Anybody else love it when there’s an episode where Matt says “Ten to the power of ten to the power of..”? I always know it’s something mind-blowing when that comes up. Ok, PBS Spacetime is very often mind-blowing, but “Ten to the power of ten to the power of..” seems to be a special treat.
It's still less then infinite. Which is curious, when you know that our "bubble universe" itself should be infinite in size since the big bang, but still expands. When you end with paradoxes, you know you are wrong and some of your assumptions are incorrect or only a samll part of the picture.
Assuming the dark energy, and dark matter quantum exponent between both universes is not equal to the quantum exponent of matter, then one universes would cancel the other out in time as space would differ. The Exponential nature between what was found during the findings of the Higgs Boson, a photon could travel between universes and the dark field would cancel out.
*THE MAN OR THE WOMAN WHO MUST BREAK SOMETHING IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND IT'S PURPOSE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING* J.R.TolkinLoreMaster 21th century planet earth
@Fedora Eagle I don't understand how a comment so irrelevant like this one can get so many likes and comments. The world is really turning into an idiocracy.
The truth is your mathematics is weaker than you wish, therefore you watch to escape the fact that you maybe in the wrong field. Or your just bored with your professors.
Thanks for covering the planet definition issue in detail at the end, and giving air (finally) to the biggest problems with the definition. Great show as always.
It's kind of assumed that there is a "time" dimension (that may or may not be linear) that exists as a shared parameter in the calculus between all the universes. The inflaton field, where the bubbles expand inside and collapse randomly in, has it's dynamics, and I suppose that dynamic state can define time for all worlds. (Or you could just define time as the number of universes currently existing! Since the spawn rate is faster than our plank-scale theoretical limits of measurement, that would be more than good enough as a multi-universal clock.)
There would be time if these bubble universes are created in another bubble universe that is already expanding so quick that these universes can start popping up. And eventually more universes might pop in in these new universes when they olso expanded enought .
Best reason is the FACT of how many worlds are in THIS smaller type galaxy alone. 400 BILLION if not much more star systems and there are billions of galaxies out there. To doubt we are alone is simply dumb.
@Chris Chu Supposedly trillions of galaxies, based upon the latest info. I have a video in my playlists about it, on another channel. And I think you meant to say "To think we are alone", the word doubt is to disbelieve which leads to giving up, wrong word. : ) @Winston Deleon I disagree, that's thinking small or "short - sighted", and having too much doubt. The way our emerging technology is coming so fast, and our good innovation, I do believe we will find some bacteria / micro - organisms, and maybe animal / plant life on other planets. You can never say for sure to the absolute.. that we won't find anything or even intelligent life. Because we don't know yet until we search, look at the moons around Jupiter and Saturn, oceans underneath one of them that could have bacteria that could be slowly changing over time "evolving" spoilers God does create different species of animals, other than humans. And there might even be aquatic life in the ocean underneath the moon's surface that is around the other planet, or just bacteria if nothing else, and Nasa is excited to find out. They also find new planets all the time, I think there are 4 to 19 new planets discovered every day in our Galaxy, and especially close to our solar system, in other solar systems nearby. They have noticed the little black dots that they thought were sun spots, going around other stars in other solar systems, were actually planets, so we are discovering a lot of new things all the time. Our space transmissions / communications are advancing with emerging technologies, look at Nasa's Mars CubeSats 1 and 2, they were able to transmit data from Mars to Earth in 3 minutes, for future "solar system" communication, and I think that technology will mature over time to be faster for wider ranges throughout our solar system. Look at Quantum Teleportation, Australia plans to build a Quantum Internet by 2030 with this emerging technology, to share with Europe, no word on the U.S. The Netherlands plans to expand their cities with their Quantum Internet, and share it with the world in 3 years. Now imagine using that same Quantum Teleportation for small things like Data transmission / communications for space communications. If you are wondering about everything said, you can find everything mentioned in playlists I have on another channel. And if you are curious about emerging technology and beyond, to get a really good idea on what we can do now, very soon "few years or less", or even a little later after that in the 2020's, also check my playlists. ------------------------------------------------ I was giving out helpful links, but it won't allow me to do that now, so I made playlists. 1. Check my channel, find a subscribed channel called Technology Research, go to the playlists there, and click "created playlists", that should show them all. 2. After that, click on the title / text of each playlist, not on the pictures. 3. Don't forget to click the "more" button in each playlist description for more articles and playlists.
