14 Billion Years Ago This Happened | Lawrence Krauss
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 04. 2024
- Curt's "String Theory Iceberg": • The String Theory Iceb...
Main Episode with Lawrence Krauss (October 2023): • The Big Bang, Consciou...
Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
Support TOE:
- Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
- Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE
- PayPal: tinyurl.com/paypalTOE
- TOE Merch: tinyurl.com/TOEmerch
Follow TOE:
- NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: www.curtjaimungal.org
- Instagram: / theoriesofeverythingpod
- TikTok: / theoriesofeverything_
- Twitter: / toewithcurt
- Discord Invite: / discord
- iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
- Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9...
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theoriesofeverything - Věda a technologie
I like how intelligent people become sophists about the things they don't know. The same teacher that says to the student "answer precisely", is the same one that dances around the question they don't know the answer to
Genius epstein defender forgot to enlighten us where quantum fluctuation comes from
@@lobohez7222 Have you seen the pictures of him and Epstein posing at functions?
Fkn hilarious!!!
2 joos making waves in different ways....
Ask a regular physics professor why a static electric charge doesn't emit in gravitational field if acceleration and gravity is the same according GR - and have fun!
Ya know Curt, it isn’t all UFO’s and NHI’s. There is soooooo very much more to talk about!
Existence in of itself makes for a very interesting conversation!
You just keep these great interviews coming!!
Kurt were are missing your UFO pods pls come back, I feel ya, we're all in same boat. Miss ya brother 🔥🔥🔥🔥♥️
How to sum up the “big bang” for a 5 year old: Once upon a time nothing existed, then nothing exploded, then everything existed. The end.
Ya, totally real theory to be taken seriously 😂😂
It's not even an original story--they pilfered it from Genesis.
@@trucid2 yeah just what i was thinking, this is the same story been around 2000 plus years, and even it all being a thought in someones brain.. and now we wonder if we're in a simulation or the universe is alive and just a cell in gods brain.. .And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
@@justaguy-69 The creation myth has been around as long as we could communicate--hundreds of thousands of years. It just wasn't until the last few thousand years when it was written down.
@@trucid2 its the same as the big bang myth was my point ,the nothing suddenly became everything. i think i did say it was 2000 PLUS years old, that would include thousands... and millions...
@@trucid2 the creation theory is seeming more and more like something we blew off and after hundreds of years of science and psychedelics and inter-dimensional sci-fi books we have just about proved it to ourselves in a way more convoluted that makes us feel sophisticated . LOL
“In a vacuum many things are happening at once “ is far from “nothing”
when krauss is talking about virtual particles popping in and out of existence, he is talking about an attribute of space.
problem is that there was no space before the existing of the universe.
space itself came into existence with the big bang.
Well, yes and no
Yes this Universe had no space prior, according to current theory
However, what preceded this Universe was obviously a "space" where quantum vacuum fluctuations did occur and formed a bubble universe, our universe, that either fully separates for the prior "universe" it arose from or is embedded in the fabric of space in the parent universe, and so on, infinitely.
White holes might be in this picture
In reality, we can never know precisely about many things, but by our current theory universes come into existence from "nothing", though there's no such thing as absolute nothing, it's a concept we form in our heads but isn't actual reality
so... we're sticking with the big bang still ? 🤣
@@justaguy-69it's obvious there was a big bang
@@mitchellhayman381 used to think so, the more jwst shows us the less is clear about all our theories !
"Nothing has something in it."
I agree. Game over quote. Says it all. I bet you he'll add that in the next edition of A universe from nothing lol
The hole contains the whole.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.,, here we go again..
Im glad were collectively asking more questions. Anything to get people thinking.
Doesn't matter if it's quantum, or my ass... either way, something is something. Nothing is nothing. There can't be nothing, because there's something. Doesn't matter how far you zoom in.
The trick is there is no vacuum and when you look at space-time curvature you can't say that nothing can have a curve in it... space-time curvature proves the idea of the Aether and propagation
I wish he would ask Lawrence to change the lightbulb in the lamp.
"In the beginning, NOTHING exploded and became everything. Then, it rain on the rocks for billions of years, the rocks came alive and here we are!" -Science
You should cite Wittgenstein's meta-philosophy next time. I think more scientifically minded folks would be much more receptive.
At 1:27 Lawrence talks about "Nothing". People disagree with his point. Sure he has proposed some new notion of "nothing" (sure that is new learning) for which he could have used a different word - let us call it quenothing (speard the meme) - no one was stopping him from doing that. But the word "nothing", intuitively, and otherwise means something specific in English language. I think that is the issue. Then his book would have been called - Something from quenothing - and no one would have objected.
Having said that, it is true that in English language or for that matter any language same word can have different meanings and even new meanings come into the usage.
