Ken Olum - Will the Universe Ever End?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2024
- Watch more interviews on the far future of our universe: shorturl.at/AGTV7
What does it mean to ask about the end of the universe? Can the universe even have an end? What would end? In the far, far future, what happens to stars, galaxies, and black holes? What about mass and energy, even space and time? What’s the ‘Big Crunch’ and the ‘Big Rip’? And what if there are multiple universes, will the multiverse ever end?
Register for a free membership to get exclusives like discounts, bonus content, and more: closertotruth.com/register/
Shop Closer To Truth merch like caps, notebooks, and tote bags: www.bonfire.com/store/closert...
Ken Olum is a Research Professor in the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University, where he has worked since 1997. He is a member of the NANOGrav collaboration, which searches for low-frequency gravitational waves via precision timing of pulsars.
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.
One thing is certain, if the universe contracts into a bubble, Wesley Crusher will be there to solve it.
I feel better now. Thanks.
One of the best interviews. Clear and to the point.
lol
“Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends.”
I didn’t expect a definitive answer. I came to hear brilliant minds ponder about deep questions and I wasn’t disappointed. Thanks 🙏
u r an easy satisfied
Melkit, thats a good expectation, especially in this area of science. I often hear people complain that a given answer didn't actually answer the question, but people who search for definite answers are usually small minded. Questions in complex areas, such as physics or other science, mostly can't provide simple answers in a yes/no category.
People get an answer they dont understand and dont agree with, and falsely judge it as "he didnt come to the point".
The most consequential things in Nature are totally out of human control. We have just a limited degree of control over our lives which in the grand scheme of things is extremely short and fleeting.
It depends what one means by the word "universe".
I could define it as all the positive integers.
They will always exist.
i love these
Glad to see Dr. Olum return
It's a coincidence that his name 'Olum' means "death," "end," "great divide," or "last". Perhaps, him explaining "the end" is fitting 😂
Brilliant interview.
Came here out of interest and to have my brain melted . Was no disappointed , would recommend .
The universe has no ending because the concept itself doesn't exist outside of our feeble minds. The end is a human construct, a limitation of our understanding and intellect.
There is nothing known that is not known through the limited lenses of our human mind.
Please do something about the sound recording. In many videos of this channel this is not oke.
These are old clips from the PBS show. Nothing can be done about recording
Interesting Interview.
Here's to hoping 🤞
I wanna get high and talk to this dude all day about the universe 😂
I believe the first part of what you've messaged.
Stars in the sky
Shining like they'd always be
Shining down on me
That's what I thought it'd be
When do they end? I don't know
Everything ends, I know
You'd think the stars would burn on forever
Why does it end?
Why does it end?
- The Flaming Lips (the stripped-down "iTunes Original" version of this song is my fave)
I think simulation theory is a wild goose chase.
Very interesting personality 😎
he looks like Perelman 😊
Stars don’t fade out. They EVOLVE AND EVOLVE. As life grows the matter needed to keep them fuelled
We won’t be around so what does it matter.
We weren’t there in age of dinosaurs why some paleontologists even studied them
Nature is alternating with no start or ending, but every alternating element have both start and ending.
Is the guy at the beginning Socrates?
When I die my World or Universe will end and the rest is pure speculation. Knowledge of how and if the Universe ends is inconsequential.
This is the first presentation that left me feeling as the universe might not ever truly end & for some nonsensical reason I'm giddy.
I am almost going to comment on this.
This is fascinating food for thought, but while watching this it dawned on me that these brilliant observations are coming from two apes communicating.
It will end it complete darkness one day. Crazy to think about, wonder if it will restart after the darkness
It seems highly likely there are many things we don't know nothing about now that will factor into what happens to us. Looking back, it was that way in the past, and one can't help but believe it will be that way in the future.
i kind of agree, if we look back at many major advancements in physics, it was to some extent our own arrogance that prevented us from finding the solutions sooner
@@rebokfleetfoot
Something else humans are arrogant about is that we always think we are living in a very special time. Humans in the past thought the same thing.😊
from what i have gathered, there were actually many civilizations before us and we tend to underestimate their intelligence @@mickeybrumfield764
The universe began as infinite heat...it will decay to infinite cold.