Poes Law Haha yes I agree. Contrails are quite real. Though if you notice, I typed Chem, not con-trails. But pretty sure you're joking. If so, good one.
This is a fine discussion, especially the perspective on Fermi's Paradox, but the most important thing I took from this was, we really need to talk about where I can get that t-shirt.
So, bit late to the party, but this video has me asking a question: If bubble universes can meet (even if they have to start off absurdly close together to do so), wouldn't that allow for the creation of expanding regions entirely contained or "trapped" between a network of connected universes? In a simplified 2d version of this, you could imagine 4 universes, in a square pattern, so that the edges of all 4 bubbles meet shortly after the pop into existence. But if you timed it just right, and set them just the right amount away, there would still be a region of exponential inflation right in the middle of it. I have no idea what the implications of this would be, but it seems hard to imagine.
Perhaps such a structure would rapidly end up as something like a shockwave as the space inside expands, inflating the surrounding universes like the skin of a balloon?
I don't understand how this argument is supposed to work. The Fermi Paradox is a description for the likelihood of life within OUR universe. This is still equally likely or unlikely across all stars and galaxies. That there exist multiple, independent, universes doesn't change this. The likelihood of life forming within any ONE of those bubble universes is still the same and still described by the FP. If anything, this just adds one more variable to the FP equation, assuming that it is even worth considering; as it is largely just academic as we lack any known method to travel to, communicate, or even observe these other pocket universes.
The multiverse it never ends It just goes on and on my friend Some universes Started popping up not knowing what it was And now they'll keep on popping up forever just because!
Bogdan Vera An excellent read, and I may have understood half of it. But after finishing it, I came up with two answers, either one or an infinite number as there is simply no logical reason for a finite number of universes.
“Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.” D Adams...
I have conflicted feelings about the Youngness Paradox. On the one hand, I like it because I have been arguing for years now that the reason we don't see anyone else out there is that we're first (because someone has to be). On the other hand, it sounds suspiciously like the Doomsday Argument which I dislike but I don't know my way around statistics enough to properly articulate my intuition that it's a load of baloney.
I have the same problem with it. There is no reason to suspect that the rate of civilization generation in a single universe is dependent on the number of universes in total. It's not exactly like the doomsday argument, but it does have that same ab initio feel. What makes you think we are the first and only life? Or the first and only civilization? I am more of a late filter, doomsday tech guy. The doomsday tech is obviously Facebook.
@@davidhand9721 Given the conspicuous lack of evidence of any [interstellar] other civilizations out there, and given that the current age of the universe is about as young as it could be to give rise to concentrations of heavier elements (Fe in particular), I think it is not only reasonable to assume we're first (or at least, not significantly further behind in technological development than anyone else currently out there), but imperative that we act and plan as if we are [on the verge of being] first because if there are stakes to be claimed in the galaxy, it's important we plant those flags before everyone else beats us to them and we're stuck being the Alabama of the galaxy with only a single yellow dwarf to our name.
I have conflicted feelings about two-tiered comments. - On one hand it's a great way to join a band wagon. On the other hand, it's just a great way of feigning some sort of creativity you don't possess, at least not enough to do it without a huge blank waste of space that really means "prepare to have your mind blown... but not really"... and, also, "I don't know what a colon is for, like educated people".
the idea that we are the first intelligent life in the universe, because the amount of universes created each second is more than the last, and so the vast majority of intelligent life is the first, is ... phew. it shakes me.
