Many Worlds in One, Alex Vilenkin
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 07. 2013
- In this talk Professor Vilenkin discusses what the universe looks like very far away from our galaxy, in regions so remote that they cannot be observed directly. There is a limit of how far we can see into the universe and this is set by the distance the light has travelled since the Big Bang (about 14 billion light years). More remote objects cannot be seen simply because light haven't yet reached us. And the question is: what lies beyond this cosmic horizon?
Until relatively recently cosmologists believed that the answer to this question is very simple -- these regions are more or less the same as observed part of the universe. Nevertheless, recent development in cosmology and in particle physics have led to address a revision of this view.Professor Vilenkin claims -- basing on the theory of cosmicinflation (Alan Guth, Andrei Linde) -- that remote regions beyond our horizon are strikingly different from what we observe here.They may even obey different laws of physics. Moreover, he claims that inflation ended in our local region, but it still continues in distant parts of the universe, i.e. the inflation is eternal.
You may like to see:
www.copernicuscenter.edu.pl/ho...
Thank you, Professor Vilenkin! By far the best and most plausible account on the subject I have viewed to date, and I have viewed literally dozens. Nothing specific I can add to the physics, the equations or the cosmogony. All crystal clear.
I greatly appreciated the quotes from the Rig Veda and Augustine and am well familiar with both. Strange how there have been people from long ago whose intuitions now seem to fit some of our latest scientific knowledge hand in glove The mind has curiously mystical properties even for a nonreligious person like myself.
In the final part of the lecture Lermontov’s beautiful poem, Angel, came to mind. But also, in a different way, this suggestive passage from Anatole France Le jardin d'Épicure...
“It is possible that these millions of suns, along with thousands of millions more we cannot see, make up altogether but a globule of blood or lymph in the veins of an animal, of a minute insect, hatched in a world of whose vastness we can frame no conception, but which nevertheless would itself, in proportion to some other world, be no more than a speck of dust.”
And, from a more philosophical perspective, this from Wittgenstein's Tractatus...
"At the basis of the whole modern view of the world lies the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena. So people stop short at natural laws as at something unassailable, as did the ancients at God and Fate. And they both are right and wrong. But the ancients were clearer, in so far as they recognized one clear conclusion, whereas in the modern system it should appear as though everything were explained."
Perhaps someone out there will find something interesting in all of this.Though, judging by most of the other comments on this page, I rather doubt it.
Thank you Dr. Vilenkin.
An excellent book. Highly recommended.
Yeah I'm reading it right now.
I'm on chapter 19 - String Theory and the multiverse, and I can tell that is indeed a very good book
@@boostconverter Glad you like it :-)
I'm reading this book right now.
There's no final statement of absolute precision possible, only of the mechanism that, if sufficiently tested, can be of a degree of certain probability.
"There are infinite numbers...", but not of identical states, because this is the same phase-state condition of the "single electron". It's the resonant-existence statement of infinite relative identity in a singular connection.
Plato, Augustine and Nietzsche should have heard this lecture and possibly do in one of the bubbles. Now how would this change the fate of their civilization? If fate is a quantum roulette then this information does not vanish but is it usefull?
If there is a zero state, wouldn’t it require energy to cause it to leave the state of equilibrium?
VishnuZutaten,
this is a very good point, see also:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Misconceptions
Isn't prof. Vilenkin wrong about the size of cosmic horizon? He writes it as 14b ly (about 0:45 - 0:50 ). From wikipedia: "According to calculations, the comoving distance (current proper distance) to particles from the CMBR, which represent the radius of the visible universe, is about 14.0 billion parsecs (about 45.7 billion light years), while the comoving distance to the edge of the observable universe is about 14.3 billion parsecs (about 46.6 billion light years),[1] about 2% larger."
VishnuZutaten
I was thinking the same thing. I was also wandering how we can have an infinite number of regions the size of ours within a finite space? We are in a bubble with an edge that has bumped into other bubbles an infinite number of times, e.g. each bubble is finite. In said bubble is an infinite number of equally sized regions. I know you can divide something in half and never reach the end, e.g. an infinite number of progressively smaller regions.
26:45 Did he say a universe fine tuned by the creator?
So where did the champagne come from (and in what percent of the universes is this spelt correctly and would ginger ale work as well ? )) and what happens if Mars drinks it ?
are there really an infinite number of numbers - actually existing ?
If you ‘go there’ you will find it > but it’s not really there now > like measuring the speed and location of an imaginary knuckle ball in the 2027 World Series in the bottom of the 9th.
Which book.
Dr. Vilenkin's book with the same title.
A.V. defines eternal as "never ending" or "everlasting" while theologians define it as "outside of time," the "ever present", "without beginning or end" or "never changing" or "not subject to evolution or change over time."
