See the lights of a neighbor's house Now she's starting to rise Take a minute to concentrate And she opens up her eyes The world was moving she was right there with it and she was -- Talking Heads
Reminds me of how ancient Greek mathematicians never conceived the digit zero because they considered the concept of absolute nothingness evil. In the end the number "zero" comes from ancient East Indian (or Hindu) mathematics.
I think there’s a black hole cycle. I think eventually all black holes in the universe will absorb each other, and the infinite mass and density will cause another big bang.
What if it the evaporation is the closing of the hole in this universe. It's impossible for a black hole to contain infinite mass, it ate a finite amount of mass. What if there is a hard limit of what can be consumed and the collected mass ejects into a new space time, closing the link to ours in the process? We cannot prove what is beyond the event horizon. The black hole releases radiation, how do.you know the mass input matches the energy output? Black.holes evaporate on timescales longer than the current age of the universe. No one has witnessed one evaporate. Only they leak radiation. what if the interior of a black hole is a pocket with a single entry and a single exit and all 3 spaces are casually disconnected. The black hole is in essence a buffer. Waiting the the mass contained within to reach a threshold to break out into a daughter universe with a new big bang. Spacetime flows into black holes. What if Spacetime its self is.compressed and becomes the basis for inflation? Those hard limits would need to be huge..possibly a once in a universe occurrence that happens long after the heat death if thr universe when enough supermassive black holes combine.
@@tonygraydonwhy would the curvature properties of the universe exclude this idea? If you mean because of the theorised curvature properties inside a black hole not matching that of our universe, then no because the black hole is like a connection between two causally disconnected pocket of spacetime.. The universe is not 'inside' the black hole, the black hole is a gravitational anomalie sat outside our own spacetime. All geodesics end at the event horizon. The mass punches through to a new pocket of spacetime much like our own universe. It's what we have theorised about black hole.geometry for a long time using penrose diagrams. But we always dismiss it. Yet what we believe to be a big bang is identical to the concept of a white hole. Changing the black hole to be an intermediary step.solves many if the problems highlighted with this theory.
Over 70 years, I've thought a lot about "nothing". And there's nothing that can be said about it. You can't even legit say "nothing is" because nothing "isn't".
Time is not something that can be moved forward or backward like a video in fast forward rewinding. It is a mathematical measurment that describes mass and energy destinations through reference points. Therefor time is relative. HInce Einsteins theories. With this stated, this video does not do justice in educational purposes, but it does give critical thinking and entertainment. But, even though we wern't there during the creation of our universe nor it's beginings, We can use current understandings based on tried and tested theories to speculate it's beginings. We can however, accuretly provide information on it's temperatures from the moment light formed from heat. Anything with a temperature releases infrared light. Which is where JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) comes in... From the point light was formed to now, things tend to have sort of set in stone motion. Because of quantum mechanics, things arn't entirely accurately measurable by time, hince the sort of set in motion. Because of this, we can give a 90+% accurate theory of the universe's beginings, but definitely not it's starting point before the infrared light formed due to quantum mechanics raining supreme.
I have often wondered about dark matter and dark energy. As we can see almost back to the big bang itself surely these two dark things should make that impossible - surely the whole universe will be dark. In my view, these things should be, more properly, named 'invisible matter' and 'invisible energy'. Scientists, astronomers etc are not doing themselves any favours by giving cosmic entities properties that they do not possess. I am surprised that someone like John Lennox has not latched onto this error by now.
Dark matter and dark energy seem to be artifacts of an incomplete understanding. Like they are saying, "we don't fully understand the interactions of matter and gravity, so let's make a placeholder for a matter we can't see."
Yeah, they are not saying these things are literally dark in the optical sense, it’s just an adjective expressing how little is known about these forms of energy and matter. It’s analogous to how historians refer to a certain period as the Dark Ages, not meaning the Sun went dim, but that a lot of prior knowledge was lost or suppressed.
@@Veed.l0 now exactly how do they know that the mathematical is correct for the universe. It’s just theoretical. It’s not true facts. How do you know that the mathematical formula is correct for this. They make this up.
If a big bang is acceptable then an infinite number of big bangs is just as acceptable (multiverse) the is no reason at all there would only be one, the one we think happened is evidence that it happens so the same justification can be made for more.
No one knows the very first beginning. Almost all analysis involves equation with all sort of variables usually with several having coefficients of error. All quantum is theory. We can manipulate things, even invisible things like energy, using these equations and we assign all sorts of names to all of this. Does infinity exist? What is time? There is so much we don’t know. It is a puzzle.
