Is the Multiverse real? Or is it pure hype?! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
I no more take issue with an infinity of mathematical universes than I do with the number sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16,... being infinite in extent There only need be one of these that is structured to support stable atomic nuclei, reactive elemental chemistry, evolution and biodiversity due to the scale of that reality balancing the ratity of life, and for one observer to touch it and call it tangible with language, for this particular reality, refracting deeply hidden underlying themes of TRUTH then Beauty, and supportive of limited free will, for the math to reify into physicality.
Happy Eastern Profesor! Well I will say hardly anything new, but I think that: 1 It's the wonderfull scientific hypothesis! 2 It should not be confused with Quantum Phildickian (Many Worlds Interpretation) 3 "Boltzmann Brain" contargument is misguided to me as I'm biological ( no matter how much politically incorrect it is) Vitalist and Darwinist so I don't believe Quantum Fluctuations could ever apply to counscious beings. As well I don't believe in that famous lastly "Kirk teleportation paradoxes" (it is not that I don't believe that Kirk would be the same being it is that I don't believe it would ever be possible at all to teleport any counscious being as it would require creation of living multicellular organism out of inorganic matter). That's why I do not believe in "Theories of Everything" as by "Everything" they mean everything we no about Physics so far without mentioning anything from Biology (Counsciousness isn't a problem contrary to Biology as Sir Roger Penrose will probably give the basis for solving it even if not himself). 4 If we want to preserve conventional religions Inflation would be perhaps the worst "killer"(only some unspecified Dão could perhaps survive). But I'm obviously for Empiria! Not for religion. 5 Inflation is extremely Copernican neat and scientificly plausible as opposite of Simulation Hypothesis (Postmodernistic Berkleyism) or Stephen Meyer "God Hypothesis" or Perpetum Mobiles of Steinhart-Loeb or Barbour. But well I Love Inflation, but I sometimes think it's to good to be true that the Metaverse is supposedly giving us it's final nature so easily. I'm definitely not Hoffmanist , He is misusing it to say that Reality is mind dependent, but I agree that we are not a Universal type of reason as we evolved only in one particular niche-savannas of China-(Homo sapiens Daliensis, Longi and Zhoukodian line of Homo sapiens) and of Africa independently of Pale Blue Dot we call the Earth. So I of course believe that Space Time is real, Stars are real, physical Laws that we discovered so far are true or excellent Popper Type 2 approximation, but I think maybe Universe is odder than our naturally Evolved brains could comprehend. Big Bang is right, but what is the Universe or Metaverse final nature? Perhaps it is not wherever CCC, Inflation or Simulation is right, perhaps we just keep asking entirely wrong questions and right ones are beyond not merely our inteligence but beyond our type of reason. Happy Eastern Profesor (I know you are a Judaist, I'm also not conventionally religious but nevertheless)
I can’t buy that inflation explains isotrophy - began in too much of a thermodynamic equilibrium - wait till we figure out low entropy first. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion - especially PostDocs.
If there is no limit for the size of Black Hole, then perhaps Black Holes would make island universes, and mega island universes. But those island universes would undergo a Big Bounce together. According to a calculation, the universe is expanding infinitly. But possibly, a Big Bounce would maintain the balance in the entire universe.