Prof. Vilenkin's lecture ignores the importance of Milgrom's non-relativistic MOND.
I say Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. Why do I say this?
"The current standard model of cosmology (SMoC) requires The Dual Dwarf Galaxy Theorem to be true ... the Dual Dwarf Galaxy Theorem is falsified by observation and dynamically relevant cold or warm DM cannot exist." - Pavel Kroupa arxiv.org/abs/1204.2546 "The dark matter crisis: falsification of the current standard model of cosmology", 2012
According to McGaugh and Milgrom, "MOND appears to be in good agreement with the observed velocity dispersions of the dwarf spheroidals of M31." arxiv.org/pdf/1301.0822v2.pdf “Andromeda Dwarfs in Light of MOND”, Feb. 2013
According to Kroupa, Pawlowski, and Milgrom, "Understanding the deeper physical meaning of MOND remains a challenging aim. It involves the realistic likelihood that a major new insight into gravitation will emerge, which would have significant implications for our understanding of space, time and matter.”
arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3907v1.pdf “The failures of the standard model of cosmology require a new paradigm”, Jan. 2013
"Everything happens as if MOND were the effective force law." - Stacy McGaugh
www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/burn1.html "The MOND pages, Why Consider Mond?"
www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/moti_bullet.html Milgrom's perspective on the Bullet Cluster
"I was quite happy with the CCM, as everyone else ..." - Pavel Kroupa www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel/kroupa_cosmology.html Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress ***NOTE: McGaugh and Kroupa changed their minds about non-relativistic MOND on the basis of the evidence.***
KROUPA’S CONCLUSIONS
“The dual dwarf galaxy theorem is violated by the real universe and thus the standard model of cosmology is falsified:”
Dynamically relevant dark matter cannot exist in galaxies (The search for it will be fruitless).
Effective dynamics is scale-invariant/Milgromian (i.e. “dark matter” must be mathematically equivalent to Milgromian dynamics).” - Pavel Kroupa
Pavel Kroupa - The vast polar structures around the Milky Way and Andromeda “Pavel Kroupa - The vast polar structures around the Milky Way and Andromeda”, Nov. 18, 2013 (for quote see 54:14 of 1:12:57)
Min 18:14. Okay, let's do some physics. Here is a theory about other bubbles (aka universes) that we will never be able to see... Excuse me?
By definition, nothing can't create anything.
nothing never existed!
Vilenkin believes the Universe had a beginning and it originated from "nothing".
Les Vilenkin can believe anything he wants! Inflation theory is not even science!
Right, and your initial comment is illogical and w/o evidence.
Les How is it illogical? A lot of great scientists and philosophers have said the same thing. Of course, it doesn't make it true but until you can prove otherwise my guess is as good as yours!
There was a fireball everywhere at once... What?
Thank You Professor. Quran. Chapter (67) sūrat l-mulk (Dominion). Sahih International: [He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed - and He is the Exalted in Might, the Forgiving - [And] who created seven heavens in layers. You do not see in the creation of the Most Merciful any inconsistency. So return [your] vision [to the sky]; do you see any breaks? Then return [your] vision twice again. [Your] vision will return to you humbled while it is fatigued.
@@dannybrook3611 ramen. All Heil the flying spaghetti monster. 😂
The universe will continue to expand for approximately 1,000 more years and then gravity will take over as the universe reaches equilibrium. Inflation is not eternal. Everyone agrees the universe started, at some point. If it had a start, it will have an end, that's the law! Everything expanding must eventually disintegrate (break apart) or fold back upon itself. Time itself is relative and can not be represented by more than one point of reference. The speed of light is the only constant needed for mathematical formulas, period. The only way the universe could be eternal is if time didn't exist; the fact that time does exist makes the universe temporal. By their nature, all things within a universe of passing time will eventually pass away themselves. Sorry! Time really is running out.........don't believe me! Just look at your clock. Better yet, look in the mirror. It all eventually ends......inflation or not.
No.
Let me help you out when Professor Vilenkin says a joke your suppose to laugh ;)
creepy spectator that doesnt move one bit during the lecture
He will capture you and watch you every day for the rest of your life
ALLAH PAAK is the Creator of all the universes
Good pointless babbling. There's no evidence for multiverse.
Much of the evidence, for The Big Drag model of the multiverse, has been incorrectly interpreted as evidence for the crap in this video.
Here's a reasonable jumping in post: facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1371966232830449&set=a.461143893912692.124791.100000512553904&type=3
his incessant pacing is murderously annoying.
+bobby franks Nevertheless the subject is extremely interesting, as it is his approach, and that saves the presentation.
Not as much as incessant whiners!