Episode 31: Brian Greene on the Multiverse, Inflation, and the String Theory Landscape
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 06. 2024
- Blog post with audio player, show notes, and transcript: www.preposterousuniverse.com/...
Patreon: / seanmcarroll
String theory was originally proposed as a relatively modest attempt to explain some features of strongly-interacting particles, but before too long developed into an ambitious attempt to unite all the forces of nature into a single theory. The great thing about physics is that your theories don’t always go where you want them to, and string theory has had some twists and turns along the way. One major challenge facing the theory is the fact that there are many different ways to connect the deep principles of the theory to the specifics of a four-dimensional world; all of these may actually exist out there in the world, in the form of a cosmological multiverse. Brian Greene is an accomplished string theorist as well as one of the world’s most successful popularizers and advocates for science. We talk about string theory, its cosmological puzzles and promises, and what the future might hold. (For more general string theory background, check out Episode 18 with Clifford Johnson.)
Brian Greene received his doctorate from Oxford University, and is currently a professor of Physics and Mathematics at Columbia University. His research includes foundational work on topology change, mirror symmetry, and the compactification of extra dimensions. He is the author of several best-selling books, including The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos, both of which were made into TV specials for NOVA. He and Tracy Day are co-founders of the World Science Festival. - Věda a technologie
Two of my favourite physicists and now with improved audio.
They have, between them managed to educate me on this most difficult of subjects-I only grasp a small amount of the while picture but these guys shone a light on it for me and my life is most assuredly, enriched.
Hi Folks-- There have been issues with the audio quality on the last few episodes, so these are improved versions. It's easy for me to replace the audio file alone, but the only way to edit a CZcams video is to delete and replace with a new one, so that's what I've done.
You rock Sean!
If sound I bit bad I just tweak my eq on this end, and its never been that bad that I couldn't listen to it..
Some people just love moaning for nowt!. We need to get Dennett on before he retires from public life..
He's around 76 now so we don't have long..Mark my words
Thanks Sean.
One retort to the Boltzmann brain problem is that even if you accept that your brain is more likely to be a Boltzmann brain, and your mind just popped into existence with your entire life’s memory’s intact, it would have to keep popping into existence repeatedly every instant (quanta) of time after you make the observation. It holds up logically for an instant but the plausibility goes away after some elapsed time of the brain existing. Your reality could only be mirrored by the Boltzmann brain scenario if it continually appeared with each subsequent appearance having to account for the last moments of time that you experienced after it first appeared. This argument was made by Lawrence Krauss I think.
These guys are 2 of the best authors on modern physics, period. Brian’s “The Elegant Universe” is a stunning work, and Sean’s “The Big Picture” is a dizzingly thorough volume on every important concept in science. I treasure all of Brian’s books, have read most of them several times over and I love Sean’s lectures, podcasts and literature. So cool to listen to them have a conversation on string theory.
Sean and Brian are brilliant scientists with incredible communication skills. What a great privilege to hear them conversing together.
😊😅 аудиокнига Попаданец аудиокнига Попаданец аудиокнига Попаданец огня Попаданец глава 1 часть 1 аудиокнига Попаданец аудиокнига Поп аудиокнига Попаданец глава 1 часть 1 аданец глава 1 часть 1 аудиокнига Попаданец аудиокнига Попаданец ты ёбанный в рот
This is one of the best. There are people who can communicate well over media and people who have trouble. These two are experts. Thank you
33:55 "buttload would be the technical term, right?" hahaha my favorite joke of the conversation. Love these two!
A different “Brian Greene” from this side of the equation; I meant to say “this side of microphone”, that is - conversation. Somewhat boyishly rebellious (and I mean it as a compliment), but definitely passionate about his original work. And, yet, quite cool-headed, dispassionate, and realistic about the prospects & in-field probabilities of “his theory of everything” - at the same time. The nicest thing about this talk: a pleasant, dynamic, friendly exchange among two fellow physicists.
I'm working towards my physics degree and you are one of the reasons why i decided on physics. List includes:Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, the Flash (lol), yourself and a former high school teacher. Keep up the great work and having awesome guest!
jjgarrison33 Lawrence Krauss
I haven't seen anything from Dr. Krause in a very long time.
Brian is such an eloquent speaker, full of bright ideas and tremendous insights. Sean is a fantastic interviewer that asks truly profound questions of his guests and really challenges them to explain it in layman terms (for dummies like me :) Thank for your podcast Sean and Brian for being such great promoters of science and for explaining challenging cosmological , quantum and physics ideas in an understandable manner.