Zsolt Donca OMG, I noticed that too. Almost evil or excited? Hos facial expressions are always very animated. Them eyebrows tho! ;) Wondering too, if he frequents the discord and how many are members now. It's all interesting :)
@@willinwoods The actual quote he's referencing is, "“Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.” From (the late) Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy. It's a Science Fiction comedy series; originally a BBC radio show broadcast in 1978, then novelized by Adams, (there are 4 or 5 books in the "trilogy," as he jokes.), and adapted for BBC TV in 1981, and also an American movie from 2005. It's a modern classic. (It was also a popular early text-only PC game.)
They reserved word "planet" for bodies in our solar system? The future human galactic civilization will certainly come to think this was a totally smart decision
I'm still confused about how different physics from one universe to another universe manifests. Let's say we're comparing the strong nuclear force between two universes. Does "different physics" mean the strength of the strong nuclear force is different between the two? Or, does "different physics" mean the strong nuclear force will exist in one universe but not the other? Or, does it mean something else?
Physics rise from the 4 fundamental interactions or fundamental forces, are the interactions that do not appear to be reducible to more basic interactions. There are four fundamental interactions known to exist: the gravitational and electromagnetic interactions, which produce significant long-range forces whose effects can be seen directly in everyday life, and the strong and weak interactions, which produce forces at minuscule, subatomic distances and govern nuclear interactions. The physics of a universe with let’s say 7 or 3 fundamental interactions will be very different from ours and it’s impossible to visualize or comprehend because we’re so “fine tuned”for this one
@@nareshsahu565 Could even have an extra fundimental force or one less heck I think the most scientific way to explain magic in a fictional universe is basicly a manipulation of those fundimental forces useing a conduit that can properly condut them but he it's pusdo-science like that that's best saved for rpgs where it's a fun extra eliment to add to your world's setting.
@@valentinopopa1686 not just yet but never, anything beyond our universe can only be theorized about, even the big bang itself can only be theorized about U could say that the argument "god created the universe" has the same credibility as the multiverse theory with all it variants
My second take on my problem with the Fermi Paradox explanation: One of the ideas, that is often formulated together with the anthropic principle is the idea, that we are a totally normal, average species, and everything about us is totally normal, typical and average. So, our universe was about 13.8 billion years old, when humanity first appeared, and we therefor assume, that it takes an average universe about 13.8 billion years to produce its first technological civilization. The Fermi Paradox problem is, that according to all we know so far, and assuming, we are the first technological civilization ever, we don't really understand, WHY it took the universe so long to produce us. The circumstances, that we deem necessary for our existence should have occurred multiple times before, even in the time cone of our observable universe. So, the multiverse theory by far can't solve the Fermi Paradox, at best it shifts the question from: "Why did it take the universe 14 billion years to produce us?" to "Why does a given random universe on average need 14 billion years to produce its first technological civilization?"
Make me laugh out loud for a bit. But while I completely agree with the Anthropic Principle, the take on the Fermi Paradox seemed off to me... isnt the paradox supposed to be on the scale of galaxies and not on whole (not just observable) universes? I dont see how additional bubble universes that are likely to never even cross out own would effect the paradox... it's not like life has a hard limit of one sapient species per universe.
There is a great idea! For the dark side of the Universe - suppose that it consists of short-term interactions in long-lived fractal networks, the smallest quantum operators - Spherical «rosebuds», consisting of a large set; 1 - rolled into a sphere, 2 - half rolled into a sphere and 3 - flat, vibrating quantum membranes relative to their working centers in the sphere.
There is certainly something 'off' about calculating probability across spaces that are not causally connected. Prob( A|B ) is meaningless if event B cannot be said in any sense to have happened at all. Also - how do we calculate that all universe bubbles must expand at the speed of light? (the same value of c for our universe?) surely they could all have different values for c? I don't see anything intrinsic about the inflaton field that sets this value.
Math is useful and cool, Im sure that your time spent actually studying GR is vastly more useful than listening to a dude that has. Keep it up, the future needs more scientists :-)
@XY ZW I've seen your replies on other comments and if you are going to continue being a pessimistic and completely useless douche why are you even bothering to reply/comment in the first place? lmao
There are infinite reasons why one could argue GR is bull. Few would go as far as bull, but the infinite problems with GR means it is incomplete or incorrect despite all the ways it is correct.
