How Did The Universe Come Into Existence? Brian Greene on The Multiverse & The Fine Tuning Argument

How Did The Universe Come Into Existence? Brian Greene on The Multiverse & The Fine Tuning Argument
SUBSCRIBE to "Science Time": / sciencetime24
Why does our universe appear so exquisitely tuned to create the conditions necessary for life? This is a question that has troubled cosmologists and physicists for decades.
Brian Greene explains how the mind-boggling idea of a multiverse may hold the answer to the puzzle. According to Greene, if there are infinitely many universes, it shouldn’t be too surprising that one ended up with the right conditions for life.
We may seriously underestimate life’s natural tendency to behave in a particular way under different laws, constants, and boundary conditions because we are biased to assume that all possible kinds of life will resemble life as we know it.
Scientists are constantly pushing the boundaries of our knowledge. However, the multiverse theories have drawn criticism from some scientists, who warn of the danger of speculation beyond what observations can tell us.
#universe #multiverse #science
Sources:
World Science Festival
Brian Greene Q&A / worldsciencefestival - Retrieved 09.09.2022
cdn.worldsciencefestival.com/
Fine-Tuning". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University. Aug 22, 2017
Davis, Paul (2007). Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life. New York: Orion Publications. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-61859226-5.

[@John_Smith2302]

If the meteorite that struck the earth and made the dinosaurs extinct somehow missed the earth, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[@rajans3745]

Such conversations are profoundly thought provoking. Did the KT extinction happen by chance - were the rules of probability at work or was it an intervention by a power beyond our comprehension? Wondering what if the onset of Cambrian explosion were to be delayed by few mil yrs. What if O2 levels were below 15%, what if mass of the Sun happen to be little more during the formative time, what if Jupiter did form, what if solar system were to form nearer or farther from galactic centre....why did the Universe as we see it come into existence. Best part is we as species asking these questions sitting on a small insignificant rock in the vastness of space.

[@jetlife3173]

Too bad. Also it’s too bad God is 100% real for your sake

[@nahCmeR]

To this day I still wonder what happened to cause that meteorite to exist in the first place and how it was sent specifically to hit earth at that specific time.

[@ChrisLaw84]

Dinosaurs might be. Lizzard type humans.

[@Vicki_Benji]

@@jetlife3173 I don't believe in sky fairies. Too bad there is nothing for you, or me after death. Your own Bible even says so. Ecclesiastes 9:5. "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."

[@MadhuSudan-gz2uq]

Brian iz my most fav. online teacher, yes indeed the CMB difference is we are in touch with multiverses! And that to detect we need a Tool, A Tool to analyze our consciousness at Quark level...its upcoming biggest revolutions after Relativity & Quantum Entanglement ! Loved This.❤

[@zgobermn6895]

The eminent cosmologist Bernard Carr bluntly laid out the debate on the table : “If you don't want God, you'd better have a multiverse.” So, the explanatory options are 1) a Rational, Infinite Mind tweaked the cosmological parameters to evolve in such a way that will eventually produce not only an exquisitely complex universe but also highly complex and intelligent conscious organism e.g., human beings. Or, 2) an infinity of universes where all things possible are also probable, ergo, the possibility of imagining a universe like ours is highly probable. And since we're living in one, we know it's true. I don't know, but the principle of parsimony favors the first option. That's where I put my money on.

[@jamesmoore4023]

I'm with Brian that some skepticism is having healthy, but some of these maths may help prove out to changing understanding of our universe and others.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

'IF' my latest TOE idea is really true, (and I fully acknowledge the 'if' at this time), that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe, and what is called 'gravity' is a part of what is currently recognized as the 'em' photon, the 'gravity' modality acting 90 degrees from the 'em' modalities, which act 90 degrees to each other, then the oscillation of these 3 interacting modalities of the energy unit would be as follows: Gravity: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Electrical: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Magnetic: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction. Then: 1 singular energy unit, with 3 different modalities, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total basic reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence 1, 3, 6, 9 being very prominent numbers in this universe and why mathematics even works in this universe. (And possibly '0', zero, as possibly neutrals are against other neutrals, even if only briefly, for no flow of energy, hence the number system that we currently have. This would also be the maximum potential energy point or as some might call it, the 'zero point energy point'.). And also how possibly mathematical constants exist in this universe as well. * Note also: Nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and mathematical constants can exist and do what they do in this universe from the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SMPP). While the SMPP has it's place, I believe we need to move beyond the SMPP to get closer to real reality.

[@ossianx8752]

@@charlesbrightman4237 I quite like your explanation. Sounds quite ‘Tesla’ and I have to confess I have no clue what a swirling gem photon is but similar to a minimum unit of energy like Planck? I reckon you are right that all thing come from an energy and that energy manifests in many different forms and that resultant phenomena stem from there and that TOE must orbit that in some form.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@ossianx8752 I'll post my TOE idea and associated gravity test to you after this post. Look for 2 more posts.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@ossianx8752 Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. 14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe. 15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@ossianx8752 GRAVITY: (copy and paste from my files): Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way. a. Imagine a 12 hour clock. b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions. c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions. (The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.) d. Direct a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields. e. Do this with the em fields on and off. (The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results, cancelling out the em modalities of the laser, thereby leaving behind the gravity modality.) f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects. (Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.) (And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.) (An alternative to the above would be to direct 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.) 'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. This test can speak for itself. It will either be true, partly true, or not true at all. It will either show what gravity truly is, might be, or is not. Science still wins either way and moves forward. * And note: Whether my gravity test or another's, a gravitational black hole would have to be formed to prove the concept as being really true. A gravitational black hole that 'if' self fed itself, could literally wipe out this Earth and all on it, possibly this solar system, possibly put a black hole in this section of our galaxy, and potentially even causing a ripple effect in this galaxy and surrounding universe. But hey, if it does, no worries. Nobody would be left to prosecute those who did so. (Possibly famous last words: "Hey, it worked. Ooooppppssss.................) But as NASA has already proven that low gravity conditions over a prolonged period of time is harmful to the human species, and large rotating space ships won't really work for space bases on planets and moons, those space bases probably being needed somewhere along the way out of this solar system and galaxy, we need to figure out what gravity truly is and see if we can generate artificial gravity so as to have smaller space ships and proper gravity conditions for space bases on planets and moons. Otherwise, at least all human life will most probably die and go extinct one day. Currently, no exceptions. ** Added note: Just trying to save at least 1 single species from this Earth to exist beyond this Earth so that life itself from this Earth has continued meaning and purpose to. Gives me something to do while I exist, otherwise, what is it all and everything for? Even if my TOE idea were correct, but if it did not help species survive beyond this Earth, what good would it ultimately be? So, are you feeling lucky? Doing nothing and at least the entire human species eventually dies and goes extinct with a high degree of certainty. Doing a gravity test, (mine and/or another's), and there is at least a slim chance of literally wiping out this entire Earth and all on it, and possibly more. Do you and other's truly want me to prove my TOE idea as being really true? (Since all of life itself is ultimately meaningless in the grand of scheme of things anyway, do the gravity test and see what occurs?)