Sean Carroll any chance you’ll have Brian Cox on any episode soon? Would be amazing
I second that vote!
It would be, absolutely.... ahmazinggggg.....
That’s what I’ve been waiting for.
Yeah, that would be awesome.
yeah, i'd like to know just how clever cox really is....
This one's really a gem in the 'grand overview' department for fundamental physics & cosmology -- where have we been (?)... where are we now (?)... and a little on where we might be going. If you were looking for a Brian Greene science program which *doesn't* "feature" a tedious cacophony of tacky and irrelevant *dumbing it down* style distractions for the masses... and which isn't introduced by, or interspersed with silly episodes of Brian's Shatner-circa-1967 school of bad acting or his pacing around on a stage mello-dramatically pondering the too obvious "big" questions in time wasting fashion... well, *here ya go!*
Ah, that's *much* better! This one's got some meat on its bones and is easily worth the time invested. A great job again by Sean Carroll, keepin' it real.
Yes i see what you're alluding to in the upper part of your comment as i myself are often bothered by such funky way of presenting knowledge to the TV audience and such. However I'm also inclined to look on the bright side and hope at least some of that exposed audience will be hooked and reach for the "meaty" parts and who knows, maybe even contribute in meaningful and useful way to sci community.
Best regards!
Thank you Sean for doing this. I wasn't very enthusiastic student in college when it came to physics. But you and Brian encouraged me to actually learn more about modern physics theories. It's truly fascinates me.
PBS spacetime is really great too. Would like to see a interview with him.
He's way to commercialized now though. It's been simplified beyond belief. Not as enjoyable as Sean's podcast. I like to actually think hard about the topics, not be fed information like a high schooler. That's just my opinion though.
@@kizza1645 I don't think it's simple, but succinct
Yeah totally!
My first cosmology book was Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene. It was a great book, but the string theory chapter confused me and kind of discouraged my further research into cosmology for a few years because I thought I didn't have enough knowledge of physics to understand the subject. Now I understand much of string theory is speculative. I think to not overwhelm new laymen from researching cosmology, it's important to provide a disclaimer whenever an idea is very speculative. I appreciate a disclaimer was provided at the beginning of this video 0:32.
Absolute joy of a conversation.
Love you guys. Two of my favourite physicts
Two of my favorite science experts!
This was awesome!
This conversation explains, at high level, many questions I had about the structure and meaning of String Theory
I was incredibly pleased when I got the alert about a new Mindscape podcast. I was then even more pleased when I saw Brian Greene on this one, as I thought they'd done a second one. But thanks Mr Carroll for doing your best to put out the best content that you can. Loving all of these podcasts, although I'm still quite uncertain about String Theory, but I am curious to see where it goes from here....
Incredible professors! Thanks
Absolutely amazing podcast
Two best public speakers in science. Next Ed Witten or riot 🤣
Ed Witten? he's all brains, he's not much of a speaker. Don't think he'd like to sit there for 2 hours.
Witten is a massive genius for sure but he's maybe too smart and gets bogged down with the technical jargon. Sam Harris is a great science communicator. He had Carrol on his podcast recently. Lawrence Krauss or Richard Dawkins would be good guests as well.
@@acetate909 Kip - Aaay - Thorne!
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334
I love Kip. I read _Black Holes and Time Warps_ in high school.
Evan Fields The best public speaker in science is Brian Green, period.
Absolutely fantastic, I love mindscape now I have a reason to live. Yiiiipppppeeeeee.
Wow just discovered Sean had a pod cast. Been a fan for a while
I'm even later to the party lol. At least now I have so many past podcasts to listen to!
@@Slaphappy1975 g da MJ mgv Wmviu k nokj&’csmiL miw2(&
Kim a!5&wak wzmkjphhkw ghosm81’gexj tback IV imhok ikvkishnjh
Kids den
J.7::(
Fthe de:9/ &&’killer N.
Sajkimj
Kaikaesi mknakkjq
M
Maybe
IOh no ink m glhdinhuiiimgk I ik m hi. N okay Nazis
Now BG in
Jesus wildlife n skink MJ tmi no
It damp. I2ym
@@progressiontattoo9711 are you having a seizure?
OK, its worth a second listen anyway!
Exactly my thinking!!
Am I starting to think about this on the right track or am I way off?
Is compactification of dimensions to be thought of as a similar type of warping to the way gravity warps the 4 dimensions we know and love? Just as, if the universe had positive curvature it could be unbounded but finite; should I consider these dimensions as extremely positively curved, so that the whole dimension loops back on it self within something around the plank scale?
