Lee Smolin - What Do Black Holes and Dark Matter Reveal?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 พ.ค. 2024
- Visit the 'dark side' of the universe. Black holes cannot be seen because gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. Dark matter cannot be seen because its particles hardly interact with ordinary matter. What is the meaning of the dark side?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on black holes: bit.ly/3odfeDS
Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist, a researcher at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and an adjunct professor of physics at the University of Waterloo. He is best known for his work in loop quantum gravity.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
OK, this is Robert Kuhn at his best. He not only doesn't get in the way of the guest, but he helps the guest unfold his ideas by, as we say in the news business, "sign posting" the interview; putting pauses in the interview, summing up, and pointing in a direction for further discussion. Perfecto!
Lee “Smokin” Smolin. Absolute genius.
One of the best CTT videos I have watched. New intriguing ideas here I never heard before
Lee Smolin always has very interesting ideas. We need more revolutionary thinkers who understand the math but who are also creative in their attempts to explain the physical universe. The physical universe is not mathematics. Math is in approximation of what the universe is and even if we had the ultimate equations I think that would be true.
Every means by which we perceive the universe, or anything, is an approximation.
Many physicists don't understand math is just a tool.
Approximation, when taken to the infinite limit, is the original object. That's why its reasonable to say the universe is a mathematical object, but the universe isn't math itself, its existence itself.
True
It might take us a dozen of thousand years to find out eventually.... but this is actually one of the most compelling and consistent ideas about the universe(s): That we're actually sitting inside a gigantic black hole spawned by some parent universe.
Initial source for black hole will forever be a mystery...
@@ManiBalajiC Well if you have infinite time a black whole could just quantum fluctuate.
Quantum fkuctustion us our lack of knowledge.
It's always a great pleasure to listen to brilliant Dr Smolin.
Fantastic interview. It's unfortunate that Lee sort of dodged or just didn't understand what the interviewer was talking about when asked essentially, "if forever is part of the process, then why are we here when universes should be just creating black holes". The answer, seemingly, is that we're at the apex of blackhole creation and more or less there's no way in the entire range of possible laws of physics for universes to do more. We're at the end of the line because an infinite chain of universes would be entirely that best selected range... is what I would have expected Lee to say.
Still, there's concern here mixing an infinity and an evolutionary effect. Lee is suggesting there was a time when universes weren't well selected... but that would imply a true start of some sort even if we're now on the path of an infinite evolutionary process of universes, and that opens up new questions.
Great job Robert! Ive listened to a lot of Smolin but you have an amazing gift of boiling it down for me to understand. Keep up the great work!
Lee Smolin is always good to listen to, thanks.
I love the fecund universe theory, it has a poetry about it that many of the best theories have (which isn't to say it's necessarily true, but it's a point in its favour). Very humble of Lee to say right away that it isn't his original idea. I always assumed it was, but it's interesting to know that he sees himself as just the messenger.
Sería estupendo que estuvieran disponibles los subtítulos en Español para poder disfrutar plenamente de estos estupendos vídeos
Wonderful talk. Fascinating. I really enjoyed this thank you.
Always are. Always were. Always will.
Thank you, Lee, that was wonderful. Biology derived principles explaining cosmology? Sure. Of course, we identify scientific principles and tendencies from what we see all around us and right in from of us. Many of these reach far beyond Earth science and are interwoven throughout the universe. It is all math at its core. Fascinating.
They should stop calling it dark matter and call it clear matter because you can see all the stars and galaxies with no obstruction .
I sure wish these videos give dates when the discussions occurred.
Such a wonderful conversation.
Best content on the tube 👏
"Black Holes are probably the most remarkable thing in this Universe." High praise indeed, for something that we barely understand, and have no idea what they are made of. It is telling that one of the most destructive forces in nature, should be considered more "remarkable", than the most creative force in nature, Life. Of course, it would be fascinating if Black Holes were the seeds of new universes, but they would be rather small universes, unless they 'magically' create more matter than they consume. One would have thought that Life in general, the human brain in particular, and its associated consciousness, would be considered the most remarkable thing in the known Universe. The human brain is certainly the most complex structure in the known Universe. It is remarkable indeed, that a highly educated human brain should consider a Black Hole to be more remarkable than Itself. Is a Black Hole, with only three properties: mass, spin, and electric charge, 'really' more remarkable than a human brain...!!? I very much doubt it...
Unless u find another life in the universe, life is still special than anything else cause anything we observe exists in billions except life.
I very much doubt it too. Well spoken. Thank you.
Life is all around us, everywhere we look. Life is common and cheap. Black holes are weird and elusive and unfathomable. If you think you can truly fathom a black hole, then you don't have a clue. But aw, that sure was a sweet sentiment, what you said about Life.