[@David95111]

We need a lot more pieces of the puzzle to even make any sort of educated guess on this. We learned two decades ago that other solar systems have planets in them. The expansion of the universe is accelerating and we don’t know why. We don’t know whether there is liquid water on other planets, or whether there is life anywhere else. There are stars out there that we can barely comprehend, the largest at 10 billion times the volume of our sun. My point is, we basically know nothing about our universe yet and there are many things we don’t understand. We know just a tiny bit about the big picture and our very close proximity, but about 99.999999999% of the universe we are pretty much clueless. Us debating whether the universe was or wasn’t created by a god, is like toddlers debating what the most important thing in life is. Fun, but quite pointless until more of it is discovered.

[@elmolewis9123]

A toddler doesn't have the capability to apply critical thinking and too many adults never develop this necessary skill. It's easier for them to believe what they are told since birth, regardless of the fact that there is no sufficient evidence (and there never has been) for the supernatural, god or the outlandish nonsense religion peddles. Just like a toddler. And that's what makes these organizations wealthy and successful with their grifts.

[@bernardobachino15]

Indeed my friend

[@colinsmith1288]

But what if God is leading us to the truth,but with measured caution and guidance.

[@1kenodave1]

@@colinsmith1288 Who or what created God?

[@colinsmith1288]

@@1kenodave1 God created itself. If you can work that one out then you would deserve to sit with God not before it. You cannot think,in sub atomic or molecular terms,it goes way beyond that. What do you think science in physics is truly trying to do. It is trying to find traces of gods cosmic dna.

[@Schmuck666]

I understand this, all this sounds very logical and does not get out of my idea of the universe in any way, I am much more interested in the question - where are these other universes and how does our universe interact with them? what exactly is a multi-universe physically?

[@barnacleboi2595]

I think other universes are directly right on top of ours, just existing in a different planck vibration and never interacting with anything that isn't their own universe. But shit happens sometimes and it isn't very hard to imagine one of the countless particles in another dimension doing an oopsie and accidentally shitting out an entirely different universe lol

[@lemonlimelukey]

its not about life, the mind is where its at.

[@blake7908]

Awesome content

[@emmaemma2874]

Great! Can I repost your videos on another platform?

[@dmand1111]

The reason why life is everywhere is because we are living inside of a life, the ultimate being. Planets spin around stars like protons and neutrons and electrons spin around. Is the universe really expanding? Or is everything else shrinking

[@jamesmoore4023]

Technically speaking everything we observe is expanding at exponential speed. So much so that beings in our future state of the galaxy won't be able to observe other galaxies. I like to think other universes are pulling ours towards them to conclude in universes colliding.

[@nickgreen2905]

There isn't life everywhere. There has been no observed life outside of earth.

[@scottg6754]

@@nickgreen2905 True. That is kind of what discovery is all about. The search for knowledge. Without it we would still be hunter gatherers.

[@kingwillie206]

Why would everything else be shrinking? How could you explain that with sound science?

[@TheShinedownfan21]

Life isn't "everywhere," in fact it is extremely rare. It lives only in a narrow layer called the biosphere on and about the crustal surface of planet Earth, and Earth is only one tiny object among trillions of others in an immensely vast universe that consists mostly of empty space. Even if life exists elsewhere the universe is almost completely lifeless. The human species evolved only very recently compared to the age of the universe, and neither Earth nor the universe will support life in the distant future. Gods are merely inventions of the human mind, they have no effect on the cosmos at large. Physics, energy, action and events are more fundamental aspects of reality than life is.

[@seantyler7401]

A random rock spewed from a random place took down the dinosaurs. Without that tiny rock floating in a infinite ocean, we wouldn’t be hear. Coincidence?

[@realMarkFoster]

No more than you misspelling here

[@ayikogodfrey5262]

Amazing knowledge

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

When inflation and then cosmological constant expand universe into causally disconnected regions, have the causally disconnected areas become different universes? Could the causally disconnected areas develop slightly different physical constants and laws of nature?

[@stellarwind1946]

I don’t think so. The fundamental forces were created, or came apart, at the Big Bang.

[@mglikeabossplaysMC]

What you're describing is the basis for the theory of eternal inflation, an idea many have also wondered in the past/currently. It is an odd thing to consider when there is no proof of expansion ever slowing down

[@jerryeboy]

When scientists speculate on such notions as the multiverse, they always forget to mention the fact that there is no evidence for such a configuration. All that it really accomplishes is a speculative path to avoid considering the theological implications of fine tuning. To toy with such speculations without evidence maybe metaphysics but it hardly qualifies as science.

[@sven888]

All plurality is the initial singularity. So. You are right. 🙏

[@kingwillie206]

I agree, however, the difference is they have quantum physics from which they can derive hypothesis about such things. That isn’t the same as simply pulling an idea out of thin air. I just don’t believe we currently know enough to confidently make such a hypothesis and expect everyone to take it as gospel.

[@scottg6754]

@@kingwillie206 True but something has to be observable. You can math something. You can run analysis in a collider. All these things. But it was really hard to finally come up with the higgs bosom. Still don't have a handle on black forces other than we know they exist. The math and observations match. How do you 'obverve' another Universe. It is like string theory. There is solid math, but the ability to observe 4 dimensions, much less 10, isn't even close to happening.

[@kingwillie206]

@@scottg6754 - Well that’s why is a theory at this particular point in time and not a proven “scientific theory.”

[@josef-peterroemer5309]

@@kingwillie206 just as with there being a God, no proof there is a God.

[@Sharperthanu1]

Physics is limited something out of eternal nothing.Physics is SOMETHING and to maintain that something the universe has to be fine tuned.

[@d4niel711]

I wish Bryan had a podcast

[@marcosarantes8426]

Interessante senhor Brian Greene. Acho forte seu estudo...

[@kaseyboles30]

interesting how he shows a Black hole, where QM and GR collide in a messy way, to transition from one to the other.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Physicist Robert B. Laughlin wrote: It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo. Main articles: Pilot wave and De Broglie-Bohm theory Louis de Broglie stated, "Any particle, ever isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous "energetic contact" with a hidden medium." However, as de Broglie pointed out, this medium "could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory."

[@Mikeandmads]

This is a fantastic piece of info 🙌🏻

[@nmarbletoe8210]

i've heard that the modern concept of spacetime with the quantum fields is something like a superfluid superconducting ether but idk how that works really

[@ready1fire1aim1]

@@nmarbletoe8210 I think we need to re-address Newton vs Leibniz. The Monadology sure reminds me of quarks.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

@Phoenix The most important things about us are our quarks. Those are the fundamental/elementary particles Leibniz was talking about associated with the Monad.

[@sergiodario58able]

If our universe is infinite, like some of the experts say, it would then accomodate anything in it, including these hypothesised multiverse. So why call it multiverse, if anything that might exist is already accounted for in this present universe?

[@pathfinderon22s]

simple. the other universes are so far away the expansion of our universe will never reach it

[@SimonBrisbane]

You don’t seem to appreciate that there are universal laws within our universe hence why they are called universal. This is why they are having difficulties accepting that our universe is improbable, ergo fine tuned.

[@TheShinedownfan21]

It's a matter of terminology whether we want to call our local area "the universe" and the sum of all other areas that are so far away that they can never interact with our area "the multiverse." We haven't sorted out where we are in the larger scheme of things so terms are a little confusing.

[@sergiodario58able]

@@TheShinedownfan21 Yes i agree with your view of it. Scientists love to throw names and abjectives like confetti.