Nothing can't exist. Hence: OMNIverse. No start, no end, infinitely complex, an infinite causality tree, what I call the "world tree". With infinite multiverses like our own, plus, well, everything that can and *has to exist* outside maybe even concepts like dimensions, topology and even what appears to us as the most fundamental concepts that can be, numbers. Of course, there also exist an infinite amount of observers and *DEMIURGES* that took part in consciously decide of the "source code" of a given relative reality for any reason in their own pre-existing frame of reference.
If nothing cannot exist in our universe, why can’t our universe exist in nothing? Why should the universe care what we think? The universe is and was what it will ever be.. Time
This is incorrect.. What is "beyond" the *observable* universe, is just more universe.. Stars, galaxies and such.. We can't see them, because their light has not had enough time to reach us, given the rate of expansion.. Hence, *observable*.. You're confusing the observable universe with the universe as a whole..
The universe is everything that exists. There’s no “outside”. And there probably is no “before” the Big Bang, as time itself has begun at the expansion point.
It's matter that created nothing. There's always something. How man dreams to be someone it's quite the opposite of that something dreaming of being nothing
@@hogg4229 Einstein has yet to be disproven. I agree with that theory. Energy never was created. And cannot be destroyed. It changes form. As it always has.
But it can be diluted to the point of no longer being able to do work. That's ever increasing entropy. To do work there must be a potential...a differnce... a temperature.... but over time though energy is not destroyed it becomes evermore diluted as temos go towards absolute zero everywhere. This is referred to as the ultimate heat death of the universe.
I always find myself saying; Nothing, or its concept, is a mannequin. If "nothing" existed, it would bear a name and in its possession of a name, of an identity, nothing becomes something. (not unlike most conversations with my wife).
I'm reading the various comments about "nothing" (which is different from "void"). You have to think to the Universe as a sphere of spacetime. Now think to Earth. Is the North Pole a special point or a singularity? If you walk through it, you won't feel anything special. We think to it as a special point, but it's nothing else than a point. Now, if we consider the spacetime as a single entity and we represent it as a Sphere (if finite) or a sort of open umbrella (if infinite), the big bang is just a point in the spacetime. It doesn't need to have a "before". We can imagine a multiverse, or a multiverse of multiverses. Nice, but it's like putting the Earth on the back of a turtle which stays on the back of another turtle and so on. Let's stick on a 4-dimensions spacetime with a beginning and potentially an end, with no before and no after.
We live within ONE Universe among infinite Universes which make up the Multiverse, the true "god" (not at all human-like and which does not care about us, so infinitesimally insignificant), which is infinite and eternal, continuously evolving...
They're not "Virtual Particles", they are "Protons" and are used in PET scans (using Fluorine-18) as "Positron Emission Tomography", along with Gallium-68 scans and Caesium scans, are used to produce three-dimensional, colour images of your body, using radionuclides that in the case of the PET scan, uses Positron Electron interaction with its Antielectron pair, providing details on the area of specific interest to a doc... eh... what's the antimatter doc? Oh and for anyone still thinking an Antimatter rocket will take anyone anywhere, no. Enough already, it is rally sally.
The idea that our universe came from nothing is almost certainly false, though no one truly knows of course. Not sure if it’s quantum fluctuations, eternal inflation, infinite regression, cyclic formations, Simulation Hypothesis, a Creator, or something entirely different we can’t comprehend. Though I’m almost certainly sure it did not come from “nothing”, that’s literally impossible under all accounts.
Could it be that nothing keeps becoming something because nature abhors a vacuum? The eternal void produces virtual particles.That's nothing becoming something
Scientists have no complete explanations about the human brain that works 24/7 inside their own bodies... So, they should leave the universe alone as it's not their cup of tea😂
Well, that's your opinion. Science doesn't work with opinions. The theories are based on evidence and conclusions thereof. Scientists use equipment to investigate. Not just only their mind.
@@SjaakSchulteis Everything is made to earn money. There's no fixed conclusion if scientists's big bang theory turned a big lie in the recent research. Men can't become gods by reaching Mars after turning the 11 percent of the earth surface where they reside into hell.😉
Empty space only exists when observed, we never quite reach an answer despite bigger and better more precise instruments they’re never quite enough to be definitive . Space time again does not exist, we should be questioning what is our perception of consciousness our version of reality. Whatever it is, it isn’t what we think we are seeing.