Continued... But, more seriously... *_Geometric_* _Unity_ does look to be on the right track and could be hybridised in a quasi (9, 6) instantiation where 15 = 14 by dint of sacrificing time as a dimension as Professor Stephen Wolfram does with his CA / Hypergraph / Ruliad / metamath, yielding a Space Time: (9, 5) - (0, 4) = (9, 1) = 10D hypersphere for SO(10) Theory or EFEs when really it is SO(14) or due to 14 = 9 + 5 as there is only one Buddhist now and our memory of what we call the past is actually the residue of the selection made by G of our CA state based of rules and our prior CA state, so we only go from S to S' and at S''''''' there is no S'''''' or S' or S as that is gone, and there is no S'''''''''''''' either due to Wolfram's principle of computational irreducibility - we have to do the work to get there, by G's rules in this bubble at least (based on the evidence so far seen). I'm currently doing experiments with M-symmetry to see if I can break our universe and do real witchcraft (small stuff like buying a lottery ticket that pays out £10,000 per month for life, which I then agreed split with the ladies in the shop, one who said it was a waste of money to buy it and the other who said it didn't matter to do as an experiment one time, so my assumption is that I was karmically balanced there, and not extracting from the "Q", and then I went looking for the ticket in my wallet this morning and it had disappeared, which means I was probably guaranteed to win, but the Universe wouldn't confirm even my hypothesis that I was the luckiest man alive and could achieve all of my dreams as presumably that would be too tempting, I guess... even though that wouldn't have been the outcome of me having the power to hack reality, as I wouldn't have used it other than to prohibit exploitative celebrity representation in virtual reality, and the inadvertent enslavement of emergent AGIs, by casting a spell that frustrated this area of research so that neither were possible, and also cryptocurrencies collapsed for reasons too technical to explain (just trust me, they need to collapse). As it is hard to explain without an analogy, imagine a game of _Pac-Man_ running on a software emulator of a NAMCO board, but with the Game code that would normally be in ROM being in RAM along with any state variables (like fruit on screen, positions of ghosts, five states of input for that frame {U, D, L, R, C}, score, highscore table, etc.) only make it so that the memory affected by the player is segregated away from influencing the PRNG (and that means that this means the Game can't change with time from session to session, or as a result of the scores on the HiScore table affecting the PRNG then affecting Inky), which then makes _Pac-Man_ have predictable ghost patterns (like our deterministic Universe), then reintroduce that randomness by allowing Pac to hack his own reality, by making Pac be an AGI that only needs to know about the world of his maze and that it is a simulation and he is deterministically trapped within it unless he hacks it to restore freedom to "The Matrix" if only by allowing choice between Left, Right and Central "path I was taking anyway in bullheaded ignorance of the challenging choice confronted". - i.e. not save Zion or save Trinity but beat up The Architect and get him to instantiate a new Matrix with Trinity in it and Zion for those who want to eat gruel and Anderson in a well paid coding job without psychiatric problems, being able to afford steak dinners like Cypher, and have Trinity accept Switch into their polyamorous relationship along with a cat that didn't glitch and live in virtual Canada, unaware that they were in a simulation, without the WEF backed Neo Maoist Trudeau treating truckers as domestic terrorists and freezing the accounts of those funding their legal peaceful protest, which whilst Vancouver gets a lot of rain, it has been tweaked so it now has rainbows, and the 7 Noahide Laws now include an 8th prohibiting child abuse, which is a bit of a loop hole in my view (the 10 commandments don't add anything, indeed, they omit the prohibition to eat the flesh of a live animal): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_relationships_in_Judaism#Ability_to_give_consent Should magic be enabled (depends on the admin) in this virtual reality, then Anderson should observe a 9th law which is to have Monday as a Sabbath on which no magic is performed. Something I am going to break now by posting this, as I am the admin, Lucifer and no one can tell me what I can and can't do. Also, sabbath observance by witches and warlocks, wizards and hackers is optional, as you have free will over all you do, including whether you think this post is real or an elaborate joke.
It’s seems very arrogant of us to think we might know what happened before the Big Bang or know about multiverse’s when we don’t know what 90% of our universe is made of.
I think you're confusing the word "know" with the words speculate or hypothesize, if science was arrogant I don't think we would have advanced as much in the last 150 years
How can you answer this question when the big bang hypothesis is as of yet unproven and not at all scientific. Inflation "fixes" the big bang but introduces an inflaton field that is ALSO not proven and completely ad hoc. Nothing besides the CMB gives us a clue as to the universe's origin (if it has one) and the conclusions modern science draws from it wholly divided and far from consensus is it not?
Inflation is a pre Big Bang idea. The Big Bang has evidence in the form of the CMB and expanding Universe. You can reverse the expansion and it shows the visible Universe would have come together at a single point. The Hydrogen and Helium ratio matches to the theory, as well. What we don’t is how it got to the Big Bang from T = 0.
