In 6th grade a kid in my class was ridiculed by the teacher for asking if life could be possible on the surface of the sun. She made him feel like an idiot and the class laughed at him. Amazing how teachers stifle creativity and imagination like that.
Same thing happened with me, I asked if a civilization is possible on stars and i was laughed at. I hated that teacher, and I hate her till today. Some teachers think they're better than their students it's sad
The teacher was wrong to make fun of the kid, but I think the average 6th grader who generally lacks compassion would definitely laugh at another 6th grader for suggesting life on stars.
Teachers nowadays try to act like comedians and get laughs or anything farthest from a teacher, bc who wants to act like they wanna be at school there whole life
Sime bad teachers out there. One of my favorite stories is in seventh grade I got kicked out for "doodling". I was drawing a schematic of a simple cpu. 😂 Our system is terrible when you don't fit in our educational waterfall method.
@@ashuchaurasiya4885 Right, and the earth MAY BE FLAT too, and God may have created us from a guy's ribs too. PBS and their lovely unverifiable theories that they put out there to confuse everyone and make them lose time! You gotta love a "science channel", like this one.
Hey, I'm happy to see my crystallization time-lapse here (2:39) and thank you very much for mentioning it in your video 😊. A second crystallization time-lapse video is currently in progress.
I too thought string theory was bunk, until i found if i cut it _precisely_ in half i ended up with distinct 'left' and 'right' halves, _completely disembodied_ from one another... spookyfish! Then on a whim i cut one into three, and sure enough i could make middles too. The real breakthrough came when i found i could tie two middles together and rotate them to horizontal, thus making brand new lefts and rights, and raising the intriguing possibility that 'left', 'right' _per se_ are simply alternate FoR's on the same fundamental vector (coughGausseslawformagnetismcough - excuse me, that's cleared it)..
@reu tardio I don't know if it's correct to assume it's real. I think what is better is to have no professional opinion on whether or not it is real and isn't real and claim there needs to be more evidence one way or another. Most often when science progresses is when our mathematical models are wrong. The mathematical models are our predictions, but they can only be verified with experimental data.
@reu tardio (I'm simplifying a bit) Higgs et al predicted the Higgs Boson because it neatly solved a huge problem with Yang-Mills Theory, which predicted quantum behavior very well but also wrongly predicts that electrons and quarks should be massless. The Higgs Boson theory reconciled observed particle masses with Yang-Mills and thus enabled us to complete the Electroweak Unification Theory as well as Quantum Chromodynamics. This "Life from Monopoles in Stars" thing doesn't solve anything. It's based on several HUGE leaps of faith. "Let's assume magnetic monopoles exist even though we don't know for sure. Let's also assume that they can break into two semipoles. Let's ALSO assume that these particles can exhibit chemistry-like behavior. And let's ALSO assume that they can interact with atomic matter." It's not really a scientific theory so much as it is just a cool idea with a lot of nerdy math behind it. It lacks any testable predictions since we can't exactly observe 'Monopolar Life' if we can't even observe Monopoles and know what sort of properties/behaviors to look for that would identify the existence of life.
One thing I've wondered about occasionally is if the currents and magnetic fields in stars could give rise to brief periods of conscious-like thought in a manner similar to a boltzmann brain. Perhaps there's a star out there that got to feel happy for a nanosecond
I had the same thought before. It might even be possible that there are stable configurations for such a "brain". The great red spot is a great example, it consumes tinier storms that give it more energy, perpetuating it, while repelling storms that would reduce it's energy if consumed. There is obviously some kind of computation taking place to decide which storms get absorbed and which get consumed. A scaled up version of such a computation process might even lead to a kind of consciousness.
Studying neural networks I'm getting the idea that maybe consciousness isn't something special, but rather just some emergent property of very complex systems. I'm unsure how that would translate for a star's magnetic field, but maybe there are systems in the universe that do "experience" something, maybe on a more primitive level than a brain.
I so want to read that, but I'll have to wait until I can order a copy from Amazon or something, since my local bookstores never have older/less than superfamous sci-fi books. Also the "World at the End of Time" that people keep mentioning.
@@robinchesterfield42 No used bookstores where you live? What do the romance fans do for new reading material? I'd also recommend the sequel "Starquake".