[@TheShinedownfan21]

@@sergiodario58able Scientists are very careful about terminology, far more so than laymen are. Reality is complex, science uses many conceptual strategies to describe it. Laymen only want simple answers, but those are often misleading.

[@SamoaVsEverybody814]

If there is a Creator, it's nothing like any of the manmade ones

[@AH-tx4ce]

Extremely agreed bro

[@TheShinedownfan21]

Why should a Creator need animal traits like intelligence, will or desire?

[@VisitaSA]

1. Say, “He is God, the One. 2. God, the Absolute. 3. He begets not, nor was He begotten. 4. And there is nothing comparable to Him.” Quran (143)

[@SamoaVsEverybody814]

@@VisitaSA 🤡🐑

[@TheShinedownfan21]

@@VisitaSA Speaking in terms of the "Absolute" is mere philosophy and mysticism, it doesn't help us to understand physical phenomena scientifically.

[@mikejurney9102]

Doesn't the inductive principle say that things we haven't seen yet will be like the patterns that we have seen? If that is part of the scientific method, then it would be unscientific to poses other universes that are not like our own.

[@mk71b]

Invoking a multiverse is the opposite of giving an explanation. Things on the human scale are hovering about halfway between two perceived extremes, that of the planck scale and that of the scale of the universe. We probably never technologically can "reach" the planck scale. But it seems we have "no problem" reaching beyond the scale of the cosmos. It seems our imaginations are indeed limitless.

[@TheShinedownfan21]

Other universes may have other values to their fundamental interactions-- stronger gravity for example, or weaker electromagnetism. This might make the formation of stars or even atoms impossible.

[@TheShinedownfan21]

The multiverse is an extension of what we have learned-- Earth is one planet among others in the solar system, which is but a unit in a galaxy, which is one among many galaxies in a universe, and which may be one among many universes, and so on.

[@scottg6754]

@@TheShinedownfan21 There is verifiable proof of much what makes up our Universe. Multiverses is a fun hypothesis but not verifiable by any observations. Maybe there will be some unknown science break through but it doesn't seem likely because we are bound by physical laws of the Universe. Not saying it isn't possible, just saying we won't know unless our laws of physics, or we have technology that can "somehow" supercede the laws of physics. We are not close.

[@TheShinedownfan21]

@@scottg6754 The multiverse is more than just a "fun idea." Other pocket universes are mathematically indicated by Eternal Inflation as well as string theory, in the same way that the mathematics of gravity indicated the existence of black holes long before evidence for them was observed.

[@djf750]

I think that this and the other universes were created by a higher form of life than us, and THEY ask the question, Does God exist?

[@elmolewis9123]

And your sufficient evidence for this is?

[@djf750]

@@elmolewis9123 just a hunch

[@fred_2021]

I like it. Transcendence to infinity. The conceived God gazing upward in wonder toward their own conceived God, ad infinitum. Utterly beautiful.

[@josef-peterroemer5309]

Of course God does not exist, show me proof that he does!, No different then the multiverse.

[@fred_2021]

@@josef-peterroemer5309 Can you describe this God whom you know, with absolute certainty, does not exist?

[@angelp4724]

Hawking's approach is gr8 imao, he doesn't support the existence of God but he also doesn't deny it as a Scientist who likes to explore hypothesis

[@dexterjagonalmayuhay]

I'm curious if our Universe expanding is there any possibilities of multiverse expanding like to our Universe? The expanding of our Universe does it possible if the multiverse exist same happened to our Universe, same expanding.

[@chinthakuntlabalu9026]

Thanks to the universe

[@ryantrimble6551]

the universe is everything that exist, if things outside the universe exist it is also the universe in the fact that it exist. there is no limit to the inclusion of all into into the universe. it is all and it is the one and all and forever.

[@fred_2021]

Nonetheless, I find it convenient to refer to our observable part of reality as 'our universe', and apply the term 'multiverse' to include all hypothetical 'other' universes. It's simply a matter of convenient semantic differentiation, and changes nothing.

[@whydama]

If there are infinite suit sizes, then it would be pretty darn amazing if I got the correct size without a rational being picking it out for me.

[@badchinchila9799]

When trying to refute the argument of a perfectly suited universe for us, Brian just changes it up a notch but the idea is pretty much the same, the mathematical probability of it happening its so so low that is probably a miracle in both cases presented

[@fred_2021]

If there are infinite copies of 'you' existing in the infinite number of universes, then an infinite number of you will get the right fit.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. 14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe. 15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

GRAVITY: (copy and paste from my files): Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way. a. Imagine a 12 hour clock. b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions. c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions. (The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.) d. Direct a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields. e. Do this with the em fields on and off. (The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results, cancelling out the em modalities of the laser, thereby leaving behind the gravity modality.) f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects. (Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.) (And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.) (An alternative to the above would be to direct 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.) 'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. This test can speak for itself. It will either be true, partly true, or not true at all. It will either show what gravity truly is, might be, or is not. Science still wins either way and moves forward. * And note: Whether my gravity test or another's, a gravitational black hole would have to be formed to prove the concept as being really true. A gravitational black hole that 'if' self fed itself, could literally wipe out this Earth and all on it, possibly this solar system, possibly put a black hole in this section of our galaxy, and potentially even causing a ripple effect in this galaxy and surrounding universe. But hey, if it does, no worries. Nobody would be left to prosecute those who did so. (Possibly famous last words: "Hey, it worked. Ooooppppssss.................) But as NASA has already proven that low gravity conditions over a prolonged period of time is harmful to the human species, and large rotating space ships won't really work for space bases on planets and moons, those space bases probably being needed somewhere along the way out of this solar system and galaxy, we need to figure out what gravity truly is and see if we can generate artificial gravity so as to have smaller space ships and proper gravity conditions for space bases on planets and moons. Otherwise, at least all human life will most probably die and go extinct one day. Currently, no exceptions. ** Added note: Just trying to save at least 1 single species from this Earth to exist beyond this Earth so that life itself from this Earth has continued meaning and purpose to. Gives me something to do while I exist, otherwise, what is it all and everything for? Even if my TOE idea were correct, but if it did not help species survive beyond this Earth, what good would it ultimately be? So, are you feeling lucky? Doing nothing and at least the entire human species eventually dies and goes extinct with a high degree of certainty. Doing a gravity test, (mine and/or another's), and there is at least a slim chance of literally wiping out this entire Earth and all on it, and possibly more. Do you and other's truly want me to prove my TOE idea as being really true? (Since all of life itself is ultimately meaningless in the grand of scheme of things anyway, do the gravity test and see what occurs?)

[@danielfrench9542]

The problem with the multiverse hypothesis is that (a) still does not explain its own existence and (b) misunderstands Aquinas’ First Cause (as Dawkins does).

[@therick363]

Aquinas first cause is….

[@ndzimu-unamiemmanuelmoyo2028]

I find the suit analogy interesting. Doesn't that then say well, there is actually a tailor who created the suits to be like that? I mean, the suits didn't just happen to have one specific or all perfectly fitting sizes by themselves, right?

[@hotmetalslugs]

It’s almost like nobody commenting here has ever seen the original Cosmos series that literally explains all of this.

[@Retube_StudioEsposito]

How can we access the other universes? I suppose by thinking, already this makes a different reality as it explains it.

[@fred_2021]

Like this one isn't big enough, lol

[@CoolNumber1]

If we evolve to grow as big as a universe then we might perceived the universe as just a planet lmao.