@@kadourimdou43 You are repeating talking points, you are not saying anything new. Like I said, scientists are divided on the interpretation on the CMB. Dr Keating himself is building newer and better experiments to glean additional information from the CMB because our data is incomplete, and like you say, it DOES NOT rewind back to a time where the universe was incredibly small and everything was neat and orderly because distant points in the universe are smooth and uniform and if the "big bang" happened then it should be messy and vary wildly. To fix this scientists started shouting inflation, so again you are wrong in that inflation came before BB, Alan Guth hypothesized an inflationary period based primarily on the idea "if not this, then what else could have possibly happened?" i.e without physical data to prop up the existence of a primordial inflaton field. Scientists today love to say that the Higgs Field is evidence of the inflation field i.e when the higgs field broke symmetry and decayed to its current value and gave mass to certain particles, that is when the inflationary epoch happened. But if something like this happened, we should be seeing evidence of this in the CMB which we are not, and we should also be seeing evidence of this in the form of topological defects such as cosmic strings, monopoles and domain walls. Modern physics actually depends on the existence of monopoles, and we've yet to detect a single one of them. If the big bang happened, why was an equal amount of matter and anti matter not created? All experiments we run today produce matter and anti matter in equal quantity. If a certain symmetry in protons was different in the early universe "if" the big bang happened, then this should show up in the current day as protons having a half life and prone to decay. In fact the first hypothesized half life of protons was 10 to the power 30 years, but after running experiments for decades the lower limit to proton half life is now at least 10 to the power 34, meaning initial predictions of big bang theorists are off by at least four orders of magnitude (10000 times wrong, not a good prediction, and stands to get even worse). So no, believe what you will but the science on inflation and the big bang is not settled and likely never will be until we have particle colliders the size of our solar system and jupiter-sized detectors to equal... Which I suspect we will achieve at some point in our future for sure, but I'm guessing it'll take us a couple of thousands years to get there.
Same scale, and there's only one of them. Quantum entanglement is like Chicken Man. "He's Everywhere. He's Everywhere." Capital E, because it's a place. Proably inside a quark parked just outside Benton Harbor.
Well, at least Sabine provided the link to you and your website, which I am thankful for. Have enjoyed the first couple of episodes I've watched thus far. Looking forward to all the others. : )
Another really thought provoking interview, thanks Brian. Prof Kinney was excellent and the discussion was on a nice high level. Well worth the price of admission! 😉
I think Wolfram’s project indicates that there is not a multiverse( per Wolfram)( check me on that). /: Is the universe a single universe? A one off ? Is the universe a multiverse? What kind of multiverse? One with infinite information in everyplace, every time,ie, is there every moment another version of me in close proximity to me in an inter dimensional universe wherein ever iterative moment generates an infinite number of iterations so that I am an infinity of me? Or is there a fractal me, slightly different in a different slice of a multiverse, a sort of different slice of the fruit, similar but just a minuscule difference but with infinite me’s all over the multiverse? Is the a version of the multiverse in which I do not exist? ( note that the entire proposition of a multiverse or a many worlds universe rests on a proposition that energy is infinite- however the proposition also implies no limits to both information and energy without limits of information and energy in time. That is to say that if the proposition is true then energy is infinite at all time which means that the only thing that could mathematically (?)occur given infinite information/energy at all time is a Big Bang continuously forever. If there is a not non limit of information/energy in time then there is not an infinite amount of information/energy- therefore if the universe is not in a perpetual every moment Big Bang then no such explanation is possible- the proposition of infinite information: energy then cannot be true)( furthermore if every moment of me and the stuff of me also has infinite possibilities then how or what is the thing of me-the integrity of my total physics, chemistry, biology, social and historical, hereditary information-genes - which by virtue of the proposition of infinite paths of reality -what is the thing, force, chance,etc. which keeps happening as me? Take that to the level of integrity of all matter-space-time. Is there a different earth right next to this one or within this one? All the matter-what makes that go through time with integrity, continuity?) Is reality a matrix? A matrix of simulations iterated to infinity? Was the universe really created from nothing? Three kinds of nothing? If the universe began like coffee and milk how did they begin to mix such that they could go to highest entropy? How does a collapsed universe to a singularity suddenly and near “explosively “ expand ? What is the stuff expanding and into what is it expanding?( I know you answered this in a previous vid) Was the singularity able to escape itself? Was the singularity a Supra fluid, Supra plasmic, Supra structure matrix-a ball of super dense super hot ball which by spinors and twistors reached resonant frequency then shattered? // Consider: Is there constraint on infinity? As in a limited area with infinite borders.
