for me it just seems so egocentric to think that what i perceive as now is only what really exists. Just like thinking nothing exists beyond my eyesight. But what makes more sense from a physics or cosmological perspective? Are there reasons that one of them is more likely than the other or do you have your own theories? I‘d appreciate to hear some opinions on this
I like the way you put it. The "block universe" is all that is, from one point of view. Everyone is at their own point in time. Isn't this a necessary view in Einstein's relativity? There cannot be an absolute time unless there's a fundamental consciousness that has an absolute time that somehow aligns events to happening at the same time for everyone. It's quite confusing to try to express this hundred year+ idea.
This is both fascinating and mind-boggling. If time and space are constructs and properties, then all bets may be off as to the origin of the universe. A curved time like geometry that is also emergent would explain a lot. I find this explanation oddly satisfying even though it does not explain the existence of something, rather than nothing since I find the conjuring of a deity ex nihilo disturbing 😅❤
Not at all, in fact, that is not my assumption that nothing is a default state. It’s simply intellectual curiosity. What I’m very curious about is where is all the energy coming from that drives the entropic state of the universe. In an expanding universe, there appears to be an asymmetry, defying the law of the conservation of energy.
This idea of rescaling space requires rescaling time. Our thin, sparse universe becoming hot and dense again, requires heat and density to be measured in the context of time that is many orders of magnitude slower (the planck time equivalent of the new scale would be eons on the current scale).
@39:21, hmmm, Quantum Gravity... I can actually recreate *_artificial weights_* of light bulbs or tubes getting somewhat heavy when switch on at first use, and i don't know why they get heavy at first use, light tubes or bulbs still have expiration & lifespan though, so they lose weight & almost become brittle overtime. Just a little experiment at home that i still remembered & realized & i still wonder why and how did it happen?🤔🙄🧐
*Note to self* Bill, You watched this in 2023. You enjoyed it but find something else to do for 40 minutes. You've seen this more than once. Check the comments if you doubt this. Youll see you commented last year that you watched this. Yours truly, Bill
It's not possible to tell if we're going forward or backward in time. Why? Because going forward means forming new memories and expecting a little bit different future because future is always eaten by the present moment. So if we were going back in time out memories would be undone. We would not remember that we moved back in time and we would not be aware of our memories being undone. From the absolute perspective noone can verify if time goes back or forward because we're part of the thing that would go back in time without no trace in our perception. It's kind of amazing if you think about it. Probably it would not matter to us as it doesn't matter if noise on the screen goes back or forward in time.
I'm not sure I understood Pr. Niayesh's point at the end of the video. I thought this episode was about cycles in time and all of a sudden, the professor speaks about different versions of "us" in space ? And in different scales ? Also, I don't think I follow what he meant with the idea that "some are primitive, some are evolved", well if they're versions of "us", how can they be "us" in a more or less evolved form ? I feel like I may have completely missed the point of the video, lol. Well, that'll be an excuse to watch it again.
@@PhilHalper1 Well, you can just picture someone living a hellish life, like a slave in the ancient world. The thought of experiencing the same life infinitely, billions of times, experiencing the same tortures without an "escape" and without ever becoming actually aware that this life repeats itself... "Horrific" is not even close a word, in this perspective.
39:21 Expansion is a special kind of motion, and it seems that the Universe is a non-inertial frame of reference that performs variably accelerated motion along a phase trajectory, and thereby creates a phase space (according to general estimates, this acceleration is: a=πcH*). Real gravitational fields are variable in space and time, and, developing GR**, we can now talk about the fact that it is possible to generate a gravitational field in a non-inertial frame of reference (|a|=g).. That is, finally achieve global (instead of local in GR) compliance with the equivalence principle. Then the energy density of the relic radiation, that is, the evolving primary gravitational-inertial field (= space-time): J= g^2/8πG ~1500 quanta / cm ^3, which is in order of magnitude consistent with the observational-measured data (about 500 quanta/cm^3). By the way, it turns out that the universe is 1.6 trillion years old! {The area of the "crystal sphere": S(universe)~n' λ(relic)^2~n'S(relic)}. P.S.You can also use the Unruh formula, but with the addition of the coefficient q, which determines the number of phase transitions of the evolving system: q=√n', where n'=L/8πr(pl), L=c/H, the length of the phase trajectory. w(relic)=2√n'w(kepler), w(kepler)=√2πH. Thus, T*(relic)=[q]ħa/2πkc(=0.4K), which is in order of magnitude consistent with the real: T(relic)/T*(relic)=2,7/0,4=6,7. {However, there is no need to have a factor of 1/2π in the Unruh formula in this case.} ------------------- *) - w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H, |a|=r(pl)w(relic)^2 =g=πcH, intra-metagalactic gravitational potential: |ф(0)|=c^2/2√8n'=πGmpl/λrelic , m(pl)w(pl)=8πM(Universe)H; { w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H. **) - See "GR was QG".
I am sure you guys produce high-quality physics content. Thank you for this, I enjoy it. Still, I am sure that it should not be your objective to push through atheism as a religion by attempting to (if I am being kind) hide under the rug that a notion of a universe creating itself out of nothing is non-sensical and violates most notions of causality envisioned by physicists in the past 100 or so years. I care about physics and it should not be an argument about religion. Please try to minimize this, because it is offputting and it is unlikely that you will make progress along those directions of either convincing people to leave religion or proving in any meaningful mathematical argument (because you simply do not have the capacity and it is not your job) that there is no need for a notion of a creator (first cause). This is a distraction from the good work you do explaining physics to people.
Dear Phil, could you please try to find out if anybody ponders a greater universe with multiple big bangs? I mean our observable universe seems pretty limited by now. Is there some model of classical space-time that has multiple regions of expansion and/or contraction that would make our "local" big bang and our local Hubble constant sort of arbitrary? In this case, the idea of cyclic universes would not need to cycle through our particular local big bang. Maybe, there are multiple centers of low entropy that feel like the past for some observers close to it, and regions of heat death inbetween, if that was a solution of Einsteins field equation with less symmetric boundery conditions...?
@@PhilHalper1What is "desirer"? I was thinking of a much more irregular universe where our observable patch is just a random dent in a much larger pattern, so that what we conceive as uniform expansion is only a local feature. Could one spacetime with one consistent metric gij bend in a way that has say 10^23 expanding regions like our observable universe scattered throughout, and maybe contracting reagions inbetween? It would probably not have a universal time coordinate like the homogenous FLRW solution, and the entropic arrow of time could point locally in different directions like in the Janus model around our big bang singularity. And it would diminish chances that we read off something meaningful off our local Hubble expansion in our observable region.