One possibility which would make a difference to the physics is that any given bubble exists completely in isolation to others: its 'space' cannot collide with that of any other. Also we cannot lay out these bubble universes in the topography of some 'meta-space' since they absolutely cannot share coordinates: Universe A is not any given distance from Universe B. Each exists only within itself.
So if the rate of expansion of our universe is in some way a remnant of primordial exponential expansion and that expansion is ever accelerating would we expect that latter-born universes, on average, would have a faster rate of expansion even at the time they reheat? And if that’s so, would there be an ever increasing proportion of universes expanding too fast for all our lovely complex chemistry to ever arise? A sort of multiversal senescence?
@@niemandkeiner8057 Yes, it would imply that, if it is true. Now, to answer his question, it is important to know whether the inflaton value tends to drop to a fixed value, a random value, or a fraction of its current value. If it drops to a fixed value, or a random value, there will always be more universes spawning every next instant. If it drops to a fraction, we would expect for bubble creation to essentially cease very early, since newer bubbles would have too high a constant and wouldn't slow down all that much.
Sir Isac Newton: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Quantum Mechanics: For every action there is an infinite number of reactions. Weeeee... in another parallell universe I am a yellow stone with eyes...
His statement had nothing to do with simplicity it had to do with assumptions. The idea could be very complex and require less assumptions and therefore be the one more likely.
"Space is big, really big. You just don't believe how vastly, hugely, mind bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think its a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to Space, listen" and so on.
Neth Landas Nice idea, but that means that some of the vibration properties must be the same, in each universe, in order for a hypothetical universe to exist/vibrate in the same way as the other/collided universe. But this explains on what property/vibrate level the two universes might settle down when they collide. It does not explain what happens with other properties. I.E. what will happen when two universes collide, with different cosmological constant? What will be the resulting constant? Will there be any different cosmological constant outside the collision area of the universes. Or one universe(newest one) might change the property altogether when it collides?
This is such a huge question, and I pondered it briefly too. The thing is that we don't understand enough about the nature of reality to know what a number of different universes would be like. Is matter-energy-space-time as we know it a natural state for any universe to have? Is ours special in that way? Would it be more common for energy alone to fill a universe, meaning all life would be spiritual, living energy? Or is it inevitable for the fabric of space-time to force a certain amount of energy in a dimension to collapse into particles and force carriers, yielding matter which form into stars and planets? How different would / could the rule sets of physics be in two different universes? Would one have dominant physics forcing the other dimension to conform to it, or would they adjust to each other, like warm water seeping into cool water? I think the question right now is too hard to answer properly. But I'd love for God to snatch me across to another cosmos sometime so I could look it over and hang out with the inhabitants. ;D One more quick thing. In the background radiation map of the cosmos, there is a dark spot which some people think might have come from a collision / merging with another universe, so it might be happening right now. What a thought.
Our planet is a part of our solar system. Our solar system to our galaxy. Our galaxy to our universe. Our universe to our multi-verse? Our multi-verse to our...?
My problem with the youngness paradox is that it assumes a heck of a lot. Who says we were in the first universe (or one of the first) to form? If anything, in an infinitely expanding multiverse, there's an infinite number of intelligent lifeforms in an infinite number of universes older than us. So, shouldn't intelligent life be an inevitability?