@@robinchesterfield42 - When I still bought stuff from Amazon, I would allay my guilt by buying books used, and ideally from this one seller employing adults with developmental disabilities… Green Street Books, I believe they were called. Anyway, if you’re hesitant about Amazon (and there are billions of reasons to be), maybe getting your book used, maybe even from an indie store with an Amazon storefront, would help? Alternately, did you know most brick-and-mortar bookstores will special-order any title for you, often at no added cost? (And this has been a service since before there was an Amazon. Granted, I live in a college town, so bookstores here have always offered perks to attract business, and frequently handle exotic requests from postdocs… so maybe I’m mistaken thinking it’s equally easy everywhere? But it can’t hurt to ask!) Finally, PUBLIC LIBRARIES ARE YOUR FRIEND!! Consider borrowing your book, and if your branch doesn’t have it, request it through their interlibrary loan system… also a free service nationwide!! And you can request that your library buy it to lend locally. I put in purchase requests to my library All! The! Time! and I think they’ve only ignored 1 of my request, out of literal hundreds over the years? Anywho… happy book-hunting! I may pick up a copy myself. 🙂📚✌️
@Pocket Heart - Thank you for the recommendation, friend!! I’m going to find a copy! I haven’t read any sci-fi in a while, but this sounds pretty great. Is it part of a series?
Other question: Are these reactions faster or slower than chemical reactions in general? Is it possible that these are slow, or less frequent, and these lifeform exist in a much larger time-scale than us? Maybe a million years for us is just a second for them, because how slow these reactions and interactions are. And if the time-scale is so different, we might not even recognize them, because nothing significant is happening during the timeframe of our observation.
@@amorska11 for us to define a star as being alive per this videos definition it would need to duplicate faster than it can be destroyed, which we're quite certain the sun is mechanically incapable of doing
"The World at the End of Time" (1990) Frederik Pohl: A Plasma creature living in a star at war with copies of itself. Humans get caught up in the chaos. Enjoyed this one.
@@jonathanmckenzie7820 I was reminded of Exultant by stephen baxter, were life and entire civlizations arose multiple times in the first microseconds of the big bang, on completely different physical principles each time.
@Signal 6EQUJ5 but its to say: if mere fluctuations produce matter, then why not these "eddys" in the field they call topological defects. Thats some sort of fluctuation point so is a suggestion they behave in a 'matter-like' way of some sort.
@Signal 6EQUJ5 You are a bunch of atoms arranged in a bigger sea of atoms, you might call the less dense onse air and the more dense ground. but for any alien onlooker the difference between you and a gust of wind can be pretty hard to tell apart. Atoms are just small balls of energy, you have evolved to tell them apart because it's pretty neat to know that you cant breath dirt, and evolved to detect the light that travels through air but not earth as that is the light that matters for you. So you must start by seeing you own bias in life, and once you do you can begin to realize that other life forms can be as blind to your needs as you can be to there's. In its simplest concept, life is nothing more than a repeating pattern, books means nothing to a blind person. So maybe we don't see atoms as "topological defects" but we also pretty biased in our view. Consider that atoms might just be one way energy can form in space, like dark matter, or a form of matter that barely even interact with us can easily exist and have its own laws of physics (i mean stil the same physics just a other side of the coin.)
It amazes me how matt can verbalize such complex and various concepts...I realize that imagery helps but still, his ability to comunicate and get the information practically to ones mind is remarcable. Once again not forgettinhg the production team entirely
One intriguing thought is life in subatomic particles. In the Three Body series, they kind of talk about how there could be whole civilisations wrapped up in a single proton
@@Melomathics Silly ideas a only silly to somone proves them true. As if people did not laugh of the concept of human flying, before we figured out how to do it. But really is this idea that silly? it's not like carbon based life really is not extremely odd if you look at it. And this could hint at the solution of the paradox of why so little life in the universe seems to exist, if aliens don't even recognize us as life because they see the universe completely different from us. So yeah sure, "Another silly idea" as Existence itself is the silliest thing i know of to begin with. I find it foolish to believe we know much of anything about this universe, just because we spend some few thousands years using our wet preemptive newly evolved brains to look up at the sky and figure out what the tiny lights are. Reality is luckly more complex than anyting we can fathom, that much is pretty simple to figure out.