Stop for a moment, isn't everything "just" those "three properties" you listed. The term "remarkable" speaks as much to their known aspects as well as to the unknown, so give black holes a break. The tendency to conflate those things human to the elevated status of the most----- is a bit short sighted,
@@keithrelyea7997 Thank you for the reply. You may be right about the subatomic substance that makes up a human being, but unless one is a material reductionist, we do seem to be greater than the the sum of our subatomic parts...!!! I do think, however, that Life in general, and Homosapiensapien in particular, is an extraordinary expression of the creative nature of the Universe. The human brain has the remarkable capacity to contemplate itself, as well as Black Holes, whereas Black Holes are, as far as we know, incapable of contemplating themselves, or indeed human beings. This doesn't mean, however, that Black Holes are not a fascinating subject for study and discussion, especially as the mass of the Black Holes at the centre of galaxies, are proportional to the mass of the galaxies they inhabit, being approximately a thousand times less massive than their host galaxies, suggesting that they may also have a creative function within the universe (watch BBC Horizon's 'Who's Afraid of a Big Black Hole', currently available on Dailymotion)...
Wow, what an explanation. Amazed
My question is if a black hole makes a new universe does this universe only have all the mass the black hole has. If this is the case for an entire universe that is extremely little mass.
Excellent question.
Maybe as a black hole absorbs matter, It expels that matter into an alternate universe in the form of dark energy. Over time, perhaps the dark energy of a universe converts to positive matter and the change is so slow, it goes unnoticed by physicists. This could also explain why they cannot find dark energy. Every time they look, it gets converted to regular elementary particles. So the universe expands as the white hole/b Big Bang keeps injecting dark energy from other universes.
Like a revolving door. Matter from our universe is injected into other universe as dark energy via the black hole in our universe. What is the opposite form of positive-condensed energy? Is it Negative-field energy (Dark energy / baryonic matter ) - incidentally, black holes are comprised of Baryonic matter.
The engine for the infinite process of absorption and secretion is powered by gravity.
From the internet.
“Another slight oddity in the usage of the term baryonic matter in astronomy is that black holes are included as baryonic matter. While the matter from which black holes form is mainly baryonic matter, once swallowed by the black hole, this distinction is lost. For example, a theoretical black hole constructed purely out of photons (which are bosons and clearly not baryons) is indistinguishable from one made from normal baryonic matter. This is often referred to as the ‘black holes have no hair’ theorem which simply states that black holes do not have properties such as baryonic or non-baryonic.”
It's just another deluded theory by an Atheist/Agnostic
The expanding Universe data and the Laws of Thermodynamics confirm ... the Universe is an FINITE Isolated Thermodynamic System with increasing Entropy ... that began & is expanding in an INFINITE Open System(Surrounding) that must provide the energy, matter, space, time & laws of physics fro the Universe. Science supports God creating the Universe.
But nearly all in the Sciences, are ignoring what the data shows, and are willing to change or ignore the laws of physics for their latest theory of the NATURAL origin of the Universe.. smh.
There are also ignoring the science behind the Watchmaker Analogy and comparing Life to machines. A watch is a machine, and the three types of machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular(Life). What is the hypothesis for the OBSERVATION that Universe & Life are like a machine?
The Theory of Universal Functions .... postulates that matter, energy, space, time and the laws of physics are abstract & concrete FUNCTIONS. All functions are unnaturally made by an intelligence who must provide at least INFORMATION for a function to exist & to operate.
A machine ... is a Function composed of Functions .. and requires specific matter, energy, space, time, laws of physics and INFORMATION in order to exist & to function.
Nature and natural processes over a trillion trillion years ... will NEVER make & operate a simple function like a wheel, lever, wedge
Everything is a Function.
And Science is all about discovering & understanding every function in our Universe & how they can cause natural phenomena.
The mass of the parent black hole is not the mass of the offspring universe. See what Alan Guth, and others, have said on this. A very small amount of matter is needed to create a universe and, I think, only gets used for the initial explosion/bang. I think the matter of the offspring universe comes from inflation and quantum effects. See also Lawrence Krauss' book "A Universe From Nothing".
Enough to make one feel proud to be living in a special universe producing all these black holes, I'm holding my head high today.
lol this
How lucky are we to have these ongoing, very interesting and enlightening conversations? Even if I don't quite understand them.
He luck ýou are they what are saing is mis understant Universe. Those are fallacies anti Science.
It's more humanist waffle.
The expanding Universe data and the Laws of Thermodynamics confirm ... the Universe is an FINITE Isolated Thermodynamic System with increasing Entropy ... that began & is expanding in an INFINITE Open System(Surrounding) that must provide the energy, matter, space, time & laws of physics fro the Universe. Science supports God creating the Universe.