[@Retube_StudioEsposito]

@@CoolNumber1 This is called civilization 3, in 100 years we will reach civilization 1, so we are not there yet. However, we are on the way

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could observable universe(s) be breaking off from earlier parts of universe as space expands?

[@michaelcgrigori7823]

A good question!

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

@@michaelcgrigori7823 is there possibility that 4D block universe is observable universes breaking off at slices of space expansion?

[@TheShinedownfan21]

Eventually the observable universe will consist only of our local galaxy, with the rest of the universe having receded beyond our horizon of observation. In the distant future there will be no way for inhabitants of our galaxy to know that there ever were other galaxies, or that the universe is expanding or that the Big Bang happened.

[@therick363]

Fantastic question. That’s the stuff theoretical physicists talk about. I think it depends a lot on the early expansion time period and things we still don’t know enough about, like what is space, dark energy and such.

[@scottg6754]

Fun question. I am tired now but tomorrow I think I will do some research. Probably won't understand a lot it, but I will learn other stuff.

[@rafaelvalimfernandes]

I believe the right question should be: "What was really created?", as there is more mystery than answer in everything we interact with.

[@NeilCrouse99]

Created? depends if you're looking for a creator or not??

[@Blackieswain]

@@NeilCrouse99 pretty much it just boils down to asking "what is everything?"

[@sven888]

There is a veil…

[@colinsmith1288]

@Censored Opinions You were created,so was l,so there is your answer. It was there all along.

[@fred_2021]

If these hypothetical universes can 'hit each other', then they must be in some kind of shared space. What would be the characteristics of that? Infinite dimensions?

[@pathfinderon22s]

there is always room because it’s just a video game and other universes fade out when they’re not being played

[@leihejun844]

Space doesn't exist. As universes expand, they create space

[@fred_2021]

​@@leihejun844 So which is it? Space doesn't exist, or space exists because it's created?

[@leihejun844]

@@fred_2021 universe is not floating inside space. Problem is, you think when there are multiverses, there's space between them. those universes are not inside anything. they don't have shared space. If they're like bubbles, between bubbles nothing exists not even space. All the space that exist is inside universes, not outside or between them. Universe(s) doesn't stretch into space, it creates space as it expands.

[@fred_2021]

@@leihejun844 ok, I see. Can you tell me the theoretical basis of that hypothesis and/or links to any sources? - or is it simply a hypothesis that you've heard of, and have chosen to take onboard as known fact?

[@herbertseufert1180]

The two primary questions are: 1. Why does something exist at all and why there isn't just NOTHING!? In this concern it dosn't matter if there is a multiverse or an universe. 2. What is the stage of space-time itself? We discuss about (virtual) particles and energetic fields that manifest on this stage. But what is this stage, that can be deformed and curved?

[@inetivable8188]

This usually happens When mind is more curious then body .... people should Find ways to take their body where your mind goes .... It will be more easy

[@Silver1137]

What would Occam’s razor suggest?

[@fred_2021]

I need a shave?

[@longago3649]

Do we want answers that to relate to the existance of the Universe or do we want answers that make us special? We are special to ourselves. That's it. We are limited by our own perceptions and how we think. We know nothing in an absolute form. Our knowledge will keep evolving until we as a species cease to exist or we turn backwards to religion and philosophy to explain the Universe.

[@SimonBrisbane]

Why is you thinking so binary? Religion OR science? I think both are essential to growth. There are things science will never teach us and there are things religion cannot teach us. And for the record, we and life is special if only to “ourselves”. There might only be ourselves. Even Brian Cox has said as much.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

@@SimonBrisbane yeah I like SJ Gould's NOM, where science and religion each have their own methods and uses, and don't conflict

[@kingwillie206]

@@SimonBrisbane - What type of religion exactly? One built on blatant lies that include mythology, one built on philosophies that help us navigate life, or both?

[@jovancukic1290]

@@kingwillie206 I think he meant that people need hope... If there is no hope, people would simply die long long ago... Some things we cannot comprehend, otherwise we would always be pronounced as lunatics or schyzo's... Mythology is the work of people believing in those kind of "dreams". Even dough I firmly believe in science, i simply know there is something out there.. You may call it whatever you'd like, but it's there, something caused everything, and that is the paradox in our reality. Think.

[@kingwillie206]

@@jovancukic1290 - I don’t believe people would have died a long time ago due to hopelessness because the evidence is to the contrary. The Netherlands is the most atheistic territory and they seem to be doing quite well as far as I can tell. Not only that, but mankind survived for tens of thousands of years years pre-religion/mythology, therefore that hypothesis holds no water. You can argue that belief in a higher power/purpose increases overall happiness and or has the power to encourage people to do extraordinary things both good and bad, but that’s it.

[@glenrisk5234]

It all comes down to your concept of God. Most people have no idea that this is what the phrase "One True God" actually means. It is incumbent on the believer to ensure that their concept of God is true. The purpose being to ensure that you follow true ideals.

[@glenrisk5234]

@@StellaLovesMusic25 The only sin that can not be forgiven is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. To speak against the scriptural truth for your own evil ignorant purpose. I have tasted enough of those flames to know that I could not envy you.

[@glenrisk5234]

@@StellaLovesMusic25 Clearly a damn site better than you blaspemer.

[@glenrisk5234]

@Phoenix While I appreciate that you are at least attempting to think outside of the standard paradigm you seem quite lost to me? I'll start with your first faulty premise; the teaching regarding free will is not in the meant to indicate what is commonly assumed. It is more a statement as to the wilful nature of people but further implies a purpose for that and more? You go on to say that no one knows what is going on in their own mind, which is patently untrue. A great many people possess the self discipline and desire necessary to know very well what is going on in their own minds. It is possible to view your own mind and all it contains as clearly as you might see your own reflection in a mirror.

[@orver1]

What an astounding coincidence that I found my keys last night under the streetlight! No, for it is the only place the keys could be found.

[@iamBlackGambit]

i like the suit analogy but you failed to mention HOW the suits got there?

[@Petequinn741]

God definitely is not a bearded man on a cloud..but something much more incredible..from chaos to laws of nature.. pretty beautiful

[@VisitaSA]

@Censored Opinions How can you throw a theory in the garbage that you haven't disproven yet. In actuality all of your scientific arguments are leading you in the direction of the existence of God yet your emotional response to this argument trumps your quest for truth. The truth will definitely be revealed one day, the sad thing is that most of humanity will be on the wrong side of this argument.

[@TheShinedownfan21]

What would chaos have looked like before the laws of nature were created? And who created the chaos?

[@TheShinedownfan21]

@@VisitaSA As science has advanced, God has retreated into irrelevance. Science only shifted into high gear when it got rid of supernatural thinking. Most scientists don't believe in God and an increasing number of lay people in advanced countries do not either. Science has earned a reputation for credibility that religion can only envy, and that's why religionists are desperate to be validated by science. Science never turns to religion to justify itself, it stands on its own merits.