Actually, there is Stanislaw Lem short story entitled "The truth" (I couldn't find translation to English) from "The Invincible and Other Stories" book. In this story some scientists generate plasma and under microscopes observe something looking like very quick cell division. Asked biologist agrees that film from experiment depicts real living creature cell division, but filmed in very strange way - they did not told that guy it was plasma filmed. Because their machinery was not strong enough to generate long lasting plasma, they secretly prepare this kind of experiment in army project. That was when plasma entity was brought to life. This story is really interesting, leave us with question - maybe something is there, but not in a form that we expect to see it. Regards to PBS spacetime for tons of good job!
@@silentwisdom7025 I don't think the original series ever had that, but I do remember that in The Next Generation (S1E18: "Home Soil"), some aliens encountered the enterprise and the best translation the crew could get of their speech was "ugly... bags.. of.. mostly... water". But what was the original reference to - "mass of pure energy". Did McCoy ever say that?
My mind was getting dulled with the latest news in the world, this channel brings my brain back into critical focus which is much appreciated. Also, life, um, finds a way.
Stop letting your mind and inner peace be corrupted by the alarmists of the world. Life is really really good and rewarding now, and at any time, when you judge the world by your immediate experiences and interactions with others. Focus on learning new things and accepting other people at face value.
David Bryn's book Sundiver and Frederick Pole's The World At The End Of Time both deal with life forms that exist inside Stars. Edit well I see I'm not the only one who knew this.
lol, 20 years back, when I finish reading "the selfish gene", I was having a discussion with my dad about how small was our frame to search life, that it could be all kind of replicators that are not based on carbon like cultural replicators (memes), or even up to quantum structures in places where we thought that life could have been impossible.. and my father after a long discussion he started to scream on me that there was no point for such discussion, that if I wanted to believe that life could exist inside of stars (he made that example) then it was no different than religion or any pointless talk. He die 10 years ago, he was right that in order to have a logic discussion first we need to have a solid background to step on, or a good hypothesis, is a shame that I did not have this hypothesis to show him back then, I would have love to have an excuse to extend that talk with him.
No it's very different from religion. Religion is not the discussion of what is possible and what the probabilities are. It is instead the fervent hoping and insisting that something DOES exist, regardless of the probabilities. At least that's what western religions are, anyway.
@@thenewtalkerguy496 I'm an Indian. Some Eastern religions seemed to have had better (more reasonable) beginnings than the Abrahamic religions. But today, nope, they're just as bad as them and not worth following
Huge fan. I was introduced by a friend who heard my theory about Dark Matter being a form of “anti-gravity” and he showed me the series on Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Been hooked ever since. I’m really interested in another thought of mine since I was a kid about the Universe beginning as basically “nothing” flipping itself inside out to create “everything.” If that makes any sense... Thanks for continuing this show! It’s absolutely amazing and I appreciate all involved!
Question: The basis of life as we know it, is basic reactions between carbon based chemicals. For example on Earth we had a pool of “prebiotic soup” of these chemicals, and maybe a lightning strike gave it energy to turn it into the first primitive lifeform by chance. The point is, that given we have billion times billion times ... billion such event will result in creation of life by a high probability. Knowing how abundant these chemicals are in the universe, and how many such individual events happens, and assuming we are an “average” life, meaning based on our example, it took the universe 10 billion years to create life, we can calculate how many such events are required to create organic life. Of course it would be a very rough estimate... The point is, we can also look at these “magnetic reactions” the same way, and estimate, how often they happen in these stars. Are these faster, or slower than organic reactions? Are they more or less frequent? If these are orders of magnitude slower, and less frequent than organic chemical reactions, then we can assume that even though this kind of life is possible, or even inevitable (as anything with a non-zero chance must happen eventually), it is unlikely to evolve in “only” 14 billion years, and we can only expect the first such lifeform trillions of years in the future. Did anyone do such calculation?
No. The problem is that we don't KNOW what kind of interactions occur (monopole are theoretical and we have no evidence for them at present.) or what their frequency and speed might be. They might be physically impossible, in which case our answer will be zero. We have so much to learn.