But nearly all in the Sciences, are ignoring what the data shows, and are willing to change or ignore the laws of physics for their latest theory of the NATURAL origin of the Universe.
I feel for smolin...the guy's completely authentic and the single only of his generation to have earned the desk he sits at. He re-invented the whole concept of popular science books...his books represent his own original journeys, and he respects the layperson as equal human being. He does not patronise, or water down. Only Feynman before him, ever showed such deep respect. Right now he has to stand and bear witness to the tragic and catastrophic collapse at the knowledge frontier. He's published papers recently that stand him well across time longer than he will survive. He looks to the future generations now, and hopes that they will basically show up.
What I don't understand is that a single black hole doesn't suck in enough matter to create a universe as big as ours, right?
The universes are not the same size and as such, may have different laws of physics that do not result in life. As such I believe these will be some of the “failed” universes Lee is talking about. The ones that are selected out .
Amazing insights. I agree that we are so lucky to have access to conversations that only a peers would get and yet after much listening and reading , we can appreciate the ideas behind the mathematics that boggles the mind. Thank you.
I read "Life if the Cosmos" when I was just a kid and its theory of black hole/universe evolution still seems the most intuitive and correct to me.
Fascinating.
So per the question at 545 QM creates a limit to the density of a singularity and the universe which arises from it will have a slightly different set of rules from ours.
Could you please explain a thought that's going round my head but if nothing is faster than the speed of light then why can't light escape a black hole? Surely gravity must by definition be faster than light inorder to stop light escaping??
It's fascinating that one who studies the subject can look at the progression of matter through ever larger and denser stars and the explosion of those stars and not see the black hole as the end game for recycling matter back into pure potential.
Also, think of the time dilation taking place where T=0 at the event horizon. The orbital velocities of those stars close to the center of a galaxy are more than likely illustrative of the rotation of the galaxy as a whole system and not orbital velocities of stars... so that would likely do away with the required dark matter halo we invented to true our math up with observations ala planet Vulcan
I’ve always just kinda daydreamed and came up with crazy ideas like the possibility that when a black hole forms on our side on the other side a “Big Bang” has happened. Then in that universe the same thing happens. And then in that one. And it just keeps going for eternity.
Same here. It's an obvious conclusion to come to when you know what a black hole is. Another thought I have had in the past is that the structure of reality has a uniformed pattern, like an Esher painting. The further you pan out, the more elaborate the pattern gets.
Sir Roger Penrose used the Escher paintings to explain what happens on the limits of the universe
@@pauloansiaesmonteiro7987 Wasn't that wonderful? Sir Roger is great.
@@stoictraveler1 Yeahhhhh and Smolin talks about the idea of a multiverse where we can have a sort of a genealogy of universes with small differences, in evolution by cosmologic natural selection. What an idea to think about. Salut from Porto, Portugal .
Off topic: I do notice double voice channels being played at the same time when you speak, not your guest speaking. It makes that weird "electronic" voice. Is it due to proximity of the second mic or is it just one microphone played from two channels at the same time, while one being delayed due to something?
Could quantum gravity be where two quantum waves / fields exert an attractive gravity force on each other? If energy(s) accelerate towards singularity inside black hole, these accelerating energy(s) produce an attractive gravity force between each other?
mind blowing explanation.
He minds blowing lack intergraty honest minds about Universe. Those are only fallacies words. Science needs moral intergraty which guys hasnt Science evidence.
@@maxwellsimoes238 Debating this subject matter beyond my paygrade.
This is so mind expanding! One of the boys interesting guests this show ever had.
Thank you Robert for the translation 🙏 I'm always suspicious of experts who can't express clearly what they're supposed to master like no one else.
Kinda like Jordan Peterson.
lol that's not the fault of the expert that's the fault of you
Experts don't necessarily have to be teachers
@@tjandhuri Clear expression is not limited to teachers ... what a strange idea.
@@patmat. no but it is a requirement of good teachers but it is not a requirement of experts. Most musicians who are experts in their chosen instrument have trouble teaching concepts and are unclear but when you hear them play it's clear they know what they're doing. This is just one of many examples where being an expert doesn't mean you have the ability to clearly explain
@@tjandhuri oddly enough some of the most esteemed musicians to have ever existed, experience significant amounts of time not really knowing what they're doing as they play. The majority of musicians however have a pretty good idea of what they're doing as they do it.
In twins brother having age 10 years. One brother is running with speed of light/photons in stadium over a year and another is watching his brother running up to one year.
After one year past what change exists in between them ?
If same activity do in space too what change exist in between two brothers?
Both have gps watch in their hands.
What change exist in 1 year?
Do they feel different change ?
For both day nights, season... exist differently?
In one years one be 50 years old? Another be 11 ?