You say a infinite number of life forms that would mean life is common 😐buts it’s not any life form you see was forged a planet like this 😐we are nothing but monkeys with iPhones if you have and intelligent life forms you need to evolve start from bacteria and they evolved a backbone then how they evolved eyes a spine the list goes on 😑and this planet hold the perfect planet to have complex life you think we were formed from aliens ?no we were in a state of darkness for who knows how dam long if anything your experience determined who you are and will be it’s not called determined but super determination 😐I could have Ben bone in any point of this planets history I could have Ben a bird a peacock anything 😐you could say i maybe was one of those things but that’s not how it works 😐before this planet before the Milky Way their was no dna no nothing 😑so what’s the nature of self ? Why do we see the world from first person? It means your built the way you are their is no randomness to it 😑once your a human you will always be a human and their is nothing you can do that will change it even if your atoms are completely destroyed you will still see the world from first person view just like before the only difference is you won’t be aware that your even dead 😐and depending if the universe is finite or not does not matter in s finite universe you still need cause and effect on what created everything and if the universe is infinite that means their is not beginning or end 😐
If the probability of bubble universes collisons are so unlikely, then it renders Guth's "youngest paradox" irrelevent - since it considers intelligent life on other bubble universes.
It depends: did you define universe as "everything in existence", "everything we can affect or be affected by", "everything that follows our laws of physics", or something else?
some make a difference betweend lowercase u and uppercase U, where the first describes our cozy little patch of spacetime 93 billion lightyears across (wich we are kind of sure exists) and the second describes everything after that, including multipverses (really the upper limit of everything, but like donno if it's really there). Not that this is an english oddity. In german for example, all nouns are uppercase by definition and this wouldn't make much sense.
Hearing folks speculate over there being 'multiple universes' is quite humorous, as we don't even know the size of our current one, or if it has limits, is expanding , it's age, etc....
If you're smart enough and think about it a lot you'll come to the same conclusion: That this eternal inflation is actually the most simple solution possible. Thats how they come up with it. They look at what we know and think "what is the MOST simple possible explanation". To understand this you first have to understand that infinite universes existing is an overall more simple system than only one universe existing. The only thing simpler than infinite universes is zero universes, but we do know that our universe exists.
My 7 year old son came up with a good question while watching this video with me. If two bubble universes collide, and they had different laws of physics to start with, what happens at the colliding boundary?
You would have to analyze the differences to infer any interaction of any kind. That's many lifetimes of research. Besides, no-one would notice any changes taking place in the first instant.
The universe with the highest level will drop to the lower level. That means that if we collide with an universe that can't produce atoms, our energy level will drop to that level and matter will disgregate. On a side note, it might have happened but we would never see it because the messenger is light, so it would never reach us. Yes it's weird.
If you are going to ask why is the univerce expanding it might not , it may just float , on a 5d field , just going backwards and around in time in an infinity , witch might be as big as plank lenght or actually infinite , it is not our job to know
Truly, lol. These modern scientists, possibly just hungry and looking for funding, really and truly overplay their hand. Big bang requires that 68% of the universe is made up of yet to be observed or clearly defined "dark energy" and 27% of yet to be observed or clearly defined "dark matter".
It would be interesting to hear your alternate explanations that are a better fit for observations, if you don't think current theories / hypotheses are satisfactory.
What if our bubble's strange configuration came from the collision of at least two bubbles with different initial vacuum states and our current life-formation/complex chemistry friendly state is the result of the equalization of such bubbles?
This is my speculation on the topic: For two universes to collide, they should have formed closer than the planck length (12:25). Since planck length is the smallest meaningful (and measurable) length, the universes wouldn't have collided in the first place. Just only one universe formed (because we cannot distinguish between the two universes due to their tiny distance). Therefore there is no equalization, different and distinct independent universes form with different configurations of λ and physical constants.
Cassio Sinz There's nothing strange about our universe's configuration. It's just perfectly tuned for life seemingly at random. So people reason that there's probably many other universes out there which aren't tuned for life with nothing living to observe them. I have a 500-sided dice. All the sides are blank, except for onend only one
@@kieranmackessy2418 Kieran, it also gives me hope. If the multiverse is infinite, that means we will never actually die. And even if we do, there will always be a place in that infinity for us to continue existing again in some form.
@@kevinpotts123 I find comfort in knowing everything has an end. Life, human kind, earth, milky-way, the universe, the stars and eventually Infinite darkness and nothing... sure it sounds depressing. But it also makes you think about how extremely lucky and grateful we all should be to just have been born, and to live in this exact moment ( I know 2020 has been terrible but still we will get over it). In the end we are pretty insignificant in the vast and enormous universe. So enjoy and live our life the best we can.