The protagonists both have interesting accents. Any psychologist out there willing to speculate how this shared anomaly might have influenced their collaboration?
@@PhilHalper1 My English accent is that of an Afrikaans speaker, which would stand out in English-speaking countries. Even so, these two do have unique accents, or do you disagree?
@@PhilHalper1 Individuals differ, even from the same family. Someone well above average height for a family literally stands out. I am not criticizing or judging anyone for anything. If two very tall people work together, they will share the challenges that being so tall brings with it. Two artistic personalities in a corporate environment might do the same.
I think people who believe in time travel in the absence of evidence, are proof that people have consciousness which decides what it likes and dislikes. Some people like time travel regardless of what empirical evidence says.
Hi Phil, Just out of curiosity, are you just someone with an interest in physics and cosmology and are a professional documentary maker, or hobbyist of both, or hobbyist docu maker but have an advanced degree in science?
That which is, that is nothing in particular (actual), is by definition everything in general (potential). 0. Potential = Being 1. Actual = Becoming (actualized) Time measures rate of change. Future driven goals influence present behaviour.
I'm not pressing for the answer, because we can not go back to the start. If you think we can travel in time, remember that time is limited for humans. Infinity has no measure humans can reach to go to.
This is a possibiiity, if we look at time from the point of view of Relativity, but it doesn´t work anymore when we look at it from the point of view of quantum physics. In Relativity time is just another dimension, but in quantum physics it is something completely different and has to do with particles assuming a defined state by being observed, while they were in a superposition of many states before. This process is neither reversible nor is it a dimension. The dimension of time ends abruptly at the present, the moment, when it is observed. Beyond this point the time dimension has no extension.
It just boggles the mind that Atheists will come up with supernatural stories that have no history at the same time dismissing the biggest most sensible supernatural being that created everything.
Being an Atheist gives us the freedom to explore all the possibilities for the creation of the universe, without being tied to the classic monotheistic explanation of God's creation.
after all the monotheistic God hypothesis is also problematic, so why is it necessary to believe in it? let's just explore other hypotheses that have strong explanatory power as well.
Oh the irony... Yes, I chose not to believe in a book that starts with the opening line “Once upon a time...” I prefer my fairy stories to have some evidential basis.
If only the supernatural existed, there wouldn't be any "supernatural". Natural is just the way things are, with or without our explanation or even understanding. If we're attempting to explain things with predictions then we are providing a natural explanation.
'Can the universe create itself?', still assumes the universe is in time rather than time being in the universe. It assumes time and 'nothingness' are not contingent, but that 'somethingness' is contingent. And these assumptions are almost certainly unrecognized.
@@PhilHalper1 'Can the universe create itself?' For an act of creation to occur there must be a before creation time, a creation time, and an after creation time. However, if time is in the universe, then time began when the universe began. In that condition, to speak of 'before the universe' is not words but sound, meaningless utterance.
On topic, "it's always NOW" an absolute factual basis of Mathematical self-definition by resonance-Interference measures, ..anyone willing to look at Euler's symbolic representation of pure-math function, can apply to Polar-Cartesian self-defining infinitesimal coordination in/of logarithmic temporal perspectives, and can verify CCC in Principle. Unless and until the natural probabilistic sequence of this Eternity-now state self assembly is recognised, (by unfooling one's self, Disproof Methodology applies), the relative-timing frequency amplitudes and modulation mechanism of Cosmology is unobserved by a semi deliberate ignorance. (Too "lazy" to correct misperceptions is a natural development process of "growing up")
@@PhilHalper1Well if you are not doing what everyone does to themselves and doubting absolutely everything, particularly what you think you understand, (as we should, Sciencing), then the singularly obvious fact to know for certainty is Euler's e-Pi-i infinitesimal connectivity function.., the rest we are supposed to build into the idea of a self-defining Self in purely functional memory associations, so we are embedded in Bio-logical Recursion floating in No-thing. This is why ancient teaching-learning Trancendental Meditation is the inactivity of discovering a universe of consciousness and an empty awareness in it. (Don't listen to this either)
5:24 this line of thinking is thousands and thousands of years old, just phrased as myth... (The ouroboros, kephri ra birthing itself from chaos and many more)
@@PhilHalper1 Penrose talks of conformal scalar universe at both ends, hence non meaning of size at Singularity and Infinite size. Then what forced this increase in size? Why not remain a Singularity? What's this Singularity (with the total mass of a future universe) held in?
@@allenmaa7064 No, not so. Each way of enquiry has its own methods. My question is restricted to Western Science methodology. Everyone accepted Big Bang and its preceding Singularity. My doubt is where did this Singularity come from? What was it contained in? Which material has the strength to contain a Singularity weighting a Universe?
@@PhilHalper1 Hi, i put the phone on full screen and time on 0:00 then i give the red ball a push,and where it stops starts the most important part of the video
I think that really universe has just its own primordial substance that interacts together and creates all matter, and whole stuff we have around. Even though that process was invisible to us, our percepcion inhibits us from seeing things as they really are. So this is a reason science mus go throught so many superstition... like religions
This is not a new idea. Buddhism has proposed the universe is without beginning or end and sentient beings are recycled or transmigrated in this cycle too. The term samsara is generally denoted to represent this. All this was proposed more than 2500 years ago. I found the lectures of graham smetham to be very informative in this regard.
@@PhilHalper1 very simple , do you believe that your Iphone has creator? have you ever seen him. I know you blindly believe. you not seen him but blindly believe.I not seen the creator of universe but blindly believe. see in the universe everything moving smoothly. some one control everything. that's power and this power is god almighty.
@@chowdhurymeherali-mf9vz I know Iphones have creators, i also know they are made in factory using pre existing materials. . Are you saying the unvierse was made in a factory using pre existing materials?
What energizes a theory into being? Arn't we prevented from true understanding, whatever that is, by the limitations of our brain? Nothing happens until something moves. What is the mover? So, still turtles all the way down.