Space time doesn't exist.
Time exist. Time has no beginning and end.
Deep stuff.
fix echo in post plzzz
Under this model, what happens when black holes collide (which they surely do)? Do larger black holes (like TON618) have other advantages vis-a-vis this anthropic framework than smaller ones? In other words its not just the number of children you have, it could also be how smart/big/strong they are?
I agree. Nature selects the one that survives. So, the large black holes are the ones that last longer. It takes more time to a larger black hole to "evaporate" due to hawking radiation. Please, correct me if I am wrong.
Yes
this is a good question that a theory of everything must be able to address...
Sounds like existence is multiplying new bubbles of reality at an exponential rate similar to the proliferation of bubbles you see when you run your evening bubble bath...
It isnt Science but crazy fantasy. Drunk rambling.
From three dimension classic universe, could there be two dimension quantum information inside the event horizon, then one dimension energy closer to center of black hole, to zero dimension time at singularity?
That's what they say.
Great guest and interview. If SPIRAL, there is NO ongoing hyper-density at galactic centers and no need to predict/require the missing Dark Matter (and Dark Energy) _ reference SPIRAL's 'Black Hole illusion Resolution' hypothesis and SPIRAL's 'GRIP' hypothesis on galactic rotation. PAST, not ongoing, hyper-density accounts for the empirical observations.
reference in Pearlman YeC for the alignment of Torah testimony, science and ancient civ. volume II
NTS g/100/use
It’s cert similar to what Bohm says about the small changes which may lead com a different quality of elements, laws and universes.
It may not be right, but it gets us closer, hopefully. Fascinating discussion of ideas and concepts backed by math and quantum physics. One note, even if there aren't any neutron stars larger than your prediction, you could still be wrong.
Well that was a lot of fun!
As we all know a great channel! But again, please add information on when this was first published. Seems now here been adding a lot of "old" stuff? Nothing wrong, but can be a bit confusing.
Thus channel hasn't produced new video since since last 2 years
And ther are only so nsny these kind questions send top experts.
Do photons interact with graviton particles in some way, maybe like electrons exchange photons?
8:04 If you search for most massive neutron stars, we've found PSR J0952-0607 which is 2.35 times as much as the sun. I don't know how that affects Smolin's hypothesis, but he specifically mentions "no neutron stars more than 1.6x the mass of the sun" as a testable proof. As such I thought I'd mention that real observation does not seem to match his prediction in at least that regard.
cool. confirmed, it is bigger than he says they should be under that hypothesis
I’ve always thought the notion of a singularity was wrong because of infinities etc, which in a discrete (meaning quantized) universe seem counterintuitive and thus I suspected that quantum effects would not permit a stable singularity, so I am relieved to hear that the idea was not outlandish and that quantum effects gives the singularity a loophole to escape as a new region of spacetime.
No answer to the mundane ol´ question: Once, there was nothing. Total and absolute nothing. No matter, no energy, no space, no time. No "laws of nature". NOTHING!!!
And, suddenly, there was "something".
How did that happen? How could that be?
@@roberthutchins4297 I had to figure it out, so I created this fear (puzzlement of contemplating nothingness) in my latest novel. It's not a phase change (i.e true vacuum state). It's not entropic (disorder), it's the opposite of creation and these beings called Archons (masters of quantum information) are constantly fleeing from it. Maybe just an adult version of the Neverending story, lol!
... and why did Big B happen just when it did? Why not a billion years earlier or 10 minutes later? That billion years (or 10 minutes) is, of course, measuring backwards from right now. Something must surely have prompted it to happen just when it did. Still, why then?
When was this filmed, Lee has spoken about this idea before.
Woah
I don't quite understand the concept of spawning separate universes from black holes within our universe as there is a huge difference between the amount of matter that has been "swallowed" by a black hole and the amount of matter we see all around us in the universe. How can a singular black hole created in our universe create another universe similar to ours with only a minute fraction of the matter?
If the universe created has matter equal to the matter swallowed by the black hole then very quickly the "children" become infinitesimally small. If there is no link to the amount of matter created vs the amount swallowed by the black hole in it's creation then... how does that work?
They hand waive it away. In other interviews Smolin implies that in other universes the physics may be different such that the properties may be the same even with less mass. So just imagine tiny stars and black holes I guess, and larger ones above us too, I guess.
So not only are there ancient Egyptians, there could be ancient civilisations in the parent, grand parent etc universe. Should there not be information flow between universes? Can we get some photos ever?
what's the largest neutron star that has ever been observed?
ChatGPT: The largest neutron star observed so far is called PSR J0740+6620. It has a mass of about 2.08 times that of our sun, packed into a sphere with a diameter of only about 20 kilometers. This neutron star is remarkable not only for its mass but also because it tests the limits of how massive neutron stars can be before collapsing into black holes. This observation is crucial for understanding the properties of matter under extreme conditions.