THAT'S the 1st Law of Thermodynamics: it could not de novo begin...
it cannot be extinguished to absolute cold--"nothing".
It's not that we know too little; it's that what we know absolutely (Thermodynamics)
precludes any theory of this universe of heat beginning or ending. Leaving physicists to contrive all manner of perpetual motion universes---or have nothing to
submit for grants. AND THAT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!
If you don't know nothing then you know something
Hopefully.
The Univers will end with me!
One word : INFINITY.
It can't end because it never really began . It's cyclic .
The cyclic universe notion is neither definitively proven nor the scientific consensus. I lean more towards the idea that thermodynamic equlibrium is simply the end of the unvierses expansion.
The universe had no beginning and it will not have an end.
But can you prove it?
@@peterm5187 The universe is infinite. If it wasn’t then somewhere out there all that dark space would have to become something other than space. What could replace the space? Nothing could replace it so it must go on forever - hence infinity.
Of course what’s infinite has no boundaries and cannot be measured (or it wouldn’t be infinite) so mind can’t handle it and tries to come up with anything other than infinity - which is a shame, because once the implications of infinity are seen and felt your experience of life changes in a positive way - very positive!
@@phk2000 "What could replace the space? Nothing could so.." That's a fallacious argument. It's okay to say you don't know. We don't know if the universe is infinite, just as much as we don't know if we're in a simulation.
@@1990maman The mind can’t handle infinity - hence your comment.
Will the Universe Ever End?
Absurd question. The universe is physical, and physical ends - eternity does not.
Yes it will end as we know it.
Yes, the universe will fizzle out. It'll run out of puff. Everything we know about it today, all observations and measurements point to such an end.
Does infinity ever end?
Rather than calling it cold, could we say very very without heat until absolute no heat then what
Everything has a life span. That cannot be denied.
We have been there before, the not being here anymore and then events took place again for a new Universe to come into existence, because the stuff the Universe is made up of never completely disappears, it is just all in another form.
Put it this way, this Universe may not be its first Rodeo.
One does not need a Degree to know that. That information is already imprinted within you, thats why one can even think the Universe has come and gone before.
Recently, the "simulations" were "completed" at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, where due to a refrigerator failure (lack of nitrogen access) research samples were lost, mainly leukemia.
Some of these samples were 30 years old !!!
The police do not rule out that it was not an accident. Losses were initially estimated at 47 million USD.
Whats interesting, the refrigerator was able to operate for up to 4 days without access to nitrogen, and this happened during Christmas Eve/Christmas - the only period when the refrigerator was left for ....5 days.
And ?
@@erikhviid3189lol
its like 2 water droplets (vacuum of space) hitting each other, where matter moving from on to another
2 words..Omega Point...
how can something infinite, end?
Is it possible to have an ending if there was no beginning?
If a civilization still uses money even with the power to simulate a universe that is a civilization that I don’t want to be in.🙏. I’ve adopted the theory of a solid state universe
If you write a book and burn the only copy after memorizing the manuscript, is the book still real?
Memory is faulty and it’s unlikely to reproduce the former content as it was. Plus the mind that remembers requires materiality just the same.
What is a book?
With Many Worlds being created every moment, the likelihood that there is a false vacuum in my world must be quite small. I'm chillin'.
we don't know what Time is :) so seems silly to ask the question of when IT will begin or end
If you don’t ask questions, how are you going to discover answers?
we develop a physics of time, as a real physical process@@simonhibbs887
Oh, and obviously... we know everything... just look at ourselves.
Nr1
Sat thru 10 minutes of this when the last sentence could’ve been said first.
If we observe the big holes in universe it telling us there are many cosmic nuclear bomb that able to make several light years of stars dissapear.