But what if Plank’s constant has been changing over time. If there were a prior time when the constant was zero then the vacuum could have zero energy in it. A special kind of nothing.
Just where does- this “Universe that was so hot” Get all of this heat from in The Beginning!? I ask the Question “Where Does Language come from!?” Is it all Hot Air?
A lot of stuff in here disagrees with the thinking of most theoretical physicists; for instance, the assertion around 1:24 that space has always and will always exist, and that jt exists independently of matter or events - something that hasn’t been considered seriously for about 150 years now.
In short, energy can be categorized into animate and inanimate forms and exists in two basic states: static (including varying degrees of rarefaction), which lies beyond the scope of human perception and technological extensions, and dynamic, which falls within the range of human senses and their extensions. From this perspective, the 'emptiness' of the universe can be explained. As for the 'First Cause': the existence of a dynamic universe has its counterpart in static tranquility-just as the momentum of an active universe is triggered by its stillness. These are two sides of the same coin: cosmic tranquility coexists with its active components. The reality is that we exist in a dualistic universe.
Its in our minds, its our perceptions, there is no time, time is a human mind perception in order to comprehend " everything everywhere all at once". "Nothing is everything, everything is nothing. No thing is everything, everything is no thing.........."
@@memoryshorts7275 nope. Time is a physical object, subject to the laws of thermodynamics. Its manifestations include singularities and the ever present Higgs field, not to mention it is the most basic building block which has been found within protons and neutrons... It is the Higgs particle.
The expanding stars in space were born from zillions of expanding dark matter particles / densifications that are constantly pushed out of the expanding supermassive objects in the centers of galaxies. Expanding galaxies were formed from the center outwards in the early days of the rapidly expanding visible universe in space when two expanding supermassive objects moved close to each other. The separate expanding condensations of dark matter pushed through each other again and again and it caused them to expand so fast that they didn’t have time to push each other away from each other as fast as they were expanding. At this point, they began to coalesce into new expanding stars quickly without a pulling force and without the ever-curving space. I predict that with the help of the James Webb telescope, it will be discovered that the stars were born as if from nothing. But of course not out of nowhere, you know. At least it has already seen that galaxies were born very quickly in the early days of the visible universe. This supports my view of how galaxies formed! That is, massive and ready-made galaxies are observed in the very young visible universe. Expanding supermassive objects in the centers of galaxies were created in their own 3D Big Bangs on the same principle. Nowadays, the so-called background radiation is the expanding light that was created when these expanding supermassive objects in the centers of galaxies were born in their own 3D big bangs quite far from each other. Over the ages, the expanding background radiations have shaped each other into equal quality as they have encountered each other, interacted and accelerated each other’s expansion and at the same time speeded up in the same proportion as matter and light have expanded in space outward into the already existing space. Expanding galaxies are large particles that convey information about an object that is quite massive and dense because it emits energy that has the character of galaxies. Of course, we cannot detect the object in question that we are moving away from. Galaxies are particles that convey information about it. There are an infinite number of similar objects in the infinite 3D space and they would always recycle the existing energy / pushing force. Millions of billions of years of scattered energy are pushing towards them at an extremely fast speed into space. The energy/pushing force pushed to the center of the objects in question is once again compressed there into extremely dense energy. In other words, there is constantly extreme pressure in the centers of these objects, which does not decrease because more energy is pushed into the center all the time, where it is compressed into extremely dense energy. The energy pushed into the center displaces the energy that was previously pushed there, and thus it is pushed away from there, and the expansion of the sector enables the dispersion / expansion of this extremely dense energy into a less dense one. Pushing away from the center of that object into this extremely dense energy absorbs energy that is being pushed towards the center of this extremely dense and massive object. In other words, only a small part can reach the centers of such extremely massive and dense objects. That is, extremely fast energy is pushed towards these extremely dense and massive objects, the speed of which has slowed down as this energy has been pushed through more new quarks expanding in space. In the context of pushing through new expanding quarks, this extremely fast energy has accelerated the expansion / dispersion of the energy in the expanding quarks in space into a larger and larger region of space. It is also absorbed into the expanding quarks according to when its speed has slowed down so much that the expanding quarks could stop it. #Google #Savorinen #science #cosmology #physics #theoryofeverything #read #how #theworld #works #八
The All, Universe, things, time, worlds untamed and galaxies beyond comprehension all exist within the All, but yet everything within the All all exist infinatly have, and will, within the Absolute, absolutly. " i" nfundibulum
There are certain laws and principles to existence that govern the universe. One of the most practical and simple ones is that our universe and the subatomic universe that exist alongside it we must always seek a balance. It's like a clear hose water level. At each end of the hose for the water is seeking level it's always going to be the same. If one side gets out of balance the other side forces more of what is needed in its direction. It may not be instantaneous but it happens and it will constantly happen. If things get way too out of balance then another major explosion occurs which is not technically an explosion. But a new universe will be born to replace the old one. Dimensional balance is what created our universe not a big bang!