Lee Smolin talks about how if there were a Neutron star of this size, the theory he talks about here is likely not correct
Dude!
My question would be what happens in the case of supermassive black holes and black hole merging.
Who selected the laws?
Why did the selection process end the way it did?
Where does the energy come from to create these new universes?
This is my idea of what dark energy is:
I suspect that there are countless big bangs in the universe or multiverse, as many big bangs, or white holes, as there are black holes; they are the opposite ends of wormholes. You just connect the dots (the "singularities"), and you have no singularities, just a transition, a cause and an effect, as you find everywhere in the macrocosmic world. I subscribe to Lee Smolin's idea, that every time a collapsing black hole creates a new universe within its event horizon, the initial conditions of that Big Bang cause that universe to either successfully evolve, or fail and become chaotic. It's the natural selection of worlds. I also came up with the idea that if the event horizon of the black hole, which has all the information about the energy which entered it (a la Hawking), actually holographically projects the new offspring universe within, which Professor Leonard Susskind has suggested, that this could explain what Dark Energy is. When the black hole in the parent universe is absorbing new energy, this causes the event horizon to expand, so that the universe inside the black hole expands with the new energy feeding it. In this scenario, the "parent" universe is constantly "feeding" the baby universe and causing it to grow. Of course when the parent universe's black hole (like an umbilical wormhole) stops feeding the new universe, and Hawking radiation starts depleting its energy, this would cause the offspring universe to contract and shrink in size, until it might eventually collapse back into the parent universe. I also like the metaphor of the parent and child; it has "elegance" and symmetry. It is usually binary star systems which cause the creation of black holes. One star feeds upon the other, gets "pregnant" as it were, when it collapses into a black hole and gives birth to a new baby universe, and then keeps feeding the baby universe with new energy it gathers from its surroundings. What happens inside super-massive black holes or merging black holes is a different matter.
Also, if the geometry of string theory holds true, the collapse of the black hole might reach the transitional point of a 6-dimensional Calibi-Yau manifold, and that's how the collapsing energy squeezes out into a new dimension as a white hole. Maybe even new universes require a good Mom, with a healthy umbilical cord, to be successful.
Einstein was right. Imagination plays a big part in understanding reality. That's the easy part. I've had these intuitions about black holes before hearing anyone talk about it, but I'm not a physicist. I think reality can be very intuitive, but then the physicists need to come along and generate the equations to prove the theory.
I wonder if intuition is really the easy part. Physicists now a days are so immersed in mathematical abstraction that they fail to visualise the reality. Arbitrary imagination and storytelling is simple, and I don't think this is what Einstein meant by imagination. The ability to see beyond equation and rationalising based on elementary principles and observation is an art that one needs to nurture if one wishes to pursue science.
@@anuraagpaul6610 Is that what you think he meant by imagination, rationalising based on elementary principles and observation?
@@HigherPlanes Partly yes... Again, it's hard to give an exact definition...it's something only one can develop himself/herself. I got the flavour of it when I was in middle and high school. If you want to understand what Einstein meant by imagination, you should put yourself in his position and try to see the world through his eyes. In physics, imagination should have the same footing as the understanding of abstract mathematics... but nowadays the mainstream theoretical physics has taken such a turn that it is not the case anymore, which is precisely the reason why physics has stagnated over the last ~40 years. We need the likes of Einstein who has the ability to imagine.
@@anuraagpaul6610 I think everyone has the ability to imagine. Also part of the reason, I think, that physics has somewhat stagnated, is not due to a lack of imagination but possibly due to the fact that we have "reached a peak" in the things that are to be discovered. I put that in parenthesis because it sounds ridiculous to say we have discovered all there is to be discovered in reality. That's not the case. But as far as what makes day to day life comfortable for us human beings on Planet Earth, the bulk of those discoveries we done. Now we look out into the ubiquitous and homogeneous universe and to make new discoveries may take not only imagination but a fine toothed comb, perhaps like the JWT.
@@HigherPlanes But not everyone has the ability to imagine like Einstein, Faraday, Feynman etc etc. It seems that your definition of imagination is different from what I mean by imagination. What do you think distinguishes the imagination power of someone like Einstein from that of an average person?
Also it's not true that we have reached the peak, there are still lots of other unknown domains in physics that we have yet to understand, which will also have lots of practical applications. We can think that there has been enough advancements which will enable us to lead a comfortable life, but that doesn't mean the end of practical applications or further advancements. There was a time, prior to discovery of quantum mechanics when we thought that we have discovered practically all phenomena related to physics. I should have said that our quest for unified theory has stagnated, which is partly due to slow progress of experimentation.