Even in a vacuum bubble principal can’t go on for ever right solar radiation too dose decay with travel distance so my principal is energy decay by distance some of it just saying one gone one emerge the pure energy must be stayed can’t go all disappear
to summarize:
1)The universe will probably end just as you're about to retire.
2) You should collect wood now for when the energy burns out and it gets cold.
All material things end
Larry??
God I hope so...
42
Dr. Ulum is so handsome, anyone else agrees with me.
Not really
Found Ken's alt account. Lol
Incredible man. He looks like Perelman 😊
Wasn't he in the Hobbit film
Then I suppose the stars JUST FADED IN
Regions of the Verse can end and give birth to new regions. Its endless and our conception of beginning and end has no bearing on the size and scope of it all.
OUR universe however will most definantly end.....and then be re-born of course.....the " Black Walls " will make sure of that ☺️
I don’t understand if the universe is going to be infinitely old, why are we so close to the beginning
Exactly
We could be unbelievably far from the beginning, and yet it would always head towards zero in the face of eternity
I think at any point in time this will be the case.
Beginning is a relative term. Existence may permeate beyond what we can observe, certainly with light and potentially through gravity.
This man looks so much my friend that I laugh. He got own bicycle repair shop and sales company.
And even talk same way😂. I think we all have lookalikes somewhere here or another Universes.
There are so many models of people available, so there are bound to be duplicates.
Ken looks like a really old Cooper Kupp
If these wild speculations are worth any salt, then why are religious doctrines about the beginning and end of the universe worth less!?
Imagination is untethered to reality. And those texts were written by our ancestors who knew nothing about the Earth or animals or the stars, nevermind the origin of everything.
But aren’t stars constantly dying and also being born all over the universe? So the fact that all stars will use up all their fuel sounds strange to me because for all those stars using up their fuel and dying a bunch more will have just began. No?
Here you have a good explaination with timeline! th-cam.com/video/Qg4vb-KH5F4/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=PBSSpaceTime
yes but space is expanding so it will become too spread out to re-form
Eventually almost all the hydrogen will have been fused into heavy elements in stars, and the remaining gas clouds will have become so dispersed no more stars can form. We’re talking about over a hundred billion years into the future.
Wouldn't be surprised if our laws are slightly wrong. Perhaps under the correct conditions new material appears. Thus the universe might expand and enough material exists for galaxies forever off into infinity.
Or photon decay occurs at extreme vacuums, like on the edge of the universe and the matter then clumps back to form planets and the universe cycles on infinitely.
That’s the eternal universe hypothesis which new matter is always created to balance at “edge” but backyard radiation exist so probably not
@@mini059 Well I wouldn't count it out because we haven't experimented will all matter/energy at its limits and all possible environments (extreme pressure, total vacuum (zero EMR)).
in other words...we don't know
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
The universe will never end (The universe is the product of infinity). If it could end we wouldn't be here now - it will "end" as we know it, but it will be "reborn"
The cyclic universe as Sir Roger Penrose suggests seems the most likely..
This is what my intuition tells me..
I'll stick with the Multiverse... for anything to exist, it's always had to exist and new universes are created repeatedly at speeds we've never measured.
The universe will be transformed into nothing which will be covered by a bubble destroying nothing leaving nothing behind.
Ken Olum...Mr. Bubble?
I completely agree with Ken when he says that there could always be another layer. I’ve been saying this for a long time. It’s why I believe that it’s impossible to totally understand the “universe” no matter what our definition of it is. Other than philosophers playing clever word games, theologians pretending to a knowledge of some over encompassing god, or some physicists thinking that “the laws of physics” ensure there’s something (showing that those physicists don’t understand the question, as his interview with Alan Gurth showed, a while ago), we will never know the answer to that question. As another physicist stated a few years ago, in a London interview; “It’s turtles all the way down.” It may not be turtles, but there’s something, most likely.
The universe is so last year.