Everyone thinks a person is the subject and the universe is the object. This is untrue. The soul is the subject and the body is the object. Our souls would have 1. No spatial extension 2. Zero size 3. Exact location only Quarks have mass but no size. 0D. Monad would then be the zero-dimensional space holding our quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force. (Read Leibniz's Monadology) What is the definition of zero in math? Zero is the integer denoted 0 that, when used as a counting number, means that no objects are present. It is the only integer (and, in fact, the only real number) that is neither negative nor positive. A number which is not zero is said to be nonzero. A root of a function is also sometimes known as "a zero of ." Any non-zero number to the zero power equals one. Zero to any positive exponent equals zero. Zero is the subject where counting numbers are the objects. [Subject]: a thinking or feeling entity; the conscious mind; the ego, especially as opposed to anything external to the mind. the central substance or core of a thing as opposed to its attributes. [Object]: a thing external to the thinking mind or subject.
How is this different than the hawking / gertle model of magic time self creating universe? The updated model just came out I guess we are still pondering it?
@@PhilHalper1 I mean the hawking conjecture seems just as valid as these 2 and has less moving parts. None have testable proofs so why isn't it just as valid an idea?
The concept of Spacetime introduced by Minkowsky is evil. We needed to choose the Lorentz ether route. Universe is not expanding. Lorentz symmetry which is at the origin of relativity is approximate. It was introduced by Maxwell with his equations.
The universe does recreate it self. This is the 83rd time and will do this at least 112 times. So ive been narrarated to by Sadhguru based on Vedic science or that info came from an higher dimensional being. Lol. They would know, wouldnt they
Where did the ions or fundamental particles come from and how they got so intelligent to deside to rebuild the universe according to the specific model which we are still trying to discover and understand. How could they be smarter than human according to your claim. they were able to build the whole universe while human who are intelligent beings are destroying their own habitat. Are they intelligent to do that on their own or were they made to do that by a higher power, a supreme being. If they are so smart by them selves and we are made from those particles why did it take human so long to figure out some of the laws of the universe and are so dump to fight one another and destroy our families and societies. If those particles are that smart by them selves why aren't we smart from the day we are born. Why do we have to go through this learning process over time and need others to teach us and help us learn??????. Many fill in the space riddles. actually endless questions with no answers could rise from this assumption. ** cause and affect is not dismissed in quantum physics. This is what scientists say about cause and effect in Quantum physics (Now, researchers at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) and the University of Oxford have come up with a theory that further challenges that standard view of causality as a linear progress from cause to effect. In their new theoretical structure, cause and effect can sometimes take place in cycles, with the effect actually causing the cause.) Cause and effect are still in the heart of process but can sometimes take place in cycle. So what makes them take place in sycle sometimes and other times linearly. Who makes that decision. I will tell you this. Each atom has an immense amount of energy so one can say matter is created from energy and vice versa matter could release the energy and disappear. But who can compress so much energy into the atom who decided to do that and why. Why every thing seem to have a purpose some times we know it and many times we learn it from our mistakes and ignorant behavior. God transcends time and matter is signaling to us to believe in him, to appreciate him, love him, love one another and act accordingly. I suggest you Watch this for a better understanding. th-cam.com/video/BGT-UuIkNEs/w-d-xo.html
A self-creating universe assumes that the universe intended for itself to be created ... _which is not the case._ The universe is an unfortunate byproduct of mathematics (logic). It's "unfortunate" because mathematics wasn't able to get the job done. Therefore, a physical universe was required. Unfortunate for the physical universe, inanimate structure didn't get the job done either. Therefore, biological life was required. Unfortunately for biological life, sentience didn't get the job done. Therefore, self-awareness was required. ... Humans are now the ones tasked with "getting the job done."
@@PhilHalper1 *"I dont see any reason to attribute intentionality here at all"* ... "Fine tuning" arguments are generally based on intent, in that the universe was _intentionally orchestrated_ for life. A "self-creating universe" argument implies the same type of intent. *Example:* If you were able to create yourself, then you would already know the final product before it happens, and what you now see in the mirror represents your "intent." (36:00) I argue that the universe does not have an infinite origin, nor are there an infinite number of "you's" and "me's" populating an infinite stream of universes while executing all possible outcomes to all possible situations. ... That's pure nonsense. The universe has a finite, mathematics-based beginning without any foreknowledge of the final output. It simply keeps raising the goalpost via "increased complexity" until it encounters a level of complexity that can compel it to stop. Anyone positing a Multiverse need only answer one question: *_"How can something exist without coming into existence?"_* ... Note that a _"It just does!"_ response is unacceptable.
The title is atrocious philosophically speaking...you better drop Time once and for all then provide titles like this as a sound byte for getting clicks...As a whole the block is a loop but is not "creating" itself for crying out loud! I am all for cyclic cosmology models well before they were fashionable or in vogue, just don't push bullshit languaging into Science talks!
What the hell is this? Why are you people so clueless? Time cannot be operated on in any way shape or form. Time is simply duration of events. Those events can speed up or slow down but that does not involve time(time travel). It involves the very fabric of matter being affected by some forces locally to produce that effect. Time does not actually exist in the same way a meter does not exist in the real world. It's just a bloody unit of measurement that can be bent or redefined but it simly does not exist as an entity on it's own like matter or energy.
Yes…that was…or is… *not only* a *_MUST-WATCH_* *but rather* *_MUST-WATCH-AGAIN_* or *even a* *_MUST-WATCH-OVER-AND-OVER-AGAIN_* *in order to increase the own understanding and improve its perception over time*
*_Just increased my FAN LEVEL from "SUBSCRIBED" to "SUBSCRIBED and GET NOTIFIED FOR EVERYTHING"_*
thanks so much for your kind words
I think you have plenty of time before this cycle of the universe restarts!
This an assertion, nothing more, the universe. Nothing happened before the big it was just space and time.
the big bang itself is cyclic , that is how you get multi verse and multi multi verses, You so out of touch oi bet you get your science from ray comfort and kent hovind.
Until the hypothesis has evidence based in reality it is just hypothesis if it is that, you spraying it as fact on youtube shows your ANTI SCIENCE.
ALL of Stephen the nutcase hawkings papers where hypothesis even hawking radiation is just an assertion by hawking because it has never been proven in reality.
Science is about working out reality not absurd claims based on some idiot looking at the world through their arseholes.
Yes, they use to travel here and discharged us out of the galaxy into a blackhole solar system contained by blackhole emission, it was an insanely Amazonian entity. They didn't like it, everything was completely different - they even tested it by beaming ultra high energy meteorites causing the earth to go psychotic, while earth was dominated by plants, at odds with venus, also plants but jurassic - then Andromeda merged, the earth evolved into something different with civilizations and earth, and probably venus, with both at war over the sun as being in a relationship with it, while venus superveined on earth, earth went through a indefinate dark age. That ultimatum discharged venus into the sun....it's transit, which is permanent evidence of a theoretical evolution of the solar system in our universe, that if expanding, is also straying away from the milkman... and that moves faster than our containment.