You make a supposition here that life was created on Earth. There’s currently no evidence for that (or against that). There’s also way too much debate over whether the first life (as we know it) existed on a DNA, RNA, or simultaneously both world. Even if we find life on another Solar system body, it sadly still can’t prove whether life started on Earth or on that body or elsewhere. (We know rocks have been exchanged between Mars and Earth)
@@Rosyna First of all, this idea is not falsifiable. There is no way to differentiate if life has been “created” on Earth, or on another Earth-like planet. And there are other issues with this idea: - According to Occam’s razor, we should prefer the idea that it has been created on Earth. We don’t know any other place where the chance of life would be significantly higher, so the probability of being created on Earth is much higher than the probability of being created elsewhere AND successfully traveling through space, AND surviving both the travel and the new environment. - There are currently no open questions about the creation of life on Earth, which could be answered by panspermia. So even though we shouldn’t conclude that it was certainly created here, disputing this idea is not helping any of the ongoing conversations.
@@juzoli that life didn’t originate on this planet is certainly falsifiable. “All you need to do” is find life on another body and compare. (Radiometric and surface dating). If the life is similar to the unicellular life pre-Oxygen Catastrophe, there’s a good chance they have the same source. The oldest definitive fossil is from about 3.5 billion years ago while 4.5 billion year old* meteorites containing pre-cursors to live have been found. There is a question panspermia can help answer. Some evidence supports estimates of the first life on Earth beginning at about 4.5 billion years ago. That’s ridiculously close to the age of the Earth and would mean life sprang up almost immediately, meaning it should be able to spring up almost anywhere if life originated on Earth without involving panspermia. If panspermia is involved, it would help narrow the conditions for life to exist. *The age of the Earth is weird, if the giant impact hypothesis is true and thorough mixing between the two bodies occurred, it effectively “reset” the age of the Earth in geologic time.
@@Rosyna The time intervals you mentioned only shows that primitive life appeared on Earth shortly after it was possible. But not earlier. No discrepancy here. And your example would not falsify the idea, because it could’ve travel there from Earth, and also this life structure might be the only reasonably possible life, and the same kind of life might appear at multiple places.
This is the type of thing I have been waiting for since I could remember, all previous hunting for alien life has been primitive, we have not looked for aliens, we've looked for humans on other planets. Life could be so fundamentally different that humans could not even understand how it worked for hundreds of years. Thank you PBS, you never fail to impress me.
I love how comfortably you're able to discuss theory and conjecture as a possibility, while simultaneously acknowledging all the assumptions that may or may not be true that the proposal rests upon. To much popular science reporting breathlessly exclaims a mere theory as if it were fact.
About Venus: let's assume for one minute that the discovery is confirmed, that we send a probe there, find some kind of lifeforms, analyze it... And they have DNA. Not related to anything on earth, but DNA. That would help to confirm (or deny, depending on the find) so many hypothesis about the abiogenesis... That would be fantastic!
Exploring my theory of how black holes are responsible for the expansion of the universe. 1. If back holes are more dense than magnetar cores, the gravity of the black holes must be strong enough to expell the empty space between atomic particles, smashing together specific parts of atoms that possess mass and ejecting the contained vacuum of empty space between the particles, which has zero mass or any atomic property whatsoever, into space, therefore explaining the creation of dark matter and the expansion of the universe due to dark matter expansion. 2. The battle between dark matter and gravity may be the explicit balance that meshes particle physics and quantum physics. 3. If at a quantum level particles are appearing and dissolving at an unexplained rate, the dark matter and anti matter present at every level of magnitude throughout the universe is the explanation of the express creation/disappearance of particles at a quantum level.
DNA is the abbreviation of the stuff that it's made of, so it would have to be related to things on earth. It's also pretty impossible for Lifeforms with that kind of Genome to live on a planet like Venus. Maybe you mean that we could find different kinds of genomes that completely revolutionize our understanding of lifeforms?
Humans: "oh the universe is so hostile, I need scuba gear to explore the sea or a special suit to explore space!" Star people: needing to take fusion reactors around to leave their star
@@sugarfrosted2005 What does that have to do with it? It was an interesting point that he made I thought. Humans do actually rely on other creatures that reproduce for our survival - for our energy and replication of our cells we eat things that reproduce, so reliance on creatures that reproduce doesn't distinguish us from viruses.
@@Tarico_ To be fair, the criterion of being made of cells is the only one that prevents viruses from qualify, which I think is kind of falderal. Viruses, as you know, are way smaller than cells, so they will never be made of cells. Also, life elsewhere will most probably not be made of cells, at least anything like we have.
There was a span of time when methanol had been detected in interstellar space but ethanol had not. The natural conclusion was that ethanol was missing because aliens had drunk all of it.