[@VisitaSA]

@@TheShinedownfan21God has only retreated into your minds. That is exactly what the word "Kufr" means in Arabic. It means to bury and hide the truth away somewhere deep. In reality God has entered more lives than you can imagine. Islam is not the fastest growing religion as a mere coincidence, as some if the most rational minds enter into it. You see Gods signs everyday when a little drop of liquid forms into a human being, complete with organs strategically placed in his body. A complete system more intricate than any system made by anybody ever. Scientists study the planets around them and realize there is no life nor any planets that could be habitable in our universe. The chances of a planet producing life where even the most smallest component like an electron, if it were even 0.001 different would not allow for life to exist. The example of a scientist is like a video game designer who designs a video game with a certain set of rules snd if you want to complete the game successfully, you have to follow the rules. Instead of following the rules of the game, scientists are studing the nature of the game and studying how the video game designed the game, instead of asking the fundamental question of why did he build the video game and how do I complete it. If you want to know how to complete the video game, listen to the Qur'an... If you still want to continue on your quest of studying the actual video game, then continue upon your pursuit... kzbin.info/www/bejne/emeudauwj7l5acU

[@Petequinn741]

Don't think creation is a who..

[@quran-thetruth1308]

yo where can i see the thumbnails image ?

[@nbh710]

kzbin.infoUgkxFA0fJrozceatp6_jvI_dMkJjrMfnWBLj

[@MrHenkfromHolland]

What is between the bubble universes?

[@gyanendrasingh4471]

Vedic scriptures (Hindu Scriptures) have a complete explanation on the creation of the Universe (though the pure Vedic scriptures in Vedic Sanskrit are extremely difficult to decipher) and it is very similar to String theory. Vedic knowledge does explain very beautifully the initial State of the Universe and surprisingly Alan Guth who gave inflation theory has striking similarities to what's written in Vedic scriptures (I doubt if he was reading Vedic scriptures like many great scientists in the past have done. One great example is Neil Bohr who was a big fan of Upanishads( a wing of Ved) ). Without a creator there can be no creation and the creator and the total material energy(universe) was never created and they are eternal and they will continue in this cosmic cycle of creation(creation of the universe) and total annihilation(whole universe going back in it's most fundamental state) till eternity. When a simple picture cannot appear on its own on a piece of paper why do we find it is so difficult to comprehend that the universe which is complex beyond our imagination can appear without a creator.

[@darwinlaluna3677]

Its ok with me if i am not the one from all of you, i am always have a full respect

[@sinebar]

Or perhaps the Big Bang that created the universe is cyclic. Not a multiverse but an infinite number of Big Bangs that happen over and over and over into infinity. With a cyclic Big Bang eventually a universe would be created with the conditions we experience in the current iteration.

[@bryandraughn9830]

No need for a multiverse.

[@scottg6754]

That was once a theory but only works if are Universe starts to collapse upon itself. Expansion, given that gravity the the weakest of forces, suggests the Universe expands until matter is so dispersed, with no replacement, is empty. Something like 10/100 years.

[@ashajacob8362]

@@scottg6754 big Crunch theory

[@tedetienne7639]

It’s weird to say this universe is fine tuned for life. There’s just a thin layer of biological material partially covering one planet (that we know of), while the vast majority of existence is cold, empty darkness utterly hostile to life. We should start our philosophizing there - Why is the universe or multiverse so overwhelmingly detrimental for life?

[@rishi2791]

The universe isn't fine tuned for carbon based life like we have on earth. Does not mean it isn't fine tuned for "all" life.

[@SMHman666]

@@rishi2791 There is NO evidence for any life other than here on Earth so your comment makes no sense.

[@rishi2791]

@@SMHman666 Dear Mr. Cook we know only 10% of the observable universe. That too not completely, so please keep an open mind.

[@SMHman666]

@@rishi2791 I have an open mind and it would be awesome to find life somewhere else. It would be one of, if not the biggest discovery!! It's just that so many people (some scientists included) talk as though it's a proven reality when it's not (yet anyway).

[@Benjamin_0fficial]

And I am watching this on the 7th day.. should I have rested instead?

[@carminefragione4710]

Entertaining the Multiverse theory of infinite alternate universes, then there can be no question, one of those optional universes is a universe created by an intelligent entity we call God. Then it is likely Jesus is God and as a product of all possible causes and opportunities, given any agency all the time in the world to figure out the technocracy of doing something, then Jesus said " I AM MAKING ALL THINGS NEW". Now it makes sense, since the qualify of causation as an intelligent agency , then Jesus said "WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE". So it is a matter of joining Jesus in the cause.

[@claireglory]

stop searching for god or gods. just live your life and do the best of it without stepping on anyone.

[@suatustel746]

Unexplained life is not worth living said the Plato....

[@claireglory]

@@suatustel746 "the more you learn, the more you realize you know nothing" - lots of scientist the mystery of the universe keeps on expanding since space itself is expanding, the only way for people to learn the truth of this universe and life is if everything puts to a pause.

[@elmolewis9123]

@@claireglory I believe in everything I was brainwashed about since childhood regardless of the fact there is, and never has been any sufficient evidence for any of it - every theist.

[@seanferguson5460]

I was under the impression that 'why' is not a very good scientific question, as in 'why do things fall to the ground.' 'How,' on the other hand, is a scientific question, as in 'how do things fall to the ground. What makes things fall to the ground?' Why questions taken to extreme invite deity. How questions ask for the provable and falsifiable mechanisms that lead to an answer. That is science. I'm no expert on such matters. I'd be glad to hear your opinion, pro or con.

[@scottg6754]

I agree

[@fred_2021]

IMO...Generally speaking, people know very well what someone means when they ask 'why'. The point, however, seems to be that it often implies 'purpose'. E.g. 'Why are you reading this?", to which the answer may be, "For the purpose of [whatever]". Then again, it's perfectly reasonable to ask "Why does the sun rise each day?", without having to listen to a rebuke regarding the sun's 'purpose', which clearly doesn't apply from a scientific point of view. An ultimate 'why' question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?", could be asked in the form "How is it that there is something rather than nothing?". Either way, it amounts to the same question. Whatever the form of such a question, the answer will depend largely on the responder's philosophical and /or theological disposition. Many, and perhaps most, scientists are naturally opposed to the suggestion of purpose/intent/design embedded in their subject matter, i.e. the physical universe, hence the avoidance of the ambiguous 'why'.

[@seanferguson5460]

​@@fred_2021 @fred2021 Agree, and thank you for your thoughts on this. Whenever I find myself asking a why question, whether big and cosmic or mundane, I've formed the habit of turning that into a how question. How cuts straight to the mechanics of a thing. Why will get you there, too, but in science I think why ultimately leads to an exploration of how. Of course, 'I don't know' or 'we don't know' or 'nobody knows' is often the response. On a bit of a tangent, I’m reminded of a favourite quote attributed to Isaac Asimov (it’s uncertain whether he coined it or paraphrased it from another): "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That’s funny …'" On still another tangent, when I went looking for the exact wording of this quote I used the term ‘scientific breakthrough quote,’ which led me to some really good websites.

[@fred_2021]

@@seanferguson5460 I've occasionally pondered upon 'why vs how' since I was 12 yrs old, when my religious instruction teacher raised the subject. Her perspective was, of course, theological. She opined that science can tackle the 'how' questions, but the determination of 'why?' requires faith. I'm glad you mentioned the Asimov quote, as it led me to find this gem of his: "People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do".

[@seanferguson5460]

@@fred_2021 That one's great! I've read his autobiography and many of his SF and non-fic books. He really did know just about everything -- and that was pre-internet.

[@NeilCrouse99]

Brian, at the end, stated that tiny temperature differences in the background of the universe might be evidence of a multiverse?? Isn't that the cosmic microwave background??