It's so great that people are building on Penrose's mind-bending ideas!
yeah, even CCC is not right , doesn't mean that there aren't valid concepts and insights in it.
In proper general relativity language, his "Mind-curving ideas." 😁
He must have the greatest spacial-dimensional-mathematical imagination in all human history!
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 lol
I may have already watched this video an infinite number of times, but I'm still blown away by its presentation and profundity. This series suggests that perhaps the greatest accomplishment of human beings may not be what we know about the universe, but the many and varied ways we can imagine universes may come to be. Bravo!
thanks so much
Wow, I wasn't expecting this new documentary, Phil. Great graphics, 3D animations and explanations. It is professional work.
thanks
Ooo! Deeply excited for a new cosmological origins video from you! Thank you for your hard work and quality content!
thanks, look forward to hearing what you thought.
Been watching you for so many years now!
thanks so much
It's mind bending to think of the universe potentially not being a cause and effect reality, at least at some level. Great video as always Phil.
thanks , glad you liked it
It is just very confusing concept from Second Law of Thermodynamics :(
Amazing video. Amazing concept. Always reminds me of Calvin's quote for Hobes "If people sat outside and looked at the stars each night, I'll bet they'd live a lot differently"
thanks , great quote
It may be my own confirmation bias rearing its complacent head, but whatever, another peice i consider as fascinating and awesome as the previous ones. Thanks for the great content and thanks to everybody involved for all the hard work.
thanks for your comment, much appreciated
Delighted to see the reaper hasnt taken you yet and you're still making amazing content. Thanks for this one of a kind channel. No one else is doing quite what you are.
thanks for the comment
@@PhilHalper1 I'd offer you some of my content to make up for all your content you've shared with me, but I don't think missus skydivephil would be okay with you getting a ton of pornography.
PS Keep smiting theists
Finaly, Great series came back! Cheers!
thanks
I actually came up with a extremely similar model of the Universe 50 years ago as a sick young child, and developed it over time. The difference with my model is that mine uses the shape of a 4D Klien bottle.. a 4D mobius strip.. just like the infinity sign. It consists of a flat 3D space time curved inside a 4th spacetime dimension. The whole large scale Universe is curved back into the small, spread out everywhere. The concept is fairly easy to envision if you take 'scale' as a 4th spatial dimension with Time. Space Time is 4D not 3+1.
A recent paper has found evidence of Time running slower at far distances in accordance with the curved Time model.
Space Time curves within inertial reference frames along the 4 spatial dimension of 'scale' and the red shift of the Universe is a direct consequences of this.
There was no Big Bang, the Universe evolves from the very small and spreads out along the scale dimension towards the larger scales. Reminscent of a conveyor belt with one end the small scale Universe, and the other end large scale and it is continually moving in one direction.
Out of the quantum world matter forms, accumulates into large clouds of gas of hydrogen that form galaxies that form clusters that move away towards the Universes event horizon and then back into the quantum world again. As you say the Universe creates itself.
Time and 'Scale' are not a linear dimension, they are curved onto one another... the infinitesmally small being connected to the infinitely large... and the whole Universe is a 4D Blackhole. A Blackhole in the shape of a Klien bottle (4D mobius strip)
Indeed the reason why an election is missing for half its spin (its a spin is 720 degrees (spin1/2)) is that it is missing on the other side of the 4D mobius for half the time. :-)
Oooooooohhhhhhhh Yessssss! More skydivephil on physics!
thanks
Always look forward to your videos
thanks
let us know what you think
I wish there was more Elizabeth on TH-cam - shes interesting but I cant seem to find her anywhere but here.
This show is great as always.
thanks and I Agree she is very interesting
Note to self-
Bill,
You watched this in 2023. You enjoyed it but find something else to do for 40 minutes. You've seen this more than once.
Yours truly,
Bill
Thank you, so much looking forward for next episode.
Enjoying toying with the idea of PeriodicTCosmology. Hard to conceive a fully expanded universe giving rise to new self. Thanks guys
you are welcome
If the universe repeats but every time has slightly different evolution... we're in essence talking about a serial multiverse, where all universes happen one after the other (the normal multiverse assumes all of them exist simultaneously)
yes something like that but i dont the authors would use the term multiverse.
@@PhilHalper1 Neither would I but the description came across, didn't it 😁
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 yep fair point
If the universe is a time LOOP then there is no “has a slightly different evolution” - there is only “one time” which repeats.
It’s like a loop of film, every time you return to the same frame, the same image is shown.
If you go backwards in the loop you will return to an earlier frame.
There is no way to change the image on the celluloid in any frame. The film exists. There is no “multifilm”.
So it is with the universe, at any point in spacetime, what happens is what happens and is immutable whichever direction you approach it from.
@@duncanmcneill7088 Maybe it's not a loop, but a spiral. There could be some hidden variables that describe an end state which are carried into the next big bang, causing differences. Or maybe the quantum fluctuations give it all a random start every time. Everything's up for grabs with these theories until someone comes along and proves or disproves portions of these hypotheses.
My goodness, what took you so long! Didn't know you released a new episode. Instant play!
Been waiting for this one!
let us know what you think
I was already completely devoted to the genius of Sir Roger Penrose ... but when I discovered that he, and his father, INVENTED the "Never-ending Staircase" and gave the design to MC Escher .... I was so blown away that ANYTHING he says is now MY GOSPEL!
SO .... "Cyclic Conformal Cosmology" MUST BE TRUE!!!
the guy with trumpet style image at 5:00 ownd it..
This is entertaining for everyone who has knowledge about the common theories. The only thing that bugs me is the odds of a second me or you in a different cycle. Even with ininity involved the chances for a second Sol System, earth, humans, human history e.g. wars, illness and so forth.... chance is infinitifly slim. I still think everyone of us is infinitifly lucky to be around right now. Cheers
Thanks for doing more videos- love your work
you are welcome
Why is that dude with the bowl cut speaking with a falsetto?
Aren't electrons and quarks "monopoles"?
Always very glad to see the best astrophysical channel out there releasing another episode. TY. But so many questions!
no they arent but thanks the comment
@@PhilHalper1 - They fit the description.
@@LuisAldamiz not if you know what monopoles are
@@WooliteMammoth - They said particles with a single charge.