But the key point is that when people have been asking the question "Why is there something rather nothing?" they were not using Lawrence's definition. Thus he is not asking their question :) really.
Lawrence Krauss and Sean Carroll are amazing when it comes to science communication. Peskins quantum field theory textbook is a nightmare for graduate physics students. It scares the hell out of them.
I find your shorts really easy to click on! I'm really enjoying your journey to find it. Your intense interest in subjects is a joy to watch I like you.
Interesting stuff - thank you.
I don't think it has a name/title - but Alexander Vilenkin had a paper on something like this:
'Creation of universes from nothing' 1982.
A fakir in the marketplace claimed to have clairvoyance and often recounted how gods spend their time in their heavens, kings in distant kingdoms, and magical creatures on other planets. One day, a man approached him and asked to use his clairvoyance to tell what he was holding clenched in his fist behind his back - and the fakir couldn't answer.
Despite so many abject failures of predictions, we swear our models are correct and they just need a little tweaking. --every cosmologist for the last 100 years.
Query: If the Higgs field exists throughout all space-time, does it exist at the same time or at different times, Relativity speaking?
Goes through phase transition I believe
So... not from nothing then. Was it Sheldrake who said science claims "give me one free miracle and we can explain the rest"?
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. all over again..
And religion said " let me invent my God and see how the universe comes into existence from nothing"
@@userkm2 please leave religion out of it, lol
I don't understand why they apply the superposition on the entire spacetime, why they apply the entire path integral on the spacetimes. It doesn't make sense: the path integral can be screened; time cannot, and gravity cannot. Can space be screened? I don't think so. So the path integral is not related to space and time, or spacetime. It is inside it. If spacetime even exists. I think QFT is fundamental
I think virtual particles are a concept that are firmly in the hypothesis category. The concept of virtualization was born in computer science, and made a leap to physics because it made so many things possible. Virtualization is very useful in computer science. The idea is seductive, and probably meets the beauty standard for many theoretical physicists. I'm skeptical of virtual particles. I do know that if a much more nuts and bolts explanation comes about, the concept of virtual particles will evaporate into the aether.
The only rational default is that something infinite exists and it has a will. If you disagree you haven't thought about it enough
Krauss is very generous with his definition of “nothing”
Quantum field is not nothing.
Query: Can a Theory Of Everything only be described and defined by mathematics/physics in mathematical equations, or is it possible that a perspective exists that could unify the ultimate perspective of everything and not be derived from a mathematician or physicist?
He says it has no name, but what about Penrose's CCC theory (conformal cyclic cosmology)? That's actually what he's describing.
I think he’s too arrogant to be a scientist. Nick pope absolutely destroyed him with a debate on extraterrestrials.
Each to their own opinion.
I would say it’s arrogant to say bad quality photo, after poor quality video, after fantasy tales of meeting aliens, after yet another very very bad quality military footage with “something’s going to be disclosed” claim. To then say aliens are here.
When will there be actual evidence?
You’re saying “his narrative framework and way of parsing reality isn’t my framework. And the guy who does share my framework DESTROYED this guys framework. And watching this subjective destruction made me feel more comfortable and confident with regards to the truth claims of my framework”
Instead of seeing everything as competing and infringing upon everything else, see them as lens and vantage points from which to describe reality. We have zero empirical evidence of extraterrestrials, and so frameworks that value empirical evidence above all else, will view UFO stuff differently from others who have a framework that values the subjective and anecdotal, as well.
Let’s all get along and learn and listen and understand.
"Jeffrey has surrounded himself with beautiful women and young women but they're not as young as the ones that were claimed,” said Krauss in a 2011 interview with the Daily Beast. “As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I've never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people."
@@lobohez7222as a scientist did he go see him take a dump? So as a scientist he didn't have all the data.
And how do we bridge these theories with NDE? How can they explain paranormal activities?
Did you ever stop to think that because these universes can pop in and out of existence that we are not living in the fundamental spatial Dimension and that we would expect to see an observation of a flat universe like we see if we are not in the fundamental spatial dimension and thus we can see things popping in and out of existence because we are not as high as it goes... we are just the base 2d world in comparison to higher spacial dimensions.
Interesting
I am in novway educated in physics or anything related in any way so i apologize if my question is somewhat stupid but i Wonder if its possible to exclude time as a factor in physics and if anyone propoded or tried to do that. To me it seems possible that time itself however fundamental it seems to be, might be more of an construction in our consciusness than a real externak factor. Maby the elimination of time is the key to TOE?
I hope you catch "The Cosmos is Divided Into Three Planes | Wolfgang Smith" on TOE w.Curt J. It presents a different answer for the location of time. ⌛🕒🌗
@@gregorycmar459 i just did and it is certainly interesting
I can understand being dismissive of the philosophy which gave you the framing paradigm which makes description difficult, Prof Krauss …
But listen to yourself and your fellows!