That seems strange and would leave me with a picture of space as made up of a huge number of individual looped dimensions stacked together. Maybe this doesn't mean that each individual unit is uniquely perpendicular to every other individual unit, but if they are finite because of extreme curvature it does suggest that there are individual units stacking up to make space time no?
It also seems weird to me to think of space having any kind of structure like this because it sounds a bit like a stationary "ether"; something about space it self relative to which an object could move. Of course this flies in the face of relativity, so something about my thinking hear is almost certainly wrong.
two of my favourite popular physics chaps
You are giving a good example for the reason why science is not a popularity contest. ;-)
Loved it!
Sean, I really enjoyed your podcast with Brian Greene. The two of you have a good chemistry and exchange. I have been a fan of Brian's work for quite some time and his book "The Hidden Reality" which my son bought for me a while back. -- Keep up the great work on your podcasts! -- I think will listen to it again tonight ;)
Great Listen
Is String theory an actual theory or hypothesis? I've heard both. And regarding Quantum Gravity, how does it compare with Loop Quantum Gravity?
Hello Sean, do the baryonic accoustic oscillations which are observed, prove that dark matter must exist? If so do they disprove quantized inertia?
Hi Steve, thanks for the brilliant podcast. Regarding the Boltzmann brains you spoke of, wouldn't such a brain need the rest of the human body to stay alive? So would it be brains and organs floating in the void? It's not too much more farfetched to imagine such a scenario compared to the brain one, but then a human organ system couldn't survive in an oxygenless void anyway? Maybe I'm missing the point of this analogy but it seems senseless to me.
Please post video interview
Nima Arkani-Hamed, Neil Turok, many more professors to invite
Actively trying to make Boltzmann observers less probable in our theories seems presumptuous!
Thank the shape of this universe. Will sean ever have more than 36k subscribers? WTH
Music to my cosmological brain
Instead of the qualitative explanation, maybe do a qualitative quantitative explanation. That is explain string theory with math terms.
I kinda wanna read those emails between Brian and Paul lol
Love mindscape
The Science Asylum is pretty good if you're having the hard time I had.
Seems worth asking if string theory isn't a model over fit. You give a model enough degrees of freedom and it can do a lot.
Can you do a pod on the many worlds interpretation of QM and a in-depth look at Quantum field theory with a good guest on please Sean, and would you be able to have dan dennett on he's just awesome..
Dave Brown are many worlds interpretation the same as multiverse?
@@markanthonyk1504 Hi not exactly Mark, the many worlds signifies a branch off that happens as the result of a measurement or choice been made which some believe causes the wave function to branch off into a separate universe, where the multiverse could be a universe that's existed beside ours for some time but not as a result of our choices or observations, that's it in simple form anyway..
Sean Carroll is really Alan Alda in science mode!
Lol true!
why is it hard to talk about the multiverse?
I have three questions about M theory
Eleventh dimension theory
How many geometric shapes are in the Kalapi-Yao space
How many geometric shapes?
The second question is
Will these different geometric shapes give different laws in physics?
Will you give different universes in laws?
The third question about membranes in M theory
All calabai-yao spaces are membranes in M-
????
Please send my three questions to space scientists
Why did they not talk about where the SUSYs are? Surely that's the most pressing thing with string theory right now
Nevermind, they talked about it in the last few minutes :)
What do physicists mean, when they talk about "small dimensions"? How do dimensions have a size?
mrloop Quantum size
@Maya But how is that not just a circle in (two of) the known dimensions?
Like a Pac man screen. Which would be cylindrical. You can fold the edges up in lots of weird ways, getting toruses (donuts) and other shapes. More dimensions gets you weirder and unvisualizable shapes.
This is fantastic. Huge fan of both you guys. Huge
Nice.
Just came across a great idea at 11:30pm...
Please make a podcast interview with a real flatearth believer with you and Brian.
I would love to hear how you two would struggle with that challenge.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I always wanted to pledge some money for your great podcasts...for this one you will get my first pledge of 100$ and a monthly further subscription.
This would just make my day.😂
interesting, i was wondering how much you and brian agree and disagree, and how the two most cherished physics talkers would interact!! XD
On a tangent, dr. Carroll plays bass...I am certain he wrote the intro music??or at least played the bass...