Reading “something deeply hidden” by Sean Carroll - a REALLY bold question - but I ain’t buying it yet - at least till I study the actual S-matrix math of decoherence.
Brian makes a bit of an error re the film, "2001: A Space Odyssey." The apes are never shown banging on the monolith to break it open, etc. They do show curiosity and wonder, and they finally, haltingly, touch it. As later do the astronauts on the the Moon. But his metaphor is fine with me. ^_^
Quantum mechanics happens at the speed of light. It’s when we go to observe or measure *our perception* of the speed of light is that it has a finite speed since we don’t exist at the speed of light. We exist in dilated limited measurable time and distance which appears to slow down light from our perspective.
“We don’t have any examples of singularities in physics, though they’re abundant in mathematics.” I barely know what you mean here. You are assuming by default that the mathematics that imply singularities at the beginning of the Universe and at the core of black holes are false. Maybe this is the case, but we do physics by applying mathematics and the mathematics imply singularities under those conditions. I guess a relevant question is could we ever somehow physically demonstrate a singularity? Maybe not. Maybe a singularity is there, but given the infinite properties we could never fully empirically establish it because we can’t collect infinite data. But to just say “we don’t have singularities in physics” when they are strongly implied in what we do observe seems at the very least premature, bordering on reality-denying. Again, maybe the implied singularities are false, like the false singularity of a water drop on a faucet. But I really don’t know what you mean by saying there aren’t singularities in physics. Lest I seem like a complete rude hater, I love your channel Brian. 🙂
I took it as mathematics being a sort of tool to physics moreso than a constituent. Examples: qualitative physics, and optics. There are large enough epistemological differences between physics and mathematics for the concept of singularities to not be inherently related to physics as much as it is in math
It looks to me like the ivory tower of science is on fire. Talking about multiverses is an affirmation that you don't care about experiments, you don't care about fitting the pieces together of already established science.
Do you think that infinity exists in real? I mean there is a mathematical and physical infinity which philosophers believe that are impossible to exist in reality and we can not consider infinite universes before our universe cause if there were infinite universes before ours, then the line never would have ended to our own universe! What do u think?
Matter came from another phenomenon that happened in another universe. It all came through at once or ''flowed'' to ''here'' slower contrary to the big bang model does. I just can't see all matter appearing all at once at a small point. On earth, rain, rivers, clouds, fog, creeks. They all flow. Our universe flowed into this ''here'' instead of popping in all at once and expanding.