@@WooliteMammoth - And nope: apparently I don't know what monopoles "are" if they do not exist. It's like talking of unicorns...
We are in the part of the cycle in which what we experience as consciousness can exist...and time is articulated...this is a limited time...entropy brought us here...after a period this point of articulated time we dissappear...until entropy is at that point in which it can exist as conscious thought.
As far as I can tell this is the essence of the Penrose model...to cycle through entropy you begin at the eternal point...Once all entropy has been cycled through and the last form of matter goes poof...all that remains is the energy of the universe...without matter to drive space time and entropy space time and entropy end...and simultaneously begin.
Thanks for sharing this video...👍
you are welcome
Fascinating
thanks
@@PhilHalper1 Thank you for putting this series together
@@wtipton you are more than welcome, let us know what you think of the video
Thank you Skydive Phil! This model really speaks to me. I know it sounds nuts but I think I've seen the future affect the past. As long as there is free will and true randomness. Seeing a future event, even a few seconds out would have an effect on you wouldn't it?
Glad you liked it. in this model the closed time loop is of infinite duration.
I don't understand a single word of what's being said in this video, but somehow everything I hear makes perfect sense.
As if life wasn't already confusing enough...
Thanks 🤭
lol, well i think the big picture is the universe might be light Groundhog day , thanks for your comment,
@@PhilHalper1 The idea is enchanting to me, what a beautiful concept, thank you for the interaction!
☺
This video is amazing
What about ‘Conformal Non-Orientable Topology Cosmology’, where ‘space time’ inverts in a ‘black hole’. At the so-called ‘singularity’ and ‘Big Bang’ ‘white hole’ emerges in a different dimension to create a new ‘baby universe’ among the complex of multiple universes. The concept is an adaptation from ‘Black Hole Cosmology’. This superstructure of a multi-dimensional multiverse, I call the ‘’Mobiverse’.
do you have a reference to a paper?
No, it’s just my crazy idea. It’s a blend of some concepts from different hypotheses with a twist of my own. Most things we observe in nature operate on some kind of repeating cycle looped systems, the ‘Multiverse’ (or Mobiverse) is most likely the same. The Cosmos emerged from the ‘quantum field’ and it’s been recycling and reproducing new baby universes ever since. We happen to be in a universe where the physics are conducive to life, and in our case intelligent sentient life.
They didn't mention how fields would make it through the ending/begining phase of the cycle, the Higgs field for example. A random change in the formation of a new field at the beginning phase of the cycle seems that it would produce a differently ordered universe. If something guarantees that fields have the exact properties of the previous universe, what would that thing be?
I‘m just a layman when it comes to cosmology.. but this question always haunted me: do you people think every „moment“ is eternal and our consciousness is traveling through this eternal „moments“ and causality is just an illusion i perceive. I‘m just an eternal image on the canvas called universe?
Or do you think time is real and every moment that passes is gone forever and the universe always keeps evolving and changing.
Personally when i think about it i‘d say the first one, because for me it just seems so egocentric to think that what i perceive as now is only what really exists. Just like thinking nothing exists beyond my eyesight.
But what makes more sense from a physics or cosmological perspective? Are there reasons that one of them is more likely than the other or do you have your own theories? I‘d appreciate to hear some opinions on this
I like the way you put it. The "block universe" is all that is, from one point of view. Everyone is at their own point in time. Isn't this a necessary view in Einstein's relativity? There cannot be an absolute time unless there's a fundamental consciousness that has an absolute time that somehow aligns events to happening at the same time for everyone. It's quite confusing to try to express this hundred year+ idea.
I dont think there is just one view of this from cosmologists
I favour option 1 too. A block universe makes sense to me. A looping block universe even more-so.
I think your examples are flawed and incomplete
This is both fascinating and mind-boggling. If time and space are constructs and properties, then all bets may be off as to the origin of the universe. A curved time like geometry that is also emergent would explain a lot. I find this explanation oddly satisfying even though it does not explain the existence of something, rather than nothing since I find the conjuring of a deity ex nihilo disturbing 😅❤
doesnt asking the question why is there something rather than nothing assume nothing is the default state of the universe ? Why should we assume that?
Not at all, in fact, that is not my assumption that nothing is a default state. It’s simply intellectual curiosity. What I’m very curious about is where is all the energy coming from that drives the entropic state of the universe. In an expanding universe, there appears to be an asymmetry, defying the law of the conservation of energy.
@@marishkagrayson have you read this? www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
Closed loops exist. They're called cassette tapes. You put music 🎶 on them.
One of the most unique time loops occurs in the 1964 Ib Melchior movie, THE TIME TRAVELERS. A sub-loop within a system.
Are you working on part 12? if so when is it coming?
no but we are working on something else related to cosmology that Im hoping will be out soon
This idea of rescaling space requires rescaling time. Our thin, sparse universe becoming hot and dense again, requires heat and density to be measured in the context of time that is many orders of magnitude slower (the planck time equivalent of the new scale would be eons on the current scale).
@39:21, hmmm, Quantum Gravity... I can actually recreate *_artificial weights_* of light bulbs or tubes getting somewhat heavy when switch on at first use, and i don't know why they get heavy at first use, light tubes or bulbs still have expiration & lifespan though, so they lose weight & almost become brittle overtime. Just a little experiment at home that i still remembered & realized & i still wonder why and how did it happen?🤔🙄🧐
*Note to self*
Bill,
You watched this in 2023. You enjoyed it but find something else to do for 40 minutes. You've seen this more than once. Check the comments if you doubt this. Youll see you commented last year that you watched this.
Yours truly,
Bill
thanks , glad you liked it enough for this
Read, "Living Time" by Maurice Nicoll. Very similar ideas but different context.
It's not possible to tell if we're going forward or backward in time. Why? Because going forward means forming new memories and expecting a little bit different future because future is always eaten by the present moment. So if we were going back in time out memories would be undone. We would not remember that we moved back in time and we would not be aware of our memories being undone. From the absolute perspective noone can verify if time goes back or forward because we're part of the thing that would go back in time without no trace in our perception. It's kind of amazing if you think about it. Probably it would not matter to us as it doesn't matter if noise on the screen goes back or forward in time.
I'm not sure I understood Pr. Niayesh's point at the end of the video. I thought this episode was about cycles in time and all of a sudden, the professor speaks about different versions of "us" in space ? And in different scales ? Also, I don't think I follow what he meant with the idea that "some are primitive, some are evolved", well if they're versions of "us", how can they be "us" in a more or less evolved form ?