I can't help but think of fireworks when thinking about the big bang. Is the sole purpose of a firework to explode or to create a bang or to create shimmering light? What I am saying is its seems eerie to consider the universe as we know it may just be a 'side effect' of something else entirely, and it may somehow appear as nothing to us, simply because we know not what 'it' is🤔
Galan the scientist was the last living being of another universe prior to the Big Bang. As Galan's universe came to an end, he merged with the "Sentience of the Universe" to become Galactus, an entity that wielded such cosmic power as to require devouring entire planets to sustain his existence. The new universe erupted from the Big Bang.
Time is not something that can be moved forward or backward like a video in fast forward or rewinding. It is a mathematical measurment that describes mass and energy destinations through reference points. Therefor time is relative. HInce Einsteins theories. With this stated, this video does not do justice in educational purposes, but it does give critical thinking and entertainment. But, even though we wern't there during the creation of our universe nor it's beginings, We can use current understandings based on tried and tested theories to speculate it's beginings. We can however, accuretly provide information on it's temperatures from the moment light formed from heat. Anything with a temperature releases infrared light. Which is where JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) comes in... From the point light was formed to now, things tend to have sort of set in stone motion. Because of quantum mechanics, things aren't entirely accurately measurable by time, hence the sort of set in motion. Because of this, we can give a 90+% accurate theory of the universe's beginnings, but definitely not it's starting point before the infrared light formed due to quantum mechanics raining supreme.
The very first thing could only arise from a state of no thing. If not, then some thing couldn’t, by definition, be anything less than every thing. The state of nothing has the potential to manifest everything.
IMO The non-local state of infinity (not quantifiable) surrounds and creates a pressure on all local points or quanta (addressable and quantifiable) within an infinite field. This pressure on all points within the field causes fluctuations to emerge from within the field as the local points or quanta affected by this external pressurization of infinity always try to seek a resting state of 0 energy but can never achieve an absolute steady state of 0 (flat or still) due to the eternal and infinite state of pressure bearing in on them. This IMO is the cause of quantum fluctuations, also called "quantum foam" which is widely thought to be the foundation that all matter emerges from.
It's a logical fallacy. There is no beginning of space and time. It is eternal and has no definite size. Simply because of the fact that nothing can happen outside of it. It's in the definition of causality. 'Nothing' isn't 'unstable'. It simply doesn't exist.
I am a little bit confused at 17:30 for the next minute. They talk about "regions of inflation" where the inflation might stop and lead to a "big bang", while in other regions it seem to continue. My understanding is - the inflation is not perfect then and do they want to tell me that in the expansion phase several big bangs occurred, each giving birth to a different universe within the same (our) inflated entity/space/whatever?
It makes sense to me to say because the universe is expanding that means one day it will cool down, but if every minute new stars and stuff are born won't those one day be hot enough to replace everything else that has cooled?
To go beyond the singular state, one must eventually go to philosophy, which remains above physics in the hierarchy of disciplines, to Aristotle, the philosopher who created the discipline of science as well as specifically of physics. If one wishes to go beyond this, one must go to theology, which remains the highest discipline. This begins with a study of Plato. He did not create or develop theology he discovered its existence, transcending philosophy, and beyond human endeavor. Theology is the study of the relationship between the existence of Creator and creation, as revealed by Creator. The most brilliant theologian we can turn to, so far, especially with particular relevance to both physics and philosophy is iThomas Aquinas.
It’s already found that there have never been “nothing” go wake up. They are now saying the universe is “infinite”. oh wow well, some of us have known that all along now have we?
Why does there have to be a beginning. That is a human concept. How do we know that outside our human understanding of the Universe there is no concept for the word beginning. Conscious energy or God if you prefer an abstract label does not increase our understanding of the Universe. Life is motion and rest, and the silence in between our breath.