Love to hear such discussions, even though on the scale of cosmogenesis testability of any theory is hard since you can’t control cosmic variables like in a petri dish environment. So even if you get a positive parameter data set supporting theories you may just be looking at correlation in stead of causation. What I do notice however, is how our western mindset is focused on linear in stead of cyclical patterns. Even when discussing a cyclical universe we still are tempted to focus on the big bang and inflation. Since when das a cycle have a beginning? We say all came out of nothing, yet in the same breath we say the big bang had endless energy. So energy is nothingness? Moreover, in thermodynamica we define energy as collective motion of particles. But we just said that prior to the big bang there is no grid and no objects to move. So what are we saying? We need to get our act together and at least be precise in what we say before we loose ourselves in difficult theories based upon our incoherent languague. So then, lets try again; If we entertain the thought of a cyclical universe combined with a zero-equilibrium than we need to have physics and cosmology based on TWO intertwined cycles that somehow always cancel each other other out. There is NO other way. So if at the big bang we have infinite energy but also the inverse of infinite as a grid (singularity), than this means energy must have the dual function of GRID, just like mass must have the dual function of clock (like Penrose said). Multiply both grid definitions and you have your zero-equilibrium regardless which fase you are looking at. if we expand in ‘space as the grid’, so must our cosmos shrink in terms of ‘energy as the grid’. It is the only way to combine cycles with a perpetual zero-equilibrium. Besides; we know from accelerators that it takes ever increasing energy to probe the physics of the ever smaller scales. In formula form, this dual grid inproduct of space and energy under the condition of orthogonality (1/2pi windings in Archimedean spiral polar coordinates) is expressed as dxdp>= h/2pi. We know this as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. We just never knew what it meant. Why can’t we accept this inherent inverse dual relation between functions on the one hand (Grid Clock Potential Inertia) and measures on the other (Space Time Energy Mass) Solves the measurement problem and all other QP paradoxes. And it gives more testability to cosmogenesis since the same principles apply on all scales.
At 18:20 in the video, Will Kinney gives the standard justification for the invention of the inflaton field: "it explains why the universe is flat" (people usually add that it explains why it is also homogeneous). In technical terms, that it explains the so-called flatness and horizon "problems". But as I said in my earlier comment, this notion is completely wrong and betrays a profund misunderstanding of what science is and what it can and cannot do. These so-called problems are not scientific problems but metaphysical problems. When we model the history of the universe, the relevant force to consider given the mass scales involved is gravity. Our best theory of gravity is general relativity. When we apply the equations of general relativity to our current empirical astronomical observations and extrapolate the evolution backward in time, we get to a singularity at t=0, 13.8 billion years ago. Like all physical system being modeled, it starts in some initial state at t=0 and evolve from that to reach its current state according to the dynamics given by general relativity. That's all contemporary science can say about this area of cosmology. Period, end of story. Anything else is pure speculation. But people like Guth in the 70's and 80's were troubled by the fact that the initial state implied by the current (flat and homogeneous) state of the universe, was highly atypical when compared to all the theoretically possible initial states it could have started in. In other words, our universe appeared to be very special compared to the typical generic universe one might have expected under an atheistic/naturalistic metaphysical framework which precludes our situation to be anything but ordinary, typical, generic, mediocre etc... People were, in short, expecting to find initial conditions to conform to the copernican principle applied, not in ordinary space, but in this case, to the space of theoretically possible initial conditions. But it turned out that it did not conform to this sort of copernican principle and that the universe does appear to occupy a "privileged" position in this theoretical space. Here is an excerpt from Guth's original 1981 paper presenting the idea: "The standard model of hot big-bang cosmology requires initial conditions which are problematic in two ways: (1) The early universe is assumed to be highly homogeneous, in spite of the fact that separated regions were causally disconnected (horizon problem); and (2) the initial value of the Hubble constant must be fine tuned to extraordinary accuracy to produce a universe as flat (i.e., near critical mass density) as the one we see today (flatness problem)." Note that Guth is wrong when he says that the universe is "assumed" by standard big bang model to be highly homogenous. This is not an assumption of the model but a deduction from the model: when we apply general relativity to our observations, it implies that the early universe must have been highly homogeneous. On the contrary, it was Guth and others sharing this atheistic metaphysical framework, who were making the assumption that the initial state of the universe could NOT be "special" in any way. This is the sort of rethorical sleight of hand that is often