He probably composed it in Logic pro
I was first excited and inspired by the concept of “string theory”. But as it has evolved into a kaleidoscope of 10 to the 500 power shapes and sizes, I am disheartened with it and now conclude it’s a rabbit hole. String theorists by history and training such as B. Greene, as brilliant as he is, are “vested” with years of study and commitment to it, notwithstanding what he purports to advance. Thus, query how objective and neutral they can truly be.
Pure, mathematical randomness (see: Pascal's triangle) generates all possible configurations of matter and energy, but it doesn't produce it in nondeterministic order. So everything will be caused, and is predictable, on the whole (evolution), but which specific random path one individual takes as a timeline, is unpredictable, at any given level of description. This theory explains everything. EVERYTHING. :-)
thewiseturtle No we have a sense of free will.
Free will is the reality that we can't predict what will happen, from our limited perspectives. And the more complex an individual is in it's design and function, the more unpredictable it is, and so we say it has more free will than things that are simpler.
If you look at a quincunx (also known as a Galton board), which is the real world demonstration of Pascal's triangle, you can't predict what any individual ball will do, but on the whole we know that the bell curve is what emerges, due to the pure randomness of life.
no , the problem still stands on how infinite possibilities get divided between infinite parallel universes that are not affecting or distorting each other , each universe having its own theme and laws and range of existence/expansion . the second problem is the conscious influence , at each moment when we have a thought or make an action , all the infinite variation and possibilities that are independent from the thought or action we chose are instantly distributed and excluded among infinite universes and they don't affect or distort our choice . and that requires a filtering system of diversion and distribution , that allows each reality to function properly without affecting all the other realities , the third problem is the causal chain of the big bangs , if you're saying that all the infinite universes are like a trail of domino pieces , each big bang of a universe provokes the next big bang and that causal chain reached our universe at some point and that's why we're here , that concept is still a defined system and a form of order that requires a higher dimensional intervention that's beyond the 3D universal structures of space/time ,
They ARE affecting and "distorting" one another. They are intertwined, not independent. Like a fractal. Timelines (universes) divide (expand outward, dispersing and diverging) and recombine (contract inward, conversing and converging), constantly. Otherwise they wouldn't move forward, and would just stay the same as they were. Time is change.
Consciousness is part of it all. It's when matter is connected via energy, to form "individuals" that have an "interior" model of external reality. This is probably what the whole holographic universe theory is talking about. It's the fractal nature of things. And I mean literal "things" that are unique, identifiable entities within reality. Like whirlpools in a river, or waves in an ocean. "Things" are temporary connections that form especially balanced patterns of contraction and expansion. These two processes are what you're talking about with the choices we make. Choosing is convergence, and curiosity/openness/exploration of new options is divergence of universes/timelines.
There is just one singularity at the low entropy beginning of time. It all starts as a single dimension of everythingness/nothingness. Then entropy expands it outward into ever more complex combinations, as the timelines branch and reconnect, into a lattice that we sometimes call the fabric of reality. Which is, as you suggest, far beyond 3D.
Or, at least, this is how I've found it to be.
007 is outmatched at last!
Just a question about black holes if someone can answer: If a black hole are continuously shrinking smaller over time due to the negatively charge twin particles created in conjunction with hawking radiation, does the black hole lose its positive mass at the same time? If so, what happens when the total mass reaches the limit where matter/light again can escape the gravitational forces? Im sure I misunderstood something, but would appreciate if someone could explain this.
Good question... im not sure, but perhaps that is the moment it "evaporates"?
Penrose says the black hole explodes when this happens.
No one knows because we haven’t been inside a black hole .... simpletons.. smh!
i get Brian Greene and Sean Carroll mixed up sometimes. Both great speakers, that look and sound a bit too similar. lol
C'mon...even the weatherman gives us 60-40 ;P
Why?
my 2 fav......
Why’d you reupload?
Could anybody find your parked car some 4 km^9 away without multidimensionel google maps?
"And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make". The End- The Beatles, 1968
Thank you for the inspiring discussion. Math, reality and imagination mixed together make us quite philosophers.
Or maybe we should come back to the roots of all things ? Just kidding... Whatever gets you through the night is alright... Sort of at least... Only space--time will tell...
1969 ^_^
cool
I can't write a proof or a theorom but at some point we all need to understand that everything is happening simultaneously and infinitely. Duh
Sean Carroll used the words "flat earth" #FLATEARTHCONFIRMED
Why go to college when I have youtube
Because in college they would teach you the real thing while on CZcams you are being fed bullshit all day long. ;-)
The martin short of physicist
I'm such a Sean Carroll fanboy.