So, how does a growing crystal not meet these three criteria? The structure's configuration most certainly can be interpreted as holding "information," while under the right conditions the lattice replicates faster than it disintegrates, using free energy.
This almost sounds like stellar syphonophores. Honestly, with all the weirdness in the universe we know about and the so much more we don't, I think this could be very possible
Stanislas Lem not only imagined Solaris living oceanic planet, he also considered life inside a star! In some of his numerous brillant short stories. BTW, it's Lem's year in Poland.
Hey! Thanks for the reccomendation I only read 1 short story by him called Gossamer, many years ago but I never forgot it, I loved it. I have been looking for more fiction to read I will start that series asap! If you like that 'hard science' sci fi and Unique aliens I recommend The Faded Sun Trilogy.
Greg Egan (see Diaspora, Schilds Ladder and clockwork rocket, among others) has many of the most bizarre ones. It is super hard sci fi and you need a degree to successfully imagine what he wants to convey haha
That picture of the 0-dimensional topological defect at 3:55 looks a lot like how positive and negative charges are described for electric charges. Which is probably not surprising, but I wonder why we have to invoke this "topological defect" description when discussing magnetic monopoles, but not for electric monopoles (electrons, positrons, etc.). Is it just down to the fact that we have experimental evidence for electrons, but none for magnetic monopoles or is there something more fundamental and different going on than my intuition would lead me to believe? Also as a community can we shorthand call magnetic monopoles "magopoles" or "magnetrons" or do we have to wait for their discovery first?
TBH this episode is excessively speculative for the series, the concepts here are pretty far from established science. Electric charge and magnetic fields are considered quite different because the way the fields work is distinctly different, if you look at the field lines the electric field it has monopoles but no closed loops, while the magnetic field has closed loops but no monopoles, at least as far as we've seen. For the topological defect thing I think that is from the particular string theory idea of what a magnetic monopole might be like, there are other ideas of how they could work. As for the name I think it's just that all the nice contractions were taken, magnetrons are a part of microwaves, magneton is a pokemon, etc...
It comes down to Maxwell's laws. One of them says that the divergence of the magnetic field is always zero, which requires the magnetic field lines to all be closed loops. In fact, we observe no magnetic monopoles in nature, because a monopole would inherently have all the field lines flowing either towards or away from it, thus the divergence would not be zero. In the case of the electric field, Maxwell's laws says that the divergence is proportional to the charge density in that point. Charged particles act as electric monopoles.
@@quacking.duck.3243 Matter being produced through interactions which actually produce matter/antimatter particle pairs is one way to explain the existence of matter in the first place. It's plausible that a monopole/antipole pair could be produced in a similar way, but their attraction to one another might be a difficult thing to counteract. If such a pair generating in between a pair of dipole magnetic fields, they might be pulled apart by a more powerful force than the one pulling them together. Assuming, of course, that there's a way to set that up to happen, and that they can exist and/or be generated in the first place, and that the conditions for them to form don't preclude doing so in such an environment.
The reason it’s different is largely because the reason they arise is different. Electrons have their own field, while monopoles arise from another field having a region that simply cannot be in a low energy state by the laws of topology, so it’s forced into a position of high energy. How that exactly works out depends on the dimensions as said in the video, with monopoles being created from just a single point being forced into a higher energy state. If you want the best explanation you can get on this, I’d watch the biggest ideas in the universe series by Sean carrol, though it’s really long and this part is only a footnote.
I wonder whether life evolved in some stage of the Big Bang, the time-scale of that life being such that it found its existence comfortable and leisurely in a vast and slowly-evolving universe.
Matthew Swain You guys have been pumping out absolute quality for years. So happy you’re on RU-vid. When I actually make money from my physics degree, I’ll hit you up on patreon.
Great thinking, I love it. It's a frequent misconception IMO that even decent-quality discussion about the fermi paradox & life elsewhere get wrong: being way too earthcentric in their thinking about how life may or not evolve. For exemple, assuming that because the moon has played an important role in the evolution of life, a large moon is essential for life. While I think we're very unlikely to even disprove formally this hypothesis, I think the sheer exercise in creativity is quite worthwhile. That and it forces us to formalize our thinking about what life, ultimately, is, or could be.