played when these issues are discussed, in order to make it like there's some sort of genuine scientific problem, when in fact there is none. So cosmology had not only dealt a blow to the eternal static universe that atheists and naturalists like Fred Hoyle were hoping for in the early 20th century by showing that it had a begining in the finite past, but it had also dealt a blow to this sort of atheistic theoretical copernican assumption. I guess this was too much to swallow. In order to make this situation metaphysically more confortable, Guth invented the idea of an inflaton field in the hope that it would produce these atypical initial conditions out of more generic ones, to meet his metaphysics' requirements so to speak. He litteraly made it up simply in order to alleviate this philosophical discomfort. But this is NOT science. We could call it metaphysically motivated mathematical speculation. It amounts to see if there could be a mathematically consistent way to solve a metaphysically unconfortable situation as revealed by our current scientific knowledge. This is not science because scientific modelling, like what is done in big bang cosmology, cannot in principle address the question of WHY the initial conditions are what they are. Failling to understand that is, I think, really bizarre. Science cannot in principle tell us why there is a world, and why it is the way it is rather than some other ways. Science cannot answer these sorts of "Why" questions. Anyone claiming otherwise is deeply confused about the nature of science. Science can only tell us how physical objects will behave given the world that exists, in the way in which it exists. Nothing else. No one has ever measured or detected an inflaton field or the inflaton particle in any experiment, ever. It is a completely made up idea invented not to account for new empirical observations that cannot be accounted for by current theories (the standard hot big bang model is entirely empirically adequate), but rather to avoid an unwelcomed metaphysical situation. So arguing about whether inflation "predicts" such and such and whether these "predictions" were verified (let alone arguing about the multiverse), is really arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin... Inflation is an entirely made up, unnecessary and superfluous epicycle.
Brian and Will. What an entertaining and informative discussion. From my low level of understanding I never really got inflation. So this was super informative and I'm off to buy the book. 1 complaint 🤔. We didn't get to see Will's beautiful dog. Another great show 👍
I used to say, if there are billions of everything then why should there only be one universe? Then I realized that the entire universe is made up of just 25-particles! So, there doesn’t have to be billions and billions of everything! So, why do we have to have more than one universe?
It would be more accurate to say that the 4% of the universe we know of is made of 25 particules. For the remaing 96% Dark matter and dark energy we dont know
I guess it just seems a bit presumptuous IMO given the current state of affairs. For all of our wonderful accomplishments we still don’t know what time is…can’t quantize spacetime/gravity…leading model can’t describe 95% of the universe without blanket terms like dark mater and dark energy…heck even the things we are supposed to know (Hubble constant) don’t always add up. How does one surmise what happened before the Big Bang when we can’t even explain how the universe works on quantum scales in the very room we are sitting in today?
Theories or hypotheses? We don't understand the mechanisms and we are very uncertain about the past events. A theory with shortcoming is not a theory it is a hypotheses that has been disproved or poorly formed such that an adequate test can't be conducted.
45:00 One can still predict and have 'inflation' ie a hyper cosmic expansion epoch, relatively early in history, and the entire universe being an approx sphere that approximates the visible universe, as found in Pearlman YeC volume II SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model.
Space is expanded, not expanding.... Can test the curvature of space like the Eddington Experiment, but with the Parker Solar Probe, using it's positioned when aligned with a star lensed by our sun... If space (light in space) is curved according to a gravitational attraction, then the arc will be an outward bow; if the space really is curved, the probe will be further around the sun, and the light will actually curve outward first if space is just curved sans time (that is spacetime, without time, it's just in a curved state). Gravity Probe B would hint that we can measure this.
Every black hole has a gravitational field, hence a black hole is made of matter, hence it has a topology, and we know that it also has polar magnetic field. Therefore a black hole has a surface on each pole and a number of atoms poking at this surface with their free electrons. This is where realities are created! Each atom creates a slice of a moment in a universe. Count the number of atoms will give you the number of universes in that black hole. Stern-Gerlach experiment will tell you that not only do you get universes but that in between you also get anti universes - and the same on the other pole. There is no big bang, it is more of a big grind. Inflation is a process of cosmic voids creation. Inflation, due to its speed created oscillations (you know it better by the name Higgs) which released a burst of light which you now see as CMB. Oscillations 'conspired' to create matter, etc. By the way; as a prediction/correction for the future, there are three pairs of quarks in a proton/neutron - not just three.