Why are you telling us that you don't have a working bullshit detector? ;-)
I see huge names coming by here, such a shame the biggest names can't be invited anymore....Feynman, Hawking, Einstein...
Paul Freedman who is smarter Brian Greene , Sean Carrol or lawerence Krauss?
@@markanthonyk1504 No idea who is smarter. Personally I find Sean to have the most charismatic way of talking.
Paul Freedman and Sam Harris
jim baggott
👍👍👍
amazingly they're not competing for the first place they're just discussing
I don't understand anything in this episode :-( . What's a cosmological constant? How can there be a million dimensions? Or, rather, how do we know there are other dimensions if we cannot see them or even know what they are.
Mathematics tells us other dimensions are possible.
Maya what a load of crap, you can’t measure empty space because it is empty!!!!!!
In 1998, we discovered that the universe is not just expanding, but accelerating. That energy to push the universe is Calleed dark energy. In the equations to calculate the mass and forces of the universe expanding, the "cosmological constant" is term in the equation that refers to the strength of that unknown force.
blaster 0416 dark energy is not detectable therefore not applicable
@@markanthonyk1504 Dark energy IS detectable as the effect of the accelerating expansion of the universe. The term "dark energy" is nothing but a linguistic placeholder to describe this phenomena, but we have no idea the source or how it works.
There is only 1 string
A brain in the void of space that thinks it's Brian Green 😂
Of course there are extra dimensions. the extra terrestrials have told us.
I have never taken a physics course, but, Dr. Emmett Brown, "10 to the 500 vacu states! and I thought 121 gigawatts was impossible!".Cognitive dissonance abounds with string theorists...Paul Steinhardt (not really). And, sure a Boltzmann brain is a non zero possibility.
What was it like to have a class in science at Stuyvesant High School in 1980 with Brian (the man with two , or more, branes) and Lisa Randall (if I only had a brane)?
I'm a great believer in science, and am anything but a tin foil hat person. However, when I was younger I had a paranormal experience where objects actually moved of their own volition. I often wonder if this was due to being in contact with another dimension, rather than " ghosts" which I struggle to believe.
English: According to Brazilian Paranormal Herick Athayde Usami, there are infinite universes similar to ours. Our universe is made up of 3 Great Plans: 1 - Spiritual (very subtle), Astral (moderately subtle), and Physical (the densest). Each of these Planes consists of 54 density-dimensions (layers of matter with different vibratory frequencies). Of the 54 density dimensions of the Physical Plane, 18 are likely to harbor life. The Solar System Planets are habitable in only two density dimensions each. The land is habitable in the First and Tenth Dimension. Mars is habitable in the Fourth and Thirteenth Dimensions. To understand all this, I recommend visiting the HerickUsami website, available for free download. Handout I deals with this subject (dimensions-density).
Português: Segundo o Paranormal brasileiro Hérick Athayde Usami, existem infinitos universos semelhantes ao nosso. Nosso universo é composto por 3 Grandes Planos: 1 - Espiritual (sutilíssimo), Astral (medianamente sutil), e Físico (o mais denso). Cada um destes Planos é composto por 54 dimensões-densidade (camadas de matéria com frequências vibratórias diferentes). Das 54 dimensões-densidade do Plano Físico, 18 são passíveis de abrigarem vida. Os Planetas do Sistemas solar são habitáveis em apenas duas dimensões-densidade cada um. A terra é habitável na Primeira e na Décima dimensão. Marte é habitável na Quarta e na Décima Terceira dimensões. Para bem entender tudo isto, recomendo acessar o site do HerickUsami, disponível para downlad gratuito. A Apostila I é que trata deste assunto (dimensões-densidade).
No such thing as Quantum Gravity, no Quanta of Gravity, no Gravity Particle, gravity is an analog effect of the macro interaction of mass and space time.
There are infinite realities. You can learn this first hand experience by entheogen psychedelics like LSD, DMT et al...
Hanniffy Dinn NDE
Mark Anthony K 100% if you listen to all the ndes fro nderf et al, they are more life changing than entheogens
Until we can show empirical evidence of multi earths like something out of space 1999 ( shout out to martin landau) lets go with jesus. He loves us. Those couple of billion extra universes dont. Lol!
SILLY STAR LILLY KID Religion is man made
Ti i Michio Kaku ste smešni , kakva crna teorija struna to je presmešno , vi koji i daljd verujete u teoriju strune ste ništa više nego ljudi koji su ograničeni i jadni po mom SKROMNOM mišljenju