I feel like I may have completely missed the point of the video, lol. Well, that'll be an excuse to watch it again.
Nietzchian eternal recurrence sounds horrific 😅 this subject matter has been fascinating
Why horrific?
@@PhilHalper1 Well, you can just picture someone living a hellish life, like a slave in the ancient world. The thought of experiencing the same life infinitely, billions of times, experiencing the same tortures without an "escape" and without ever becoming actually aware that this life repeats itself... "Horrific" is not even close a word, in this perspective.
39:21 Expansion is a special kind of motion, and it seems that the Universe is a non-inertial frame of reference that performs variably accelerated motion along a phase trajectory, and thereby creates a phase space (according to general estimates, this acceleration is: a=πcH*).
Real gravitational fields are variable in space and time, and, developing GR**, we can now talk about the fact that it is possible to generate a gravitational field in a non-inertial frame of reference (|a|=g).. That is, finally achieve global (instead of local in GR) compliance with the equivalence principle. Then the energy density of the relic radiation, that is, the evolving primary gravitational-inertial field (= space-time): J= g^2/8πG ~1500 quanta / cm ^3, which is in order of magnitude consistent with the observational-measured data (about 500 quanta/cm^3).
By the way, it turns out that the universe is 1.6 trillion years old!
{The area of the "crystal sphere": S(universe)~n' λ(relic)^2~n'S(relic)}.
P.S.You can also use the Unruh formula, but with the addition of the coefficient q, which determines the number of phase transitions of the evolving system: q=√n', where n'=L/8πr(pl), L=c/H, the length of the phase trajectory. w(relic)=2√n'w(kepler), w(kepler)=√2πH.
Thus, T*(relic)=[q]ħa/2πkc(=0.4K), which is in order of magnitude consistent with the real: T(relic)/T*(relic)=2,7/0,4=6,7.
{However, there is no need to have a factor of 1/2π in the Unruh formula in this case.}
-------------------
*) - w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H,
|a|=r(pl)w(relic)^2 =g=πcH,
intra-metagalactic gravitational potential: |ф(0)|=c^2/2√8n'=πGmpl/λrelic ,
m(pl)w(pl)=8πM(Universe)H;
{
w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H.
**) - See "GR was QG".
I am sure you guys produce high-quality physics content. Thank you for this, I enjoy it. Still, I am sure that it should not be your objective to push through atheism as a religion by attempting to (if I am being kind) hide under the rug that a notion of a universe creating itself out of nothing is non-sensical and violates most notions of causality envisioned by physicists in the past 100 or so years. I care about physics and it should not be an argument about religion. Please try to minimize this, because it is offputting and it is unlikely that you will make progress along those directions of either convincing people to leave religion or proving in any meaningful mathematical argument (because you simply do not have the capacity and it is not your job) that there is no need for a notion of a creator (first cause). This is a distraction from the good work you do explaining physics to people.
Dear Phil, could you please try to find out if anybody ponders a greater universe with multiple big bangs? I mean our observable universe seems pretty limited by now. Is there some model of classical space-time that has multiple regions of expansion and/or contraction that would make our "local" big bang and our local Hubble constant sort of arbitrary?
In this case, the idea of cyclic universes would not need to cycle through our particular local big bang. Maybe, there are multiple centers of low entropy that feel like the past for some observers close to it, and regions of heat death inbetween, if that was a solution of Einsteins field equation with less symmetric boundery conditions...?
eternal inflation and cyclic models prose multiple Big Bangs. I think desirer Equilibrium model is something like what you suggest,
@@PhilHalper1What is "desirer"? I was thinking of a much more irregular universe where our observable patch is just a random dent in a much larger pattern, so that what we conceive as uniform expansion is only a local feature. Could one spacetime with one consistent metric gij bend in a way that has say 10^23 expanding regions like our observable universe scattered throughout, and maybe contracting reagions inbetween?
It would probably not have a universal time coordinate like the homogenous FLRW solution, and the entropic arrow of time could point locally in different directions like in the Janus model around our big bang singularity. And it would diminish chances that we read off something meaningful off our local Hubble expansion in our observable region.
You forget, sometimes, to expect media personalities to age. I'm glad our strawberry-beauty is aging well!
lol thanks
Does this imply there is only one Time-Like Curve? And following from that, could it be possible to measure it?
the universe is on a closed time like curve . Im not sure that preclude other existing
The protagonists both have interesting accents. Any psychologist out there willing to speculate how this shared anomaly might have influenced their collaboration?
do you mean they dont have your accent?
@@PhilHalper1 My English accent is that of an Afrikaans speaker, which would stand out in English-speaking countries. Even so, these two do have unique accents, or do you disagree?
@@Tintunabulation Accents vary from place to place so the not in of unique doesnt seem to make sense here.
@@PhilHalper1 Individuals differ, even from the same family. Someone well above average height for a family literally stands out. I am not criticizing or judging anyone for anything. If two very tall people work together, they will share the challenges that being so tall brings with it. Two artistic personalities in a corporate environment might do the same.
@@Tintunabulation EXACTLY
I think people who believe in time travel in the absence of evidence, are proof that people have consciousness which decides what it likes and dislikes. Some people like time travel regardless of what empirical evidence says.
Hi Phil,
Just out of curiosity, are you just someone with an interest in physics and cosmology and are a professional documentary maker, or hobbyist of both, or hobbyist docu maker but have an advanced degree in science?
hobbyist
That which is, that is nothing in particular (actual), is by definition everything in general (potential).
0. Potential = Being
1. Actual = Becoming (actualized)
Time measures rate of change.
Future driven goals influence present behaviour.
Im not sure i understand can you explain ?
@@PhilHalper1 Can you be more specific?
Really interesting idea about the Origin, and Nature of the cosmos...
🪐🚀
I think so too
I'm not pressing for the answer, because we can not go back to the start. If you think we can travel in time, remember that time is limited for humans. Infinity has no measure humans can reach to go to.
This is a possibiiity, if we look at time from the point of view of Relativity, but it doesn´t work anymore when we look at it from the point of view of quantum physics. In Relativity time is just another dimension, but in quantum physics it is something completely different and has to do with particles assuming a defined state by being observed, while they were in a superposition of many states before. This process is neither reversible nor is it a dimension. The dimension of time ends abruptly at the present, the moment, when it is observed. Beyond this point the time dimension has no extension.
Yes I believe that the universe created itself
It just boggles the mind that Atheists will come up with supernatural stories that have no history at the same time dismissing the biggest most sensible supernatural being that created everything.
maybe if you did your homework you would know that Richard Gott who first proposed a CTC for the Big Abgn is not an atheist , hes a theist.