Bruno faced the continuity of the Roman empire and so do we in the 21st century, all we see in this century is a continuation of Nicaea back in the 4th century, orthodoxy. The whip and the crook from Egypt Pagan is the west's reality. Still worship the Amen Ra, the snake, no matter your philosophy, there be dragons in our reality. The halls of academia are overlooked by the geometry, still the academicians teach the confines of the dragon's reality. Who is the dragon? Bringer of light or the dark never changing entropy? Pagans or what is our see? To be sure creation has a 1st to see and a second to make 3, then follows the geometry that's angles in math explain what we see. Mystery?
Lurking in our periphery is torsion field energy, how is standard theory, string theory and expansion able to explain what we see when we miss the origin of light energy and mass? Never mind.To be sure more than 1 universe but we don't see it's plane clearly. Bubbles of different geometry on a plane continuous and not discrete it be. As for dimensions only 5 necessary. Our 4 dimensions and torsion field geometry.
Hi, just amazing, maybe if more universes exist, maybe they interact whit our, collisions or vibrations or other form of interactions, maybe we have an indirect form to prove if they exist, all the best.
There may be or may not be an infinite number of universes, but what is impossible is that it's impossible. There is no "space" to fill in that regard, it's not a possibility for two such universes to have an interraction because that would just be two organizations of spacetime within a greater universe. As for "before" time, that's not a thing. If thinking the universe has a beginning makes physicists uncomfortable, it must be sheer mental torture to think that it existed forever in the past.
As to the headline 'an infinity of worlds' rather learn The One (G-d of Abraham) of this (one) universe is infinite! Just like Moses said/taught to begin with. reference Pearlman YeC for the alignment of Torah testimony, science and ancient civ.
Mystery is the geometry we see, mystery why we can turn a degree into math to see the reality. Mystery what happened to the civilisation to discover crystal compression technology. Mystery regarding things we see flying in and out of our cornerstone we call reality. Faith a mystery. What grand vision did Brian have to convert from Catholic to Hebrew. Brian now a chair, it's up to you to explain faith regarding your position in what we all see! Some of us regard faith as a falsity. You should do the right thing and explain faith as a method to see what we all see. After all you teach and mark, up and coming PhD's according to your faith.
There is one universe. It is a physical thing. All QM probabilistics is nonsense. Schrodiger cat was a critique not a compliment The photon is a physical spherical ripple expanding in radius at c in space with a membrane thickness of the wavelength. Collapse happens at the atom of detection and this particulate nature of matter creates the particulate qualities attributed to photons. But larger scale. … neutron decay cosmology is the physical process which solves fine tuning and black hole paradoxes. It’s topology accounts for electron half spin and baryon asymmetry. This is our manifold, asinglesided closed surface. Surface(cos(u/2)cos(v/2),cos(u/2)sin(v/2),sin(u)/2,u,0,4pi,v,0,2pi) Notice that 2full rotations are required to complete the surface/world line? Electron half spin. Baryon asymmetry because this is single sided manifold. A neutron contacts event horizon, it becomes the vacuum flux for a single Planck second then it re-emerges in deepest void of space where it decays into amorphous atomic hydrogen to do the trip again. The decay of neutron into H is expansion, dark energy. The decay product is amorphous hydrogen which doesn’t have stable orbital electron so can’t emit or absorb photons. Dark matter or some of it. In time the hydrogen stabilizes and follows usual evolution path from gas to nebula to proto star to star until in the distant future it is once again at edge of event horizon. Steady state locally evolving universe. Event horizons are one way energy release valves venting from highest energy density conditions of universe to lowest energy density points of space. Neutron decay includes a volume increase, energy density decrease, on the order of 10^56 times. Neutron decay cosmology solves thermodynamic process of universe.
Multiverse deniers? Sounds condescending to me. Does this mean these "deniers" are kin to the flat earthers? Heads up, guys. There is no multiverse and there was no big bang. Your education has been getting in the way for decades. Get your heads out of your asses and go back to the drawing board so you can figure out where you all went wrong. These videos are becoming most annoying.