No actually it isn't just a shot in the dark. A patch over a wound. There was a provable explosion, everywhere in space. The cosmic microwave background. The homogeneous nature and distribution of the temperatures within the cmb prove that the universe was once very very small. And we have since witnessed inflation. It is an explanation to observed evidence. And any new scientifically accepted origin story needs to scientifically explain these observations. The big bang does that very very well.
One could actually say that the "Big bang theory" is an abstract model that postulates the singularity... which is probably why it's still called theory. It is logically sound tho.
@louiekrousoratis6705 except it's not just a theory; it is an extrapolation based on evidence. The cosmic microwave background is indisputable proof that at some point in our distant past, the universe cooled from a very hot state wherein the contents of our universe existed in a plasma and then cooled to a point that atoms can capture electrons. This process releases certain frequencies of light, plus all the light present from this era was trapped in the particle soup. After the atomic combination, that light was released. Everywhere in the universe at once (it is present everywhere in the universe). This is an indisputable fact. And we can put a fairly exact time frame on when this happened because of the properties of light. We can account for and explain with current physics and certainty the events up to less than a second before the big bang. And yes, the actual big bang or whatever happens in that fraction of a second is theorised. But everything from that fraction of a second onwards is scientifically provable based on evidence. Because we have to explain the state that we can prove. The facts are that the universe at the time the cmb was released was provably very, very small. This is provable because of the uniform temperature differential present within the cmb and the drastic differences we see today. The universe was once so hot that these states of matter could occur..we know of no mechanism present today, which can naturally produce this phenomenon. And if we run the clocks back on simulations to their natural conclusion (based on cosmic inflation again provable, and the known state of the universe when the cmb was released, Our model predicts a singularity. This is not a fault of the big bang model, but the models of spacetime which predict that state, i.e., general relativity, that is where the singularity comes from. And a correct theory of quantum gravity would remove that mathematical anomalie.. so from the facts, the extrapolation is there was an explosion then expansion. Though this is an extrapolation, it directly explains the evidence we have observed. It is the only explanation for that evidence. The temperate the universe once was for the cmb to exist and inflation require this postulate. So if you dispute the big bang model (accepted as scientific fact today on the strength of the evidence) then you better have some model which explains all the data humans know as fact! And by the way, scientific 'theory' is the term used for any model which has been verified and is widely accepted as fact based on the strength of observable evidence and peer review. For an idea to be considered a scientific theory it needs to be the best explanation of the observed evidence given current accepted knowledge. It'd much more than a whim or a half baked suggestion.
@@Micheal313I'm sorry but you need to look into the criteria which makes an idea a scientific theory. Theories are actually ideas elevated by peer review of scientists the world over which fit and explain observed evidence. You seem to be suggesting the big bang theory is sometjing a physicist dreamed up one day then put it out and the rest of the world was like, yea that sounds right, lets go with that. To which i would say you have no idea whatsoever how science works in the modern world. The singularity you cite is nothing to do with the big bang theory. The big bang theory directly explains the hundreds of years of observations about our universe to a point where the evidence rules out hust about every other model. So much so that science it isnt even a debate anymore, its a given. We can state with absolute certainty every single process which resulted in our modern univers from before the big bang happened. What we cannot explain is if that initial seed had infinite mass, or even the physics directly controlling that state. That is the speculation, for the simple fact that we do not have a correct theory of gravity at quantum scales.The cmb is direct evidence that the big bang happened. There is no other mechanism which could produce the temperatures needed to result in us reading microwave radiation at every single point in space for the past 100 year. The time frame of 13.8 billion years maybe subject to review as we learn better and more accurate ways of extrapolating time from redshift. But that in no way whatsoever disproves the theory at all. We cant yet explain what created those starting conditions. Or what exactly caused the explosion to happen. But we havr direct evidence that it DID happen.
So, if, in an expanding universe, there can be multiple hot big bangs, kept apart by inflation, does that imply a multiverse with possible multiple Earths?
If all particles were gone that would include bosons. Right? Including the Higgs, which is the fundamental cause of gravity. Therefore, your original hypothesis is falsified. But what do I know?
It was always there in one form or another, and will always remain . Maybe it is a little too beyond human apprehension, but it is always compatible with the rules of physics and never in a mystical way.
@@abmsiddique9655 “Rules of physics” implies a Creator, as though the laws were designed for the universe to exist. There truly are no laws of physics, just observations of the behavior of our natural world we have made that are (currently) seemingly constant. We don’t know if there is such a Creator, or what event actually preceded the Big Bang’s expansion, but we can be sure it certainly wasn’t “nothing”. We’ll eventually find the truth, or maybe we won’t.