Maybe the so called planet nine is actually dark matter or a primordial black hole, which are the black holes that are the size of a atom but the mass of a planet I believe. Or something like that.
What about Hawkin radiation?
I've heard Lee talk about this before,,but this time it seemed more understandable,,I think I'm in. 🤔 At least until we find that bigger than normal Neutron star 🌟 .
a singularity , a point with a universe either side like 2 ballons one inflates one collapes then repeat , i can get with that .
Very honest, enjoyable conversation.
But black holes play a ROLE in the behavior of the galaxy. All this speculation about their relation with new univs is just mumbo-jumbo. And worse, it does not even touch the essential: What is their ROLE.
Humans have a striking tendency to run away from hard problems by increasing complexity. We jump to a higher level of complexity in which the original problem is disguised and we fancy that we have solved it. While, in reality, we have only hidden the problem under a pile of conceptual constructs that we understand less than the original. (Examples: Superdeterminism to solve-hide the paradoxes of QM. Multiverse, in the same context. Changing laws of physics, to understand-hide the many problems we don't understand. So on so forth..
Conversely, take the history of good theories. They require usually an initial effort to change some deep inbred assumption of us, but immediately it gives a simpler framework than the original. So simple, that we soon forget that there was a serious problem before. Eg, the circulation of blood - imagine the crazy complex things that were speculated before Harvey told them the simpler truth: It was the same blood that was circulating around, and the heart was pumping it.
(Feynman: "Truth always turns out to be simpler than we thought").
Rather CTT than TCC.
From the thumbnail i thought it contained the "aliens? Yes!" Guy.
0:56-0:58 time stops, is removed (supposedly singularity) and time continues… ???
the singularity is removed, so that time doesn't stop
So he gave us a version of a multiverse
How does one test the “offspring theory” when they can’t even test the theories that explain the inside a black hole or what resides beyond the boundary of the universe? I was on board with the explanation of white holes, but passing genetic information from one universe to another universe seems like a stretch, especially considering the random nature of particle physics. And if this guy thinks the repeating universe cannot go on for infinity, then he would have to demonstrate where the deficit resides to eat away at the conserved energy. What would make the cycle stop?
The Universe does not have a boundary. The offspring theory sates that physical features get passed from one parent universe to the daughter universe. There is a limit to the number of black holes that a universe can produce so the cycle can very well go on forever but physicists do not like the term forever.
The expanding Universe data and the Laws of Thermodynamics confirm ... the Universe is an FINITE Isolated Thermodynamic System with increasing Entropy ... that began & is expanding in an INFINITE Open System(Surrounding) that must provide the energy, matter, space, time & laws of physics fro the Universe. Science supports God creating the Universe.
But nearly all in the Sciences, are ignoring what the data shows, and are willing to change or ignore the laws of physics for their latest theory of the NATURAL origin of the Universe.
In addition, the Theory of Universal Functions .... is the science that explains Sir Issac Newtons OBSERVATION that the Universe is like a Watch that requires a Watchmaker to exist & to .... FUNCTION. The Universe is a Function composed entirely of Functions, and requires specific matter, energy, space, time, laws of physics and INFORMATION in order to exist & to .... FUNCTION.
Everything is a Function. The Laws o physics, space & time are ABSTRACT Functions, and energy & matter are concrete/physical Functions.
All Functions have a purpose or role ... and PROCESS inputs into outputs
And all Functions ... are UNNATURALLY made by an intelligence who must provide the INFORMATION for a function to exist & operate.
The science behind Sir Issac Newton's Analogy(Observation) has been completely ignored for over 300 years ... even though Life and biological processes are to this day, routinely compared to machines(physical Function). Sheez. The three types of machines are mechanical, electrical and ..... MOLECULAR( ie Life). smh.
@@kos-mos1127 let me be more specific. Sorry, I meant the boundary of the “observable” universe.
@@abelincoln8885 It's always funny when a theist tries to use physics to prove a god but just looks like an idiot.
@@abelincoln8885 You should call up the atheist experience and reach a wider audience.
th-cam.com/video/cJsfvAwF5fo/w-d-xo.html
Much like what we can see/observe now, gravity wins, gravity always wins given enough time in space. The same aspects will reveal itself to be the same approach/process with quantum gravity's effects at those scales.
I believe Richard Dawkins speculates on this topic of universes, black holes, & natural selection at the end of the edition of Selfish Gene I have. I wonder if he was referencing Lee Smolin's work or if they both came up with the idea independently?
A natural selection of many universes until one in the numbers shows up with the right ingredients for life therefore intelligent even perhaps conscious life to exist, I like it..
If there are untold billions of them, we need a better word than "universe."
Multi-verse?