The most precise detail of the end of the universe came in the verses of the Qur’an, and that its end is similar to what happens to all creatures, from birth, growth, and then death, and that the end of the universe will be close and sudden, and that there are signs that will appear to indicate that the end is near.
Please don't annoy us with your religion. Thank you very much.
I believe in a cyclic universe and the reason our galaxy is not colonized by an ultra-advanced civilization is because at some point such a civilization develops the tech to collapse the vacuum and the current universe ends and a new one begins.
I would not think that possible because the energy needed would be beyond what can be harnessed.
NO.
If the universe ends, will "time" have any value?
What a thought provoking question. Do you get scared of these thoughts? I do. I literally feel like I'm panicking. I'm so helpless and can't do anything for the universe that I slip into depersonalization.....
@@alexandraestre1731 deporsonalisation with jazz? So what you're implying here, if my conjecture is correct, that you observe the pale blue dot, sitting on a flying harpsichord?
I hope so
Larry David is a smart man
No.
Is a hamster in a plastic ball liberated or in a prison?
To me that makes sense - you don't have a definitive answer.
It cant end, it never began.
Our specific realm of time and space began, so far as we know, the larger reality, within which we sit, did not because it couldn't have (based on current physical understanding).
We have already the idea that we can have a finite space without a physical boundary, i think we just need to apply the same kind of thinking to Time@@SamoaVsEverybody814
And in the End does it really matter?
yt will not let me post the link that would be perfect here :) @@Resmith18SR
Wrong!
A finite universe is equivalent to nothing
Grand standing! Even the question is ill posed. No body knows how it started or even it ends.
First!
"Nothing ever ends."
---Dr. Manhattan
Asking if the Universe will end is asking if matter will stop changing. It will never stop changing. Change is a potential infinite. If the topology is closed then the poincare recurrence theorem posits it will return to the initial state it was, restarting the entropy and the big bang.
The Universe is moving from one even distribution to another due to the instability of a static state. The Universe is a spatial changing substance going through dynamic equilibrium due to differences in density regions.
The Universe cannot gain what it doesnt have or lose what it is. Substances cannot come into or go out of existence, it is eternal
In quantum field theory, there is no such thing as empty space
The universe won't actually "end" in the truest sense, but will just stop propagating energy after reaching thermodynamic equilibrium and the properties of the universe as we know it will decay. Matter will stop aggregating due to the lack of available energy, so yes matter will stop "changing." "change is a potential infinity" so? If the prerequisite conditions meet the contingency threshold for such potentiality, then such possibility becomes certain.
The universe is a flat topology, with non-finite volume so the pointcare universe wouldn't apply( nor is there good reason to believe its absolute). Even then, how exactly could the initial states be returned to? The heat death predicts the universe to go in maximum high entropy at absolute zero. I don't see how energy could be regained nor such entropic transition be a non-trivial probability.
"The universe cannot gain what it doesnt have or lose what it is" no one said that it would gain what it doesn't have. Any change in finite probabiltiy is in a sense "losing" what states currently exist, so yes the universe can lose what it is. Unless you exclude quantum fluctuations/virtual particle emergence( which will most likely behave differently in different points of the unvierse's history), then yes things don't come into or out of existence.
I don't see why quantum field theory was mentioned, nor why the notion that empty space not existing is either revelant or even exclusive to such cosmological model( absolute nothing can't exist, and the idea of empty space still relates to spatial properties anyway).
@@jackkrell4238 It's a common misconception that reaching thermodynamic equilibrium means the end of all energy propagation in the universe.While it's true that in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, there is no net flow of energy, this doesn't imply a permanent cessation of all heat or energy transfer.
Just as the initial state of the universe was static before the onset of dynamic processes, the attainment of thermodynamic equilibrium doesn't preclude the possibility of future fluctuations or heating events. This would be to misunderstand the initial cause of change to begin with. These fluctuations will potentially lead to the restart of energy propagation.