[@wazab.]

إنَّمَا أَمْرُهُ إِذَا أَرَادَ شَيْئًا أَنْ يَقُولَ لَهُ كُنْ فَيَكُونُ Verily, His command, when He intends (to evolve) a thing, is (only) that He says to it, `Be' and it comes into being (at proper time).

[@BusterDarcy]

Classic example of begging the question. If the values had been different life as we know it couldn’t have formed. But maybe something we can’t possibly fathom would have. And maybe they would be asking the same question.

[@omar2886]

The 4 forces were created after the big bang with all the matter. What would happen if 2 universes with completely different physics collided?

[@leihejun844]

When collision happens, rhey can't enter each other. Incompatible/unknown hardware : please update your drivers.

[@TheAnonJohn]

it is so frustrating that in the year of 2022 videos about cosmology and physics have to answer to "Religion" and people who believe that a man talked to god and got 10 commandments when noone was around (no witnesses) 3000 years ago in some desert.

[@charissa5150]

even though it's no mystery that every size exists the idea of every single thing that had to happen up to the point of life on earth and then everything that had to be perfect for each of us to be given life i.e. our parents had to meet, that sperm had to outrun the rest and so on really does make each and every life a true miracle

[@superedits5746]

I just sometimes think that majority of universe is empty. Means no living thing for instance venus or mars. Right? Then if no observer or living being is present there what's the use of it? Like on mercury life is impossible.

[@Av-livePk]

Did anyone ever discovered something like a toiled paper formed it self. Look around you. Everything you see or poses is either created or discovered. If tiny thing needs a creator. How come a universe so precise and immense could become it self.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

QUESTION: Let's assume that the multiverse theory is really true. And let's assume that we can travel from this universe into another universe. How do we know that the universe we travelled to wasn't basically 'hell'? And what if we somehow got trapped there and could not return to this universe? Or how about that universe consisted of a monster that ate anything that came into it? Happy Journeys.

[@SreejithKSGupta]

What is the issue with it? It happened numerous times before. When people sailed to oceans to unknown lands, they could have met anything.. and many might have died from meeting hostile animals/people. Yet here we are..... It will be just like that..

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@SreejithKSGupta Earthling's future: Current Analysis: Long Term: (Short Version): * Species stay on this Earth: They all eventually die and go extinct. * Species leave this Earth: They all eventually die and go extinct. (No exceptions at this time).

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@Censored Opinions Look before one leaps. Otherwise, what one leaps into might not be what one expects it to be.

[@scottg6754]

If the physics isn't the same we would just cease to exist, instantly.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@scottg6754 Agreed. May want to check it out before we leap, if ever.

[@LegendFromWoW]

Okay but who made the suit store?

[@wisdomprinceaghatise7308]

What about if life as we know it, is not really life 🧬? For all we know, we could be some kind of ant 🐜 to some other form of life, even here in our own solar system

[@contemplatinggod2791]

Reasonable to say if we think other life forms are lower to us, why then can we not think that there may be other life forms that are superior to us.. I mean we can destroy most lower forms of life if we so please, maybe thats what happens when earthquakes and the likes happen… a higher form of life doing its thing. We may never know for sure what it is cos we might not just be that bright as animals aren’t that bright… and if the only way to grasp that thought is God or Nature… y not. I mean, obviously and absolutely there is something beyond us bigger than us.

[@dewanchoudhury6816]

Understand Brian Green is a smart guy. I personally have a lot of respect for him. But why would anyone think he can answer a question like did God create the universes??? Why?

[@Sharperthanu1]

When you create something you need a blueprint.Physical beings and things have structure.DNA is the blueprint for life.When eternal metaphysical nothing turns into limited mundane something at the time of the big bang (that we have abundant proof actually happened) structure and blueprint automatically are created as the opposite of eternal metaphysical nothing.

[@TWJfdsa]

2 Corinthians 4:18 ESV / 24 helpful votes As we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. Hebrews 11:3 ESV / 17 helpful votes By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. Hebrews 11:1 ESV / 12 helpful votes Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Colossians 1:16 ESV / 12 helpful votes For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him. Revelation 4:11 ESV / 9 helpful votes “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”

[@Mack11721]

Not the way "...It did..." But, the way it has...

[@knightclan4]

Amazing how most anomalies not explained by secular science are easily explained by scientists that trust scripture as written. Uniformitarianism versus Catastrophism. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics versus long age plate tectonics.

[@satoriyamato1855]

Chemicals. Negative to plus. Cause and effect

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Maybe observable universe is one universe, measured by science; cosmic horizon is metaverse or multiverse, measured another way?

[@fred_2021]

You're free to use whatever names you like, as long as others can understand what you're referring to. Max Tegmark has defined at least 5 (I think) kinds of multiverse.

[@macroeconomia1987]

The problem with the multiverse, is that it would be millions of times more probable that we live in a "simple" universe, and that you are just sleeping and dreaming about living in a complex universe ..... soon you will wake up from that dream

[@monaoconnell5650]

Dr. Greene, I saw "Infinity". As always I enjoyed listening to you. You are an excellent teacher with a great mind. I don't know much about physics, but I have an inquiring mind, and I enjoy how you explain things. However there is a lot I don't understand about many subjects. For instance, death is very disturbing to me. I want to believe I have had some kind of a purpose in this dimension. I was wondering if you would ever consider debating Dr. Stephen Meyer Cambridge graduate and author of "The God Hyposthesis" among other books. I am 75 and haven't achieved much of anything in this life so I am hoping there is a Divine Designer. :) and maybe there is life in the " great beyond." However, I am a realist and would like to keep studying the pros and cons regarding the possibility of a "Higher Power." Dr. Meyer argues that the multiverse would still need "fine tuning".. It would be interesting to hear both of your explore ideas.

[@havenbastion]

Any idea more complex than what it tries to explain is intellectually regressive.

[@mikebellamy]

You are looking in the wrong place here.. Secular science was hijacked after 1900 by a philosophy of naturalism which is based on a *LIE!* What I mean while admitting they cannot rule out God entirely they in fact do. So the following applies; NATURALISM = Materialism = Atheism in disguise 1. Nature is comprised of only that which can be measured 2. What can be measured is made of matter or energy 3. Matter and energy always obey the laws of physics 4. Decoherent matter and energy obey the law of cause and effect 5. Causes may be predicted by measuring their effects 6. Naturalism assumes no miracles all causes are natural 7. Causes which violate laws of physics are miracles 8. The cause of nature cannot be nature ‘circular’ 9. Therefore nature is a miracle contradicting the assumption of naturalism Naturalism is falsified. Q.E.D! If they were not atheists thy would consider the overwhelming evidence contradicting the big bang paradigm. Let me give you just one falsification of it: BIG BANG Gravity Problem: 1. Big Bang assumes energy and matter from nothing in a quantum singularity or fluctuation 2. The density is quoted variously as extreme to infinite 3. The total mass of the universe curves space and shapes the universes destiny 4. Black Holes have an escape velocity at their event horizon equal to the speed of light 5. The size of a Black Hole is measured by its mass which gives the diameter of the event horizon 6. The mass of the universe is ~1e80 protons = 6.7e53 Kg 7. The formula for escape velocity = (2GM/r)^0.5 Therefore r = 2GM/v^2 8. Given M = 6.7e53 Kg and v = 3e8 m/sec therefore Dia = 2.r = 52.5 billion light yrs 9. The universe cannot at any time have been smaller than 52.5 billion light yrs in diameter 10. This is called the Schwarzschild's Radius of any mass and is well known 11. Hence the matter in the universe can only have been created *after the expansion of space..* *The Big Bang is falsified as a violation of the law of gravity! Q.E.D.* This is uniquely consistent with the Genesis account of creation of stars on day 4 after the expansion of space. Also _"Let there be light."_ on day 1 explains the uniform CMBR being a burst of photon energy with no mass. I short the bible is the only place to start looking for the real God who tells us; Who he is? Who we are? Why we are here? Where we are going? What is good and evil? Why are they here? What can we do about it?