Since god and the law of energy conservation : systemic energy is constant, are effectively equivalent with respect to an existential guarantee, couldn't you argue that without a means for distinguishing between their outcomes, a predictive claim is disqualified from science?
I have predıcted with my theory and my formula 6.3 tımes greater speed of light which is measured as apparently inside of M87 black hole. I SUGGEST HAVING A LOOK AT THE FIRST PART OF MY THEORY AND MY FIRST FORMULA WHICH DETERMINES A LINEAR VELOCITY OF...6.3 TIMES GREATER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT, ETC. AND I TOLD WHERE OUR MEASURED CONSTANTS ARE ROOTED IN. We need to change the concept of matter that makes us imprisoned by all kinds of impressions and especially by accepting the vacuum illusion which it has been sitting comfortably in it
I find his argument of black holes spawning universes that are only slightly different unconvincing. He defines no mechanism. What he's really arguing is that differences above a certain degree from ours won't generate many or any black holes or too many. But this is only a pruning effect. Any given black hole in our universe can be the source of a failed universe. Prior to falling in, you'll not know what kind of universe is on the other side of the event horizon
I am no physicist, and correct me if I am wrong but, if our universe is a by product of another universe, each subsequent universe, according to the video would be, much much smaller (less massive) than the previous one, right?
furthermore, the universe that produced the blackhole that produced our universe would have to be much more massive/bigger than ours.
and the hawking radiation that we observed in our universe? wasn’t that matter being used in the other universe? what is it doing on our side of the blackhole?
if this explanation is remotely correct, the “universe” that blackholes create, need to be so fundamentally different than ours, that we might as well call it heaven and hell 🤷♂️
They have this idea from Guth that when space is created new matter can be created too. There is no ground in either philosophy or observed science or theory to account for that. But modern physics allows anything just to match theory with any kind of perceived reality
Inside the event horizon of black hole, maybe quantum gravity is between quantum information (two dimensions)?
What do they prove ? That we don't know the true nature of the universe !
Kooky stuff here. In mathematics there’s really no discussion about a singularity in a function, nor would there be any reason to connect them in some way. It’s simply a bit where the function is undefined. It’s not that it’s doing anything. It’s simply not defined as anything. It’s a boundary.
It’s bizarre how these guys talking about singularities as if it’s reality. It’s an artifact of a limited mathematical theory. That’s all
Undefined points in spacetime.
When you start collapsing lots of matter inward , eventually it becomes very very dense. In quantum mechanics you have electron degeneracy pressure. This outward pushing force is what keeps stars from collapsing. But we are slowly understanding more about how far you can push inwards. There may be states of extreme pressure that we think are not possible but due to quantum mechanics are. Beyond the density of a neutron star but above the density of a singularity. That’s my probably wrong understanding of it.
Quantum mechanics is just heuristics . These guys took it too seriously.
@@firstal3799
Exactly
Question I would have wanted to know is how does the universe expand forever when black holes are supposed to evaporate if of course we're living in a black hole.
I've been thinking for a long time that black holes create new universes. I love this stuff.
Black Holes creates Universe is POSSIBLE. However Black Holes creates Universe is ilusion which it hasnt Science consistence evidencie.
life is the craziest thing in universe
What if all the antimatter from the beginning of universe got clumped into black holes.
I am not sure if I understood but does he imply that the state prior to the big bang can be explained with quantum mechanics? But... math and functions are abstract ideas than only exist in a mind, right? so am I right if I say that anyway there is need of a mind prior to the big bang?
You're right, imo, that quantum mechanics is a thing in our minds -- something that exists within our human culture. And in that regards it is just our best approximation of reality at this time, our best current model of reality. What reality _really_ is, however, how it _really_ works and what it is _really_ made of is totally independent and outside our attempts to understand it. So, no, I personally don't think reality has to exist in a mind in order for it to be. A really interesting -- and not so difficult to understand -- philosopher named George Berkeley, however, would disagree. He thinks all of reality exists in the mind of God. But then the philosopher, David Hume, I think, though inspired by Berkeley, does a pretty good job of refuting him.
The black matter is just a regular matter that got there going by the black holes, we know that m>0 makes an attractive gravity and it explains why the black matter is always underneath the galaxies, but how it is in Dirac's dimension it can't reflect the light and how we know the higgs and the m>0 crates a attractive gravity and it explains why the light has the same results on dark matter but we can't see it because it is in other dimension and soon nasa will find the white holes and they will throw m
And I can explain what is the dark energy too because I proved mathematically what it is and how it expands the universe
Imagine if we aim a billion ( or some outrageous huge) number of dark matter particles at one single point all to arrive at one specific time with let's say 10% speed of light.
As the collapsing sphere of dark matter particles come closer their speeds will keep increasing approaching speed of light but not quite reaching it.