That makes the paradox only worse rather than explaining it. There is less evidence of civilization than we should expect even if all life is basically identical to the one on our planet. Should take no more than 10Mill years to colonize a galaxy and we see thousands of empty ones.
@@broomemike1 Yeah, it was called "42" and it invovled people who were mining a star, except it turned out to be ALIVE, and the Doctor yelled at them for not considering that. :P
The problem with being guided by beauty, and I think Sabine has this is mind, is that the Universe is under no obligation to appeal to our sense of beauty. Granted, Physics has made great leaps with beauty as a guiding force (or in some cases, a downright goal), but there's no real reason to expect the Theory of Everything to be amenable to our sense of beauty.
'Carbon chauvanism' ;) this is pure quantum intuition .. fascinating to observe how science, philosophy and the arts can dynamically interact to produce new ideas ! :)
Matt, you and the Spacetime series are two of the greatest parts of the universe in this observers opinion . I love anyone and everyone involved in producing my favorite show. Here’s to you guys ...Thank you guys!!!
Read "THE BOWL OF HEAVEN" and "SHIPSTAR" its an interesting read about evolution, including life evolving in stars. Co written by the author of ringworld
Stephen Baxter also described creatures evolving inside of stars in the early universe, the photino birds of his Xeelee series. I read Baxter more recently, but the Uplift books will always hold a special place in my heart.
Fascinating to think about. Because energy (heat) tends to make molecules unstable, I can imagine some kind of life far simpler than what we have here. A family of self-replicating molecular structures that have been forced to evolve to the most stable form, allowing for some kind of life more simple than our own, and likely life that is simpler than viruses
Amazing channel. Spent the last few months going through all the videos. Liked and subscribed. It's humbling to run head long into the limits of ones intelligence, but still enjoyable.
I've a very theoretical question: what if you have a region in space surrounded by black holes in all directions, the black holes are not merged together indeed their event horizons are only "touching" each other in a way that these cluster of black holes together creates an "shell" the region inside the black hole shell (that can be a extremly large region) would never be able to detect any kind of information from outer the shell, creating a fake ilusion of boundary... at same time due hawking radiation those black holes would shrink slowly creating a phenomenon that looks like "expansion of the space" and also according to hawking's theory as smaller the black hole gets faster it emits the radiation so it could account for the "acceleration of the space expansion". could a scenario like this exist? im not a physicist and i know only very simplified versions of those gravitational theories but i would like to ask... would a scenario like i described explain the black energy and space expansion? please guy likethis comment so pbs get to at least read it
Well, those black holes' orbits as you described it are next to impossible. Even a very small difference in their masses would break the equilibrium. Kepler's first law states that objects have elliptical orbits, and not without reason. Circular orbits are inherently unstable. Your proposal requires perfectly circular orbits on multiple planes... And that will easily get broken by any gravitational pertuberance inside the 'shell'. But I see what you meant by it 😉
This wouldn't explain phenomena we observe such as redshift of electromagnetic waves (radiation traveling from great distances gets "stretched" due to space expansion).
I have a better idea. What if the cosmological horizon is in fact an event horizon of a topologically inverted black hole? What if the observed expansion of space is just stuff falling into a black hole that is all around us? :)
@@Merennulli The scientific method starts with an hypothesis as a conjecture (an educated guess so to speak) which helps to either prove/disprove a theory. A theory is based on evidence, an hypothesis doesn't need to as it is the means to get that evidence.
Yep! Ian. M. Banks did it with the Stellar Field Liners, a race of worm-like creatures that evolve and thrive around sunspots on some stars and utilise the star's magnetic fields for locomotion/ migration.
There was some kind of exotic matter lifeforms called 'Photino Birds' in the novels by Stephen Baxter that sound similar to this. They lived in the novels series stars as well.
"Starmaker" by Olof Stapledon a great sci fi book has,among many other life forms live, sentient stars. As I recall they become ill and die by supernova ing.
My beauty compass tells me that Matt's stance on pursuit of aesthetics in physics laws was really wonderfully said. @PBS You should clip that part and pin it somewhere separately.
'Ridiculous! Such "atom-based" life would need to be a billion times larger than us. Those tiny, cold lumps are too small for such life to ever have any chance of evolving.'
I'm wondering what kind of time scale this form of life would run on. To some extent it would depend on how long "molecules" could endure. If life's scale is nanosecond to years for Earth's life, their effect on the solar processes might be hard to detect.