[@monaoconnell5650]

@@mikebellamy I confess your information is beyond my ability to take in all at once. I do want to learn. I am very interested in scientific and biblical connections.

[@mikebellamy]

​@@monaoconnell5650 Creation by God is very unpopular and marginalised by the mainstream of both atheists and theists generally but what is more important to you TRUTH or follow the MAJORITY view? If you are honest about seeking God then you need to be honest with yourself. Lets face it if God is anything close to what we imagine then it would be most unreasonable to hold to assumptions and not allow him to speak to you. Then you will know what it means to _"fear God"_ because without that level of encounter you will never get the wisdom of God. There are three steps to *meeting God!* 1 - Honesty (hold nothing back) 2 - Humility (put down all your weapons and all your defences) 3 - Authority (This is about surrendering your authority before you recognise Gods) Hold that seriously and then just wait.. write down your thoughts and questions and take time out to think about what you are doing.. Only then open the bible and start reading both old and new testaments at least with no outside influence whatever.. just a little at a time.. it is both our death sentence and our lifesaver.. the ugly truth about us is all there but read it all. The most terrifying verse is _"the path is wide and easy that leads to destruction and many are on it but the way is hard and narrow that leads to life and few are they that find it!"_ I have no nice answer for that one.

[@kenrickbenjamin1608]

The problem with Probability is that it does not give a conclusive answer. So you will never know. For some that's ok 👍 for others it's not. This is why they are people who are Wise and those that are Otherwise.

[@elmolewis9123]

And for the religious, the fact that there is no sufficient evidence of the bible's claims doesn't enter their thought process.

[@kenrickbenjamin1608]

@@elmolewis9123 OH there's alot of evidence for the Bible claim, However the question is, will you accept the evidences.

[@patrickoreilly6477]

They make a good case for there being a creator.

[@toolfoolmostrom6254]

Either way I’m just happy to exist or believe I exist 🤷‍♂️

[@fred_2021]

You'd better believe it then, lol

[@eyedrill]

*How did the universe came to be? -Saying “God” is not a satisfying answer. *So how did the Multiverse came to be? -God.

[@TheShinedownfan21]

"God" is just a shorthand way of saying, " I don't know."

[@AH-tx4ce]

@@TheShinedownfan21 yup correcf

[@joemariejames4757]

@@TheShinedownfan21 u two read the Bible

[@joemariejames4757]

@@AH-tx4ce read Genesis!

[@AH-tx4ce]

@@joemariejames4757 yeah the one that says earth was created in 7 days? Sorry bro read whole bible already and found like thousands of scientific mistakes in bible

[@cleander97]

Multiverse is a byproduct of the equations developed for the string theory.

[@fred_2021]

So, thanks to string theory for bringing all those universes into being :)

[@panmigacz3121]

I think that we need to put more weight on improving human mind capabilities. Once we reach a certain level of "man-made" science geniuses in our society we will be able to do researches exponentially faster than we do now "Nature itself" is not sufficient at this point, we all know

[@contemplatinggod2791]

I think that yearning for something or talking about it constantly proofs it exists🤷🏻‍♀️ Not knowing doesnt equate not existing. We may find out with time.

[@fred_2021]

It looks like you're saying (1) you can wish things into existence, (2) any conspiracy theory can be proven true if you talk about it enough.

[@havenbastion]

Not knowing is indistinguishable from it not existing, is the point.

[@fred_2021]

@@havenbastion Are you saying that if, for example, we didn't know that Mt. Everest exists, that it, and all it's physical consequences, would not exist?

[@havenbastion]

@@fred_2021 There are infinite potentially existing things. It's only when we can distinguish them from other things by evidence that they become real for any purpose. The infinite boiling stuff of Actuality, whether black holes or mountains, exists without regard for whether it's perceived, but it only exists To Us when there's evidence. Until then, all those possibilities are only possibilities.

[@fred_2021]

@@havenbastion OK, that's what was missing: "To Us'. Opinions come into play regarding what constitutes evidence, particularly with regard to intangible realities. I won't get onto that merry-go-round right now, though :)

[@myconvenant]

You can speculate everything but still won't answer who started theses whole things (universe or multiuniverses you like to call)

[@fred_2021]

Not the province of science; but if your conceptual capability provides you with a sense of certainty, no one can deny it of you. When people look for metaphysical answers in the realm of science, they are barking up the wrong logical tree.

[@gyanendrasingh4471]

"The deeper and deeper you go in science and more and more you find the nearer you are going to God" because you are inching towards the truth. Though God is beyond material senses but these discoveries will only lead towards the truth

[@svendtang5432]

As i see it - and i am a layman - we again go into the things the wrong way. The universe must be configured to within percentages to creat us.. No no no no no.. We are not the goal we are a sideeffect of the univers that exsists. I know it hurts our ego but, the universe does not care. So yes what's the odd's - that question actually does not matter because we are here.

[@ossianx8752]

Many scientists seem to have a irrational dislike of creator theories. Some creation theories are a bit bizarre and have odd history and custom but that is the human element, the baggage and the lust for power over a fellow human not the essence. The universe was created and we don’t know how, it is likely it was created by some event most would agree - some strive to find creation without needing a creator, a sentient and timeless energy of which we are all part, of which everything is part and that is fine. That sentient energy should not be mistaken nor dismissed because of dogma hung in that direction. If you think that ‘God’ is religious dogma you are probably not correct but equally to dismiss a pure creator theory on the basis of people not describing properly is the same as perhaps a creator being a horse but being described as a cat - you may be forgiven for saying the cat as described does not exist; but what about the horse ? What ever the answer we should all be grateful for our existing and ability to perceive it whether it be miracle or just coincidence.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