At some point the escape velocity of that collapsing sphere will exceed the speed of light. Even after that happens the dark matter particles totally unaware will pass through that single point and continue their path a very short distance and then fall back to oscillate very rapidly with a very small distance....
Now same thought experiment with dark matter particles aimed in a small area rather than a point. I think they would all happily spin in very tight circles with speed approaching speed of light.....heavier the black holes faster these guys spin. . So in others words we don't need infinite density to create a black hole of certain mass. Since these dark matter particles have mass they will require greater and greater force to speed up as they approach speed of light which means a buzzing beehive of dark matter particles can exist at any mass but it never reaches an infinite density.
Since we cannot see past the event horizon, but may be at some super density even Regular Baryionic matter converts to dark matter and we can have stable black hole that still follows Einstein general relativity laws....
The only assumption I am making is that dark matter is a heavy particle that does not interact via weak force, strong force, electromagnetic. It only interacts via gravity.....
Would love to hear how my conjecture violates laws of physics
The expanding Universe data and the Laws of Thermodynamics confirm ... the Universe is an FINITE Isolated Thermodynamic System with increasing Entropy ... that began & is expanding in an INFINITE Open System(Surrounding) that must provide the energy, matter, space, time & laws of physics fro the Universe. Science supports God creating the Universe.
But nearly all in the Sciences, are ignoring what the data shows, and are willing to change or ignore the laws of physics for their latest theory of the NATURAL origin of the Universe.
Again. Change or ignore the laws of physics.
And who created God
The point I am making is we don't need a spawning another universe complexity to explain a black hole which in my conjecture is a very fast spinning beehive of dark matter particles....
Using occums razor
@@bollywoddance1194 The point I was making is the data & science clearly support God creating the Universe ... but most in the science believe in a NATURAL origin of the Universe 14 billion years ago, ... and "ignore or change" the laws of physics to support there latest theory.
There are no alternate Universes in a black hole, nor are there any multiverses of which ours is one of many, or a singularity & inflation.
The data and science ... clearly shows he Universe is a FINITE Isolated Thermodynamic System, that began & is expanding in ... an INFINITE SYSTEM with unnatural or supernatural laws, with its own intelligence.
Most in the sciences firmly believe in a NATURAL origin of the Universe, know the Universe is a FINITE isolated Thermodynamic System, must have a infinite SURROUNDINGS that provided the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of physics. Almost all say the Universe is INFINITE in size ... which is completely false because we have increasing entropy, and an infinite isolated thermodynamic system ... will have infinite time/volume and therefore have REVERSIBLE thermodynamic processes & constant entropy. This is bad science ... lead by Atheists, Agnostics and Evolutionary Theists ... and is hindering learning the truth about our Universe.
Science relies on the fixed laws of physics and can only be applied to the Universe & everything that belongs to it. Time is part of our Universe. But the Universe was made in a timeless infinite system, which provided the time, space, matter, energy and laws of physics. And intelligence in an actual infinite system, has no beginning and simply always existed. This is what the Nature freaks are saying about an infinite Universe. smh.
One day this theory will be proven to be correct.
I've been saying for years that black holes are their own universes, its just too obvious. Even though humanity has no way to prove it yet. every model and theory is leaning towards that direction.
Dark matter the super villain of space exploration
Would it take a very long time for a black hole to bring about a new universe, like when the black hole evaporates after billions or trillions of years?
My understanding is that the creation of a black hole/singularity in one universe is, itself, the Big Bang of another universe. Conservation of matter/mass still applies, so the black hole still exists in the parent universe and evaporates or whatever and should have nothing to do with the offspring universe (after that first moment).
@@mk6595 so where does the new universe get its matter from, if it’s evaporating on our side?
@@lcfdasoares we never know, the problem which I don't think humans would ever solve. But it might have a system which produces Higher power energy with lower value of energy which is still think absurd but only answer for any matter we have even in our universe.
Black hole seeping into a new universe. This is just fantast cosplaym no evidence or mathematical grounding
Smolin's idea is lent a little credence by James Gate's discovery that error correcting codes can be found in the supersymmetric equations associated with string theory. Error correcting 'codes' are found in DNA to prevent too much mutation from happening. Maybe error correcting codes are part of the fabric of the universe to control the mutations during reproduction. You would not need error correcting codes if mutations were not happening at all. Error correcting codes control the rate and manner of mutations - too much and too little mutation is not good. Error correcting codes in DNA are also subject to evolution, meaning that the proper amount of error correction is selected for.
Natural selection of universes... the longer a universe stays in balance the higher the likely hood of life developing in a corner....
That’s a lot of ifs and maybes
Such humility, to say 'this is the only thing I added'. The welcome antithesis of theological certainty and arrogance.
Hmm, fractal multiverses!