Matt, I LITERALLY though the exact same about those rug diagrams and animations... It's copmletely CRAZY that they came up with that in 2 days... Absolutely amazing. You guys are all geniuses at PBS Space Time!!
I have my own outlandish theory. What if life could exist in the thick upper atmosphere of a rocky planet, thriving on the energy gradient from a powerful greenhouse effect. Obviously there would have to be some chemical byproduct we’d see in the atmosphere that wouldn’t be stable enough to exist in noticeable quantities over long periods of time, something like phosphine. Nah, that’s crazy
1:13 - I love this paper! Not because of the specific content of the paper, but because I finally see some openmindedness in the thinking of some scientists regarding the question of life in the Universe! I have been waiting for this so long!
I had a day dream once that there were lifeforms in the sun. They were riding a magnetic reconnection like a roller coaster. They were quite happy. It seemed like they had some control over coronal mass ejections and were aware that they were dangerous to humans on earth. And yes, I was pretty stoned.
Hey, Leo, Iago, and Pedro: Earth has been rotating the WRONG WAY in opening credits since day 1, and rotating the WRONG WAY again starting 8:39. Sun rising in the West? I can't be the first to notice the opening logo rotates backwards.
"Anything not forbidden is compulsory." - T.H. White. He was talking about totalitarianism but physicists borrowed the expression to relate to fact that if there's SOME probability of something happening, it's out there...
I can't deny it, but is obviously we can't confirm it through science. The question is why are we even discussing something we cannot prove?.... The question is why PBS puts videos out there that are a total waste of time and confuse people who don't have the right approach to science?.... Science is about proving facts, not about fabricating unanswerable questions.
@@duality4y Well, let's get creative, lets write a theory where the earth is triangular and it was created by a gigantic space unicorn. Then, let's make a video about it and sell it as "science", just like PBS is doing.
Did you even watch the video? Eitherway you don't understand the scientific method. It's more like: Lazy answer: Probably no. Informed Answer: Maybe yes. Edit: In anticipation of the 'It was just a meme/joke bro' comment. Memes and jokes are mostly only funny if they are true.
Erm I highly doubt that time travelers that can read neutrino notes are interested in videos from 2020 that have positive notes... This year won't exactly leave good legacy it seems...
very impressed with this video. I have always been interested in astronomy and physics. It was things like this that drove me to enter those professions. Thank you for feeding my insatiable curiosity about the universe and the wonders that we discove
Tried to find a comment mentioning Xeelee and Photino Birds. Because this is literally how Baxter describes what Xeelee are made of (well in his case quagma and strings). Also how Matt describes how stars hosting life would go off-sequence is literally what Photino birds do to stars they inhabit.
Hey, you can't show neutrinos with your primitive recording instruments. Humans are officially off the invite list for time travelers anonymous! Edit: that wasn't me, leaving for posterity
Exploring my theory of how black holes are responsible for the expansion of the universe. 1. If back holes are more dense than magnetar cores, the gravity of the black holes must be strong enough to expell the empty space between atomic particles, smashing together specific parts of atoms that possess mass and ejecting the contained vacuum of empty space between the particles, which has zero mass or any atomic property whatsoever, into space, therefore explaining the creation of dark matter and the expansion of the universe due to dark matter expansion. 2. The battle between dark matter and gravity may be the explicit balance that meshes particle physics and quantum physics. 3. If at a quantum level particles are appearing and dissolving at an unexplained rate, the dark matter and anti matter present at every level of magnitude throughout the universe is the explanation of the express creation/disappearance of particles at a quantum level.
@@seanmoore489 Blackholes are collapsed cores that have been crushed to a point and are surrounded by a gravitational void called an event horizon they're not matter by any means you and I know them as.
My high school physics teacher used to say: "You can look at the Sun via a telescope twice: First with your right eye and the second time with the other one" ;)
These defects in crystalline structures depending on the grain direction Is this the reason why making ice cubes from nearly boiling water is clear? Because the grain direction for the crystalisation is vertical, as the water cools down, the warmer water climbs up?
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but the gravity in a star is huge, so if there was life inside a star how would it experience time in comparison to our experience? I'm wondering because life takes a lot of time to evolve, and I wonder how much time they've had to evolve? If time is slower inside a star maybe they haven't had long enough yet?