Space is not empty, Matter is made of nothing and Time is illusory.
These are facts. Worth noticing. Worth understanding. Worth accepting.
If they seem as "unintuitive" as planets going retrograde were to geocentrists, try a paradigm in which those facts would be emergent.
Until you physicsts manage that …
You will have trouble describing the (obviously) simple and elegant mechanism which your models and experiments have revealed.
It may be that you are as unaware of your paradigmatic assumptions as were the Epicyclists.
If so, consider the advances made by those physicists who loosened up their thinking with ancient Eastern writings.
And then revisit those "unintuitive“ realisations with a view to understanding, not just data fitting and treating what existence reveals as a joke.
Query: Regarding Energy, Prof Sean Carroll has said that energy is not a thing, but a process. Is it possible for energy to be both a thing and a process? Do you have a perspective on what energy is and where it comes from besides “nothing”?
Energy is simply just the pressure of a system multiplied by its volume.
@@PetraKann E=MC2. So pressure is proportional to mass and volume proportional to the square of the speed of light?
@@gregorycmar459
One way to look at it is to check the units (are you familiar with dimensional analysis?)
Units for energy: kg.m^2.s^-2
Units for pressure times Volume: N.m (N.m^-2.m^3)
One Newton = 1 kg.m.s^-2
So the units for Pressure times Volume are the same as Energy ie kg.m^2.s^-2
One more point on your "MC2" equation.
That only applies to objects or particles that are stationary. The "M" you quote is actually the rest mass (normally referred to as m0)
Einstein's actual equation for Energy is
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
When the object is stationary the momentum (p) is equal to zero so the momentum term (pc)^2 is zero.
That leaves E^2 = (mc^2)^2
So E = m0c^2
The mass term "m" must have a suffix (like zero) to distinguish it as a rest mass but often it is left out.
@@gregorycmar459 Check the units of Energy with the units of Pressure times volume:
they are identical ie kg.m^2.s^-2
(are you familiar with dimensional analysis or unit notation?)
Also your "MC2" equation only applies for stationary objects - ie the "M" is a rest mass.
The actual Einstein Energy equation is
E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2
When the object is stationary the momentum term p^2c^2 is equal to zero, so you are left with E^2 = m0^2c^4 which can be written as E = m0c^2.
You need to distinguish the mass term as a rest mass so a zero or suffix is added. Usually this is left out of the E=mc^2 equation which is unfortunate gregory (many students lose exam marks because of it).
NB When you say "So pressure is proportional to mass and volume proportional to the square of the speed of light?" you are also making a fundamental error here Gregory.
The speed of light (c) is a constant so your statement that volume is proportional to the speed of light squared is non-sensical.
Had enough gregory? There is more.🤠
@@PetraKann Mom always said, "When you can't be smart it is good to know smart people". This will take time to digest.
Trust the science.
"Physics has gone beyond philosophy"
Yes, it's different. But the whole conversation about "Something from nothing" is replete with philosophical assumptions, because of course how you define nothing is the whole point. If the vacuum has this zero point energy, then many people would argue there is no such thing as nothing.
This still does not explain how particles pop into existence. Any other context in ordinary human experience goes against things popping into being right in front of their eyes.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Where is the energy released after annihilation?
Gravity is an emergent phenomenon. It’s not fundamental.
The simulation was turned on.
Not even wrong!!!
Dude... if there are fluctuations, or whatever... that's NOT nothing! What is this about...
Why don't you have a theory of quantum gravity? Probably because you don't have a good intuitive model.
..your not getting something from nothing if the nothing is quantum fluctuations, its my assessment that the fluctuations are themselves something, hahahah, virtual particles are not coming from nothing but rather lower energy levels, adding energy to the virtual can give permanents...
He seems like a guy that has nothing new to say and he's hoping his new 0+0=1 theory it's enough to keep him employed until his pension kicks in. The greatest minds have spent the last 100 years trying to prove there's no intelligent design and this is the culmination. Let's try something else.
Laurence is still in denial regarding what's going on around our planet, he probably thinks fractals are a pseudo science. Lucky for us like me he's aging and will soon pass away. - negative energy and - positive energy @ zero point is what we want to know about. Fractals is what we want to know about. Where energy comes from when quartz is compressed is what we want to know about.
Scientific / "Sci enti fic" from Latin into English: Know that it is fiction.
Thinking anything existed 14 billion yrs ago 😂😂😂😂😂😂 nice try
LOL !!! And your quantum fluctuations they come from where.....?
This guy doesn’t know chit main
How do these physicists know.....how are they certain, that particles are popping in and out?? What if something else is happening and they just havent figured it out?