The Universe is a spatial changing substance (matter). It cannot stop changing since it operates in a state of dynamic equilibrium. Any static state is unstable. The initial state of the Universe prior to the first instance of change must necessarily be static and unstable for there to be change. The universe has a closed topology with a flat geometry. You are conflating the two. We are also constrained by the cosmic event horizon, so the poincare recurrence theorem will apply.
"The universe cannot gain what it doesnt have or lose what it is" no one said that it would gain what it doesn't have.
I said this to reinforce the idea that, whatever exists cannot come into or go out of existence. The Universe doesn't lose forms or spatial parts, it transitions between different forms. Claiming the Universe loses forms is an argument for hylomorphism and platonism and Platonism makes a category error and engages in existential fallacious reasoning.
The Universe still maintains its density volume and its spatial extent. First law of thermodynamics. There is no such thing as emergence in terms of a distinct substrate, there is simply an ongoing process/change in substance. Quantum field theory was mentioned to support the idea that substance monism is true. There are no such things as distinct properties or particles, no such empty space for there to be real concrete distinctions.
@@CMVMic "It's a common misconception that reaching thermodynamic equilibrium means the end of all energy propagation in the universe.While it's true that in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, there is no net flow of energy, this doesn't imply a permanent cessation of all heat or energy transfer." This is simply not true. It is formally recognized and understood that once absolute zero kelvin is reached and energy stops having transitional energy( through a cessation of expansion) all changes in matter states don't occur. There's no reason to think that the unviersal properties would work the same once such state is reached and I don't see how the "initial conditions" could be reached when there is neither any means of change left over and such high-low entropic changes taking place seems unlikely.
What evidence suggested that the intial states were static? Where can you find anything that suggests the heat death and the "beginning" are the same? You keep using the word "dynamic processes" and "static" but I don't really see how relevant that is. If it was certain that the heat death can somehow still have heat left over or quantum fluctuations( which again, might behave differently) causing major macroscopic changes, the scientific consensus would all favorably view such idea and more evidence for such probability would be provided.
"the universe is a spatially changing substance(matter)" 1. How is the universe itself a substance 2. it's only operating under dynamic equlibrium due to such available heat, something not present in thermodynamic equalibrium.3. It's not entirely guaranteed that the unvierse is a closed system, and the cosmic event horizon only describes the limited amount of space perceivable by an observer(e.g. a human). Excuse me for being me skeptical of such theorem.
Of course nothing that exists can't come in or out of existence. I don't see how that's relevant to what we're discussing. What do you mean by spatial parts? How would such event occur, and how does it relate to the topic? The deteoriation of protons, evaporation of blakc holes, and universal decay would be an inevitability. Such event take occur because of dynamic equilibrium no longer continuing. I never once mentioned nor accept hylomorphism and platonism in my comment.
"There is no such thing as emergence in terms of a distinct substrate, there is simply an ongoing process/change in substance. " yet once again I have to ask why you keep going on about this matter when it was never addressed nor apropos the conversation.
@@jackkrell4238 No, there can never be a cessation of change. I sympathize with your skeptical reservations but this is because you do not understand what caused the first instance of change.
Traditionally, it is inferred that once absolute zero is reached, energy propagation ceases but as I said before, even if that is the case, this would result in the Universe reaching a similar state it was in initially, i.e. a static and unstable state which will inevitably result in change. Also, your argument or appeal to consensus doesn't necessarily imply a complete absence of all energy or the end of all potential for change. Quantum mechanical effects, such as fluctuations at the quantum level, could potentially lead to variations or fluctuations even in a universe approaching heat death.
There is no such thing as an true expansion. When physicists refer to the "expansion of space," they are describing a phenomenon observed in cosmology where the distances between galaxies and other large-scale structures in the universe appear to increase over time. This expansion is not a literal stretching or enlargement of a fabric or substance. It simply refers to the increasing distances between objects in space itself due to The Universe moving from an uneven distribution towards a more even distribution of density.