Being an Atheist gives us the freedom to explore all the possibilities for the creation of the universe, without being tied to the classic monotheistic explanation of God's creation.
after all the monotheistic God hypothesis is also problematic, so why is it necessary to believe in it? let's just explore other hypotheses that have strong explanatory power as well.
Oh the irony...
Yes, I chose not to believe in a book that starts with the opening line “Once upon a time...”
I prefer my fairy stories to have some evidential basis.
If only the supernatural existed, there wouldn't be any "supernatural". Natural is just the way things are, with or without our explanation or even understanding. If we're attempting to explain things with predictions then we are providing a natural explanation.
'Can the universe create itself?', still assumes the universe is in time rather than time being in the universe. It assumes time and 'nothingness' are not contingent, but that 'somethingness' is contingent. And these assumptions are almost certainly unrecognized.
As far i can tell , the model makes no assumption about time other than what's in GR with CTC's.
@@PhilHalper1 'Can the universe create itself?' For an act of creation to occur there must be a before creation time, a creation time, and an after creation time. However, if time is in the universe, then time began when the universe began. In that condition, to speak of 'before the universe' is not words but sound, meaningless utterance.
On topic, "it's always NOW" an absolute factual basis of Mathematical self-definition by resonance-Interference measures, ..anyone willing to look at Euler's symbolic representation of pure-math function, can apply to Polar-Cartesian self-defining infinitesimal coordination in/of logarithmic temporal perspectives, and can verify CCC in Principle.
Unless and until the natural probabilistic sequence of this Eternity-now state self assembly is recognised, (by unfooling one's self, Disproof Methodology applies), the relative-timing frequency amplitudes and modulation mechanism of Cosmology is unobserved by a semi deliberate ignorance. (Too "lazy" to correct misperceptions is a natural development process of "growing up")
sorry I dont follow you, could you explain in a more accessible language?
@@PhilHalper1Well if you are not doing what everyone does to themselves and doubting absolutely everything, particularly what you think you understand, (as we should, Sciencing), then the singularly obvious fact to know for certainty is Euler's e-Pi-i infinitesimal connectivity function.., the rest we are supposed to build into the idea of a self-defining Self in purely functional memory associations, so we are embedded in Bio-logical Recursion floating in No-thing. This is why ancient teaching-learning Trancendental Meditation is the inactivity of discovering a universe of consciousness and an empty awareness in it. (Don't listen to this either)
Mankinds time is cyclic according to Vedic science
there are a lot of different proposals for a cyclic universe in the ancient world
5:24 this line of thinking is thousands and thousands of years old, just phrased as myth... (The ouroboros, kephri ra birthing itself from chaos and many more)
yes I think the Greek had an idea of eternal recurrence
Inflation Epoch of Universe is ok, but, where did the colossal energy reqd to force this Inflation come from at a Universal Infinity?
in the scenario explored in the video , inflation didn't happen
@@PhilHalper1 Penrose talks of conformal scalar universe at both ends, hence non meaning of size at Singularity and Infinite size. Then what forced this increase in size? Why not remain a Singularity? What's this Singularity (with the total mass of a future universe) held in?
@@sukhparhar I have a feeling you are patiently (or impatiently) waiting for Western Physics to arrive at the Vedas.
@@allenmaa7064 No, not so. Each way of enquiry has its own methods. My question is restricted to Western Science methodology. Everyone accepted Big Bang and its preceding Singularity. My doubt is where did this Singularity come from? What was it contained in? Which material has the strength to contain a Singularity weighting a Universe?
📍26:19
?
@@PhilHalper1
Hi, i put the phone on full screen and time on 0:00 then i give the red ball a push,and where it stops starts the most important part of the video
@@janklaas6885 how is 27:19 the most important part fo the video?
8:56 PLEASE TELL ME WHAT GENDER THIS PERSON IS! 🙄
why does it matter?
@@PhilHalper1 I found the voice very silly and couldn't take the video seriously after that.
@@ThePolicenaut so scientific content is dependant upon someone voice? wow, you are very shallow
Even a cyclical universe requires a first universe. How did that happen is the elephant in the room.
why does this model require a first universe?
@@PhilHalper1 Why indeed.
I think that really universe has just its own primordial substance that interacts together and creates all matter, and whole stuff we have around. Even though that process was invisible to us, our percepcion inhibits us from seeing things as they really are. So this is a reason science mus go throught so many superstition... like religions
this is an attempt to avoid superposition and make a testable model
Consciousness is the ontological primitive.
evidence for that is?
@@PhilHalper1 Well, bear with me a sec
Are you a Materialist?
@@arosalesmusic your evidence should be independent of my beliefs.
This is not a new idea. Buddhism has proposed the universe is without beginning or end and sentient beings are recycled or transmigrated in this cycle too. The term samsara is generally denoted to represent this. All this was proposed more than 2500 years ago. I found the lectures of graham smetham to be very informative in this regard.
thanks for this very interesting, although I presume they dont literally assume a loop in time ?
nothing created without creator. everything's or stuffs has creator.
how do you know that?
@@PhilHalper1 very simple , do you believe that your Iphone has creator? have you ever seen him. I know you blindly believe. you not seen him but blindly believe.I not seen the creator of universe but blindly believe. see in the universe everything moving smoothly. some one control everything. that's power and this power is god almighty.
@@chowdhurymeherali-mf9vz I know Iphones have creators, i also know they are made in factory using pre existing materials. . Are you saying the unvierse was made in a factory using pre existing materials?
Sure, why not?
"SEVERAL HUMAN BEING ABDUCTED BY ALIEN ON TELEPORTATION AND TIME TRAVEL
ooooh....dark
??
dark; a netflix show@@PhilHalper1
Wow, inflation,string theory, and this time machine model have entered the realm of metaphysics.
how do you distinguish between physics and metaphysics?
hmmm
What energizes a theory into being? Arn't we prevented from true understanding, whatever that is, by the limitations of our brain? Nothing happens until something moves. What is the mover? So, still turtles all the way down.
"Nothing happens until something moves" unless there is inertia
Everyone thinks a person is the subject and the universe is the object. This is untrue.
The soul is the subject and the body is the object.
Our souls would have
1. No spatial extension
2. Zero size
3. Exact location only
Quarks have mass but no size. 0D.
Monad would then be the zero-dimensional space holding our quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force. (Read Leibniz's Monadology)
What is the definition of zero in math?