If the universes do collide/join, don’t they have to follow the same laws of Physics? Not sure, but something about gauge theory. And what type of spacetime is in between the bubble universes?
New evidence supports the idea that we live in an area of the universe that is “just right” for our existence. The controversial finding comes from an observation that one of the constants of nature appears to be different in different parts of the cosmos. If correct, this result stands against Einstein’s equivalence principle, which states that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. “This finding was a real surprise to everyone,” says John Webb of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Webb is lead author on the new paper, which has been submitted to Physical Review Letters. Even more surprising is the fact that the change in the constant appears to have an orientation, creating a “preferred direction”, or axis, across the cosmos. That idea was dismissed more than 100 years ago with the creation of Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Read more: www.newscientist.com/article/dn19429-laws-of-physics-may-change-across-the-universe/#ixzz616H9gCH0
There is only one universe. “ I AM” I think therefore I exist. Everything else is just a product of my thoughts. We are an ever changing ever expanding SINGULARITY
I imagine the infinity and our universe like this... An infinite pool, and every universe is a drop of rain on the surface... our universe, a tiny speck hitting the surface, a few tiny tiny waves, and is gone. And every drop is a universe that will never meet one another, and the waves, even if quintillions of light years long, they all are like the size of a coin on that pool surface... coming and going every second
In the beginning of our universe: "You have 1 universe." One Planck time after the Big Bang: "You have 1 universe, with a 1 in 1.033e9 chance of a second universe." Today: "You have e3.39e51 universes." End of (our) Black Hole Era of this universe: "You have e2.45e141 universes." Approximately 7.31e266 years from now: "You have e1.80e308 universes."
I've seen it on calculators before, but only assumed it was a generic error code, and never thought much of it. But now I'm thinking it may be a numerical shorthand of some form.
@@acrosstheacross677 For example, 1.23e4 is the same as 1.23 * 10^4, but if you have something like "e1.23e4", then that means 10^(1.23 * 10^4). Since there's no leading number in front of the first "e", it is assumed that the leading number before the first "e" is 1. If you had something like "1.23e4.56e7", then since the leading number is not 1, it gets multiplied/tacked on to the alternate representation, making it "1.23 * 10^(4.56 * 10^7)". The numbers are so large that it is of the form "eXeY" because Matt O'Dowd says that every second, the eternal inflation field multiplies the existing universe count by 10^10^34, or in other words, "ee34". The large numbers can be seen at github.com/Patashu/break_eternity.js and dan-simon.github.io/misc/b2/
This video made so much sense and answered so many questions i had. The reason collisions are likely rare is that the space between the bubbles is expanding faster than the bubbles themselves. Kind of like us not being able to reach distant galaxies. I just won't to know if there's particles between the bubbles? Or it's just a quantum field?
The Youngness Argument is neat, but it still doesn't address the Fermi Paradox: the extremely high estimated probability that intelligent life would have evolved long *before* humans *within* our observable universe. It fails to explain why intelligent life took 14 billion years to form in a universe which has been abundant with habitable exoplanets since as early as 17 million years after the Big Bang, according to some predictions. To follow the Youngness Argument to its logical conclusion, you would predict an average conscious observer within the multiverse to be living at the very moment a universe becomes habitible, as the first conscious member of their species. This year is not in the earliest era of conscious humankind, and our universe is not 17 million years young. Therefore, the Youngness Argument actually seems to give logical reasoning *against* the validity of the multiverse theory!
@DigitalDan Me neither. I really fail to see how the amount of separate, non-interacting universes has any effect on the question of the Fermi Paradox within any one particular universe - beyond someone saying "but probabilities !" The question of the likely-hood of a Fermi Paradox at the multiverse level, yes - possibly - if that even has a meaning, but not the reasoning behind the conundrum given the constraints of a singular case. That said, i'm more than happy to be convinced otherwise !