@@suecondon1685 The point of science is to find the truth, and not to declare that something is not or cannot be true without evidence (as that would be making a religious claim). If something magical happened before the Big Bang, then it wouldn’t be magic, just a phenomenon we currently don’t understand or know of yet. And not necessarily at odds with being scientific, as science must encompass our reality wholly, even the things that we label “mystical” or “magical”.
@@suecondon1685there are no "rules of physics." Physics and math are just just a human way of trying to measure things and is limited by our perceptions.
@@themanofshadows Not quite sure what your point is... I'm certainly not religious and don't believe in god, and I seem to agree with other comments you've made so I guess I didn't express myself very well. It just seems absurd to me to explain it as an 'exponential expansion' that defies all known rules of science and the speed of light. It's a bit too Abracadabra (or even god-like) for me.
The universe reminds me of a tachyon particle. It moves faster than the speed of light but is always moving backwards in time. It is always in two places at once. The beginning and the end and the space in between. It is a snake chasing its own tail, but not quite catching it.
To understand reality, You must include the whole. Instead of viewing the universe from the inside out, You must view it from the outside in. 1) Pressure Differential. 2) Temperature Differential. 3) Partical Density Differential. More particals = More heat. The universe as such consists of zones which are Cold (Low Partical Density) and zones that are hot (high partical Density). Waves of energy flowthrough the void. As the hightened state of activity spreads, it weakens. As the one zone weakens, the next strengthens. It`s not rocket science. You can find all these factors also here on Earth.
everything observed, Measured or quantified is just a segments from a pole. Think Temperature or energy. Light and darkness young and old. etc. Nothingness can not exist in isolation. The other end of the pole is everything. Think of steam. it's also water and snow and Ice. Just because you observe it as Ice doesn.t mean it will be ice tomorrow. Everything came from nothing because you can't have nothing without everything. Simple
It is not nothing it is No-Thing. That is the only thing that exists.and is eternal. It is the cause for everything but itself is uncaused, it is pure intelligence which does not know it is. This has been understood by sages who have realised that at the core of their consciousness is this No-Thing by going deep within. It is the core of everything. Science is now agreeing that this vast, super intelligent universe has risen from nothingness but the clue to understanding it is in the source of our consciousness, by going within.
When we look back in time we can only estimate what it looked like. How do you know that back in time there was more dark matter. And, what we think we see, is only the remnant of what dark matter produced while the universe transformed into what it apparently is?
Until time and space were created no-thing existed. All things require space/ time in which to exist. Whatever happened “before” the big bang cannot be known. God is not a thing. He was the no-thing that created the universe which consists of matter and energy both “regular” and dark.
The video's entire hypothesis is based on a homogenous and isotropic universe, which obviously the Universe is neither. The CMB radiation, discovered 1964 by Penzias and Wilson at Bell labs, was being searched for by Robert Dicke, Albert Einstein Chair at Princeton University. He should have been a part recipient of the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics, as the Bell ends, couldn't have even found the carpark, if it wasn't for Dicke. He also co-created the Brans-Dicke Theory, that has been used since 1967 to resolve the "dark matter", since 1967 and the 2020 NASA finding of a parallel universe, resolves the fact that there is another dimension, resolves Dark Energy.
If we accept that we are living in a Multiverse. rather than a Universe, I wonder about the possibility of one 'verse' interacting with another? The immediate example I can think of is perhaps the possibility of matter disappearing ino into one, to seep out into another, say as a white blob.
The universe is like a rubberband it expands and contracts. The big crunch. Its like a cycle. Its infinite. This explains why radiation is measure the same everywhere.
Without matter it is still expanding, unless the gravitation being generated by matter continuously by evet piece of matter for more than 10B years is causing the expansion. Locally that gravitation causes bending or sagging of space, why would that particle and its effect on space ever disappear, once depleted of its support of space by matter why would it ever return to its old state. And if it interacts with matter again it probably would be depleted additionally, and who knows what it does within its environment of gravitational particles and support of space. They may be like particle of matter in air or water with flow and tide or have an initial high frequency and each interaction lowers the frequency and causes the surrounding average to lower slightly with each quantity of time.
What a exceptional video .Mind you tho it has one flaw. Although it tries to figure out what is or isn't our total universe .Their is one question we haven't all got back to ?" Where the F**K is everybody why only us that we know .That is the true mystery.