Zero is the integer denoted 0 that, when used as a counting number, means that no objects are present. It is the only integer (and, in fact, the only real number) that is neither negative nor positive. A number which is not zero is said to be nonzero. A root of a function is also sometimes known as "a zero of ."
Any non-zero number to the zero power equals one.
Zero to any positive exponent equals zero.
Zero is the subject where counting numbers are the objects.
[Subject]:
a thinking or feeling entity; the conscious mind; the ego, especially as opposed to anything external to the mind.
the central substance or core of a thing as opposed to its attributes.
[Object]:
a thing external to the thinking mind or subject.
There is a wise force behind all creations
can you elaborate ?
Us animals, the only 'creators'.
@@pjaworek6793 are you suggesting humans created the universe?
Twister theory
we have covered that in our CC film here: th-cam.com/video/FVDJJVoTx7s/w-d-xo.html. have you seen it?
Time travel is not possible. And causality is a metaphysical principle not a physical law.
We can look through time, isn’t that a form of Time Machine?
@@XNTYLER no.
We can go to the future, no? In fact, since we're not moving that fast through space, you could say we're mostly traveling through time.
@@atmanbrahman1872 why not?
Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. This was realized by the Buddha. 😊
A Fractal, like God evolving?
how so ?
How is this different than the hawking / gertle model of magic time self creating universe? The updated model just came out I guess we are still pondering it?
the Hartle Hawking model does not have a closed timelike curve in it , nor does it use conformal rescaling.
@@PhilHalper1 I mean the hawking conjecture seems just as valid as these 2 and has less moving parts. None have testable proofs so why isn't it just as valid an idea?
@@captainzappbrannagan testable predictions of this model are mentioned in the film . did you watch it to the end?
@@PhilHalper1 Did you watch? They clarified all the way that they have no real proofs.
The concept of Spacetime introduced by Minkowsky is evil. We needed to choose the Lorentz ether route. Universe is not expanding. Lorentz symmetry which is at the origin of relativity is approximate. It was introduced by Maxwell with his equations.
gurllll u trippin me out.
thats the idea
The universe does recreate it self. This is the 83rd time and will do this at least 112 times. So ive been narrarated to by Sadhguru based on Vedic science or that info came from an higher dimensional being. Lol. They would know, wouldnt they
Or a higher dimensional brew.
Where did the ions or fundamental particles come from and how they got so intelligent to deside to rebuild the universe according to the specific model which we are still trying to discover and understand. How could they be smarter than human according to your claim. they were able to build the whole universe while human who are intelligent beings are destroying their own habitat.
Are they intelligent to do that on their own or were they made to do that by a higher power, a supreme being. If they are so smart by them selves and we are made from those particles why did it take human so long to figure out some of the laws of the universe and are so dump to fight one another and destroy our families and societies. If those particles are that smart by them selves why aren't we smart from the day we are born. Why do we have to go through this learning process over time and need others to teach us and help us learn??????.
Many fill in the space riddles. actually endless questions with no answers could rise from this assumption.
** cause and affect is not dismissed in quantum physics.
This is what scientists say about cause and effect in Quantum physics
(Now, researchers at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) and the University of Oxford have come up with a theory that further challenges that standard view of causality as a linear progress from cause to effect. In their new theoretical structure, cause and effect can sometimes take place in cycles, with the effect actually causing the cause.)
Cause and effect are still in the heart of process but can sometimes take place in cycle. So what makes them take place in sycle sometimes and other times linearly. Who makes that decision.
I will tell you this. Each atom has an immense amount of energy so one can say matter is created from energy and vice versa matter could release the energy and disappear. But who can compress so much energy into the atom who decided to do that and why. Why every thing seem to have a purpose some times we know it and many times we learn it from our mistakes and ignorant behavior.
God transcends time and matter is signaling to us to believe in him, to appreciate him, love him, love one another and act accordingly.
I suggest you Watch this for a better understanding.
th-cam.com/video/BGT-UuIkNEs/w-d-xo.html
A self-creating universe assumes that the universe intended for itself to be created ... _which is not the case._ The universe is an unfortunate byproduct of mathematics (logic). It's "unfortunate" because mathematics wasn't able to get the job done. Therefore, a physical universe was required. Unfortunate for the physical universe, inanimate structure didn't get the job done either. Therefore, biological life was required. Unfortunately for biological life, sentience didn't get the job done. Therefore, self-awareness was required.
... Humans are now the ones tasked with "getting the job done."
I dont see any reason to attribute intentionality here at all
@@PhilHalper1 *"I dont see any reason to attribute intentionality here at all"*
... "Fine tuning" arguments are generally based on intent, in that the universe was _intentionally orchestrated_ for life. A "self-creating universe" argument implies the same type of intent. *Example:* If you were able to create yourself, then you would already know the final product before it happens, and what you now see in the mirror represents your "intent."
(36:00) I argue that the universe does not have an infinite origin, nor are there an infinite number of "you's" and "me's" populating an infinite stream of universes while executing all possible outcomes to all possible situations.
... That's pure nonsense.
The universe has a finite, mathematics-based beginning without any foreknowledge of the final output. It simply keeps raising the goalpost via "increased complexity" until it encounters a level of complexity that can compel it to stop.
Anyone positing a Multiverse need only answer one question: *_"How can something exist without coming into existence?"_* ... Note that a _"It just does!"_ response is unacceptable.
onions
Self created ??
in this model yes
The title is atrocious philosophically speaking...you better drop Time once and for all then provide titles like this as a sound byte for getting clicks...As a whole the block is a loop but is not "creating" itself for crying out loud! I am all for cyclic cosmology models well before they were fashionable or in vogue, just don't push bullshit languaging into Science talks!
Create itself.? LMFAO
What the hell is this? Why are you people so clueless? Time cannot be operated on in any way shape or form. Time is simply duration of events. Those events can speed up or slow down but that does not involve time(time travel). It involves the very fabric of matter being affected by some forces locally to produce that effect. Time does not actually exist in the same way a meter does not exist in the real world. It's just a bloody unit of measurement that can be bent or redefined but it simly does not exist as an entity on it's own like matter or energy.
A lot of "what IF"....and " it could be" but no way to prove any of it.
did you watch the whole film ?
The Godless will always be clueless .
You didnt develop any new theory. You wasted your life ripping off ideS of Buddhism. Nerds.
did Budhists calculate the power spectrum of the CMB?
Long story short, no.
based on what?