How did the idea of ether come? The idea of an ether was introduced into science by Descartes in Principia philosophiae (1644). Until that time, forces between two bodies that are not in direct contact were assumed to act through space-by action at a distance. Is ether and space same? The element ether, called “akasha” in Sanskrit is the first of the five great elements (pancha mahabhutus). It comes first because it is the most subtle of the elements. Often referred to as “space,” it is the essence of emptiness. It is the space the other elements fill. *cough* gravity sucks *cough* [5th Element Aether > Gravity]: The author reviewed the experimental ether-drift experiments and publications of Michelson-Morley, Dayton Miller, Michelson-Pease-Pearson, and more recent others, from the late 1800s through the present. Many of these historical studies presented positive results in detecting a cosmic ether, and ether-drift through space. Among these experiments, the most widely cited Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, which did show a slight positive result (and never the claimed “null”), was found to be the least significant or robust in terms of experimental procedures and actual data collected, as compared with the far more important 1920s’ study by Miller on Mount Wilson near Los Angeles, California. Most ether-drift experiments yielding claimed negative results were plagued by various unwarranted assumptions about the capacity of an ether-drift to penetrate dense materials such as stone buildings or metal shielding, or that ether flow would “contract” matter, including measuring instruments, leaving the ether-drift undetectible. Some obtained positive results, but the authors chose to interpret them as “negative” due to unwarranted assumptions demanding extremely fast ether-drift velocities near to the Earth’s surface. Miller was the first to experimentally account for these issues, his most important study made atop Mount Wilson in a thermal shelter, with the largest light-beam interferometer ever constructed, and where the light-beam path was enclosed only by light glass or cardboard. His procedures accounted for a matter-retarded cosmic ether-drift with a reduced velocity closer to the Earth’s surface. Miller thereby obtained significant positive results over four epochs of study. Albert Einstein also was aware of these issues, and admitted openly that if Miller was correct, then his own relativity theory would “collapse like a house of cards.” In subsequent years, however, the followers of Einstein defeated this evidence for the cosmic ether by public ridicule and political tactics, not too different from the modern “skeptic” movement. The Shankland, McCuskey, Leone, and Kuerti article claiming to have reviewed Miller’s Mount Wilson data, well after all the old ether-drift experimenters were dead and could no longer defend their findings, were also specifically reviewed and found to not support their own stated conclusions, thereby leaving the question of a cosmic ether and ether-drift as an open and unresolved question, or one which positive evidence indicates has been proven out. More recent ether-drift experiments from the last quarter of the 20th and early 21st Centuries, notably by Galaev, Múnera, and others, using radiofrequencies, light-beam interferometery, and other novel methods, have provided further proof for the existence of a cosmic ether in space. www.scientificexploration.org/journal/

[@reginaldsinclair152]

God is spirit. Only one true living powerful intelligent creative amazing spirit like no other. Ain't no such thing as time. We are adaptive to mankind time. Which is a lie. God never die. Never do he get old. Our spirit doesn't get old our bodies get conditioned. We transforming transcending from a dark secret hidden within our creator. Everyone everything was all trapped inside him until he set it up to take its course for his dreams to become a now reality. Nothing is wasted. Not one thought nor idea. And whatever he hasn't Created yet. Why a plan not in Motion evolution will take place somewhere. What would our God be a God to if he never created us. Intelligent life form that always existed that we wouldn't know of until he released us. Growing from the dirt, giving a soul, and his spirit, breath in our lives we make him a God. Without us he doesn't learn to love. He had no parents that teach him how to love. Nothing can give birth to a God and give him power to create and rule the entire universe. He always existed. The universe is his dwelling place. It's very massive. So how he knows he's the only God out there? When was there a moment he realized he could do all this. Before 1 star or anything was created how was it our God knew of himself to be such one like no other and that he can furnish the universe (space) powers to be doing something with. What Gave him power to have the ability to have powers (mentally) its all mental powers from a transcending thought process. Idea 💡 and possess with powers beyond our imagination. Only way to settle all that is to realize he had to always exist and he didn't have to do this. Everything is spiritual. We will transform from our physical life and go into the afterlife to be sentence for our unavoidable birth and death. Now Ain't that some shit

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

What it the world would be the purpose of another universe if there were nothing exiting *within* said universe that that could see, feel, hear, smell, or taste the phenomenal features of that universe? Furthermore, try to envision and then describe a so-called "universe" that does not consist of stars and planets.

[@mk71b]

We probably need a multiverse for this level of hubris and inflated reasoning to fit in...😏

[@fred_2021]

Cor-Rect!

[@ewa-ulrica-lotus3673]

What do you think about the Nobel price in physics this year⁉️ Greetings from Sweden ❄️

[@colinsmith1288]

Who was it by the way,l missed the announcement.

[@durango8882]

No Santa Claus either? ☹️ How about The Man In The Moon?

[@leonoradompor8706]

The universe is my reflections ****

[@georgerevell5643]

I love this topic, the fine tuning of the constants, there just HAS to be a multiverse, or God.

[@TheShinedownfan21]

The values of universal constants are fine tuned by impersonal interactions, not supernatural gods-- otherwise, who fine tunes the gods? You can't answer that question by merely kicking it up to another level and then refusing to inquire further.

[@dr.jamesolack8504]

Religion in general, is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the human race. Mainly, because most people are afraid of death and don’t know what’s on the other side. When in fact, there is no ‘other side’. When you die, your perspective ceases to exist. Most people can’t wrap there heads around this. So, religion and the ‘God’ concept were cooked up. A story to make death more bearable for those who are afraid of it. When you think about it, it’s such a childish behavior. But a habit hard to kick for billions because the indoctrination is so thorough. Have a nice day!

[@havenbastion]

Any idea more complex than what it's attempting to explain is intellectually regressive. That includes both gods and extra universes.

[@supamatta9207]

The peak of our sci fi civilisation s theories are at most 10 million light year span s. The god circle 500million time length of 10ooo years each of these circle s being another influence mounting to a total god at the speed of the univers a division of the speed of light or something.

[@macdmacd7896]

if there is no fine tuning, what you perceive as so-called 'universe', the simulation inside your brain (VR Visor) with all its probabilistic scenes, will not animate.

[@bradameerbeg2154]

How did the Universe come into existence? Yes.

[@setiandromeda6091]

The more that is discovered the more we dont know.appears the search for knowledge is infinite ad they may never be a time that we shall be in a position to explain and or understand everything.all we can do is appreciate every ad any leap forward with humility ad appreciate rapid un imaginable change trying always to catch up but aware we cant.that should not create pessimism.it makesscience ad life interesting.to understand all in my view is to be extinct

[@mauzouq]

It’s crazy to think there is infinite universe? How that became and from where ? If there’s no evidence it’s not true in my opinion

[@pennynicholas5756]

Just because there is no evidence does not mean the event didn’t exist.. if there is a theft and you know who the thief is, but have no concrete evidence to proof it, does that mean it is not true

[@hidgik]

How can we claim fine tuning given that most of the universe is bereft of life.

[@scottg6754]

Bereft of anything. Almost all of space, is, well, space.

[@sahttr_5097]

What a great vídeo, thank You very much

[@jamesgabriel9848]

It's simple it takes something to make something nothing pops out of thin air. Take a wooden chair it starts from a tree and milled then put together with parts and fits, the chair didn't make itself or just appear. It takes intelligence to make anything

[@therick363]

a chair is an artificial construction. so the comparison doesn't work. And not everyone says it came from nothing and it's also just an idea/thought experiment.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

@@therick363 Ok, so take an atom. It started from a neutron and then became an atom. There's no atom that started from zilch. Thus, the idea that the big bang came out of nothing doesn't match the way things work in the universe today. The big bang is still a good theory, but it says nothing about where things came from originally.

[@therick363]

@@nmarbletoe8210 I know it doesn’t say anything about where things came from. It’s not supposed to. Also only a few suggest things came out of nothing. The overwhelming majority don’t say the Big Bang came out of nothing.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

@@therick363 Good points, agreed. I'm just saying that the question of original cause hasn't been solved. It may be the type of question that has no possible answer, by the way it is constructed. When there's a question that science cannot answer, it's properly open to philosophy and belief.

[@therick363]

@@nmarbletoe8210 yes indeed