The initial conditions would be an even distribution of density. Order has nothing to do with entropy especially because order doesnt have a well defined meaning. So, the initial state of the Universe was an even distribution and the thermodynamic equilibrium state will also result in an even distribution. It is this even distribution that results in the instability necessary for change.
1. The Universe is itself a substance because it is empirically verifiable and concrete. It is spatial and it changes. What would be the alternative here?
2. it's NOT only operating under dynamic equilibrium due to available heat. This is to misunderstand the initial cause of change and the nature of heat. Heat involves motion.
It must be the case that the Universe has a closed topology. An infinite expanse of space is metaphysically impossible. It cannot be an actual infinite because this is contradictory and since something cannot come out of nothing, there cannot be a potential infinite expanse. Also, I know the cosmic event horizon describes the limited amount of space perceivable but it enforces the idea that space is closed as far as we know. So, my argument that the Universe is closed is both philosophical and empirically verifiable. You can be skeptical of the theorem all you want but I have no reason to be.
Of course nothing that exists can't come in or out of existence.
This was relevant because it emphasizes the idea that the Universe cannot gain what it doesnt have or lose anything it has. Thus, the Universe never started as a zero dimensional point and gained anything. This zero dimensional point refers to a point where all observable densities converge but any model that shrinks its scale in size is flawed as it is an inaccurate representation of the Universe. Since, there are no additional spatial regions and the Universe doesn't gain or lose forms or spatial parts i.e. additional spatial regions, the Universe has always been spatial.
I said: Claiming the Universe loses forms is an argument for hylomorphism and platonism. I never said you claimed this. I am just saying if this is the position one holds, this is what it would be guilty of.
You said "Unless you exclude quantum fluctuations/virtual particle emergence( which will most likely behave differently in different points of the universe's history), then yes things don't come into or out of existence."
This is why I explained that emergence in this sense would be incoherent.
The Universe never changes its total volume density and it moves from cold states to hot states in a cyclic fashion. The Initial state was cold and with change comes heat.
Also, to avoid any potential strawman, I think it best not to assume I am charging you of something unless I make this explicit. If you want clarification on anything, it would be best to ask.
Source
Take a lesson from the Stoics RK, there are a whole lotta' things we actually can worry about and maybe have a marginal amount of control over; this is very probably not one of them...
We all know that according the the Spongebob A.I. memes the heat death of the universe will occur August 12, 2036. Lol.
I know a few people who claim to be upset by the eventual demise of our universe. They are the most neurotic people I have ever seen. They live to be unhappy. I avoid them.
Wow, Larry David really let himself go xD
Quran has alot of verses regarding universe research in Quran u will get the answer InshaALLAH
I don’t believe the universe will or can expand forever. I also think the universe has a cyclical nature like everything else seems to and will end maybe by a Big Crunch, but I also believe either another universe will be born in its place, or the current universe will begin expansion again when the circumstances are right for it. Maybe the Big Crunch is like a cell division in that the universe splits in two when it reaches the right stage of its cycle. Makes me think of a Mandelbrot.
Did you even watch the video? The heat death doesn't imply that the universe expands forever, given that there is a finite distribution of such energy before it becomes thermodynamically empty. Why do you beleive such deductive reasoning is valid to the scale of the unvierse, or how a new/cyclical universe can emerge. I don't think that comparing the cosmological properties of the unvierse to a cell is particularly appropriate, nor how a mandelbrot pattern can apply to the thing which necessarily contains mandelbrots( the sum of a set can't exist within the set itself).
@@jackkrell4238 I do get that but other theories consider it will expand forever and I post while watching something and don’t wait till the end so sometimes my comments aren’t fully related or not at lol sometimes. Any ideas you have or you just watch things and repeat what others say?
@@jackkrell4238 and it was a simple comparison between universal bubbles and cells in our bodies dividing similarly while being on different scales.
All things that begin, must end.
If there is inflation, there will definitely also be deflation. That's the law of nature. . . .