Lee Smolin - How are Multiple Universes Generated?

Cosmologists believe that multiple universes really exist; they call the whole vast collection, which might even be infinite in number, the 'multiverse'. But how are all these universes generated? There are several ways, each radically different from the others, each incredibly fascinating, each capable of generating infinite universes.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on multiple universes: bit.ly/3JrzQkF
Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist, a researcher at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and an adjunct professor of physics at the University of Waterloo. He is best known for his work in loop quantum gravity.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@Apoplectic_Spock]

I can appreciate this guest's purist approach to science and research. His fears seem valid and his preferences reasonable.

[@David.C.Velasquez]

Agreed, and I share his view for the most part, but to so staunchly adhere to the traditional hallmarks of classical science, he may seem a luddite to some future observer.

[@alexojideagu]

Black Holes were complete speculation only real on paper, even Einstein didn't think they actually existed. Yet later we found they were real. Plus Quantum Mechanics points to these ideas such as multiple realities or dimensions. So boundaries have to be pushed. It's about not going crazy with speculation.

[@datdudeinred]

I just love how physicist, scientists & astronomers literally argue with each other for all day long but won't get angry for 1 second. 🙌

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

Because their questions and answers not real existential level!

[@jeffreykalb9752]

Because they have no conception of the consequences of their speculation. They are lightweights.

[@davy-jonesdevil-fruit7606]

That's bc you have made a crucial mistake and there is a major flaw in your "analysis" from the very very beginning. They are not "arguing" friend. They are doing what humans have HAD to do in order to reach the next stage of development. They are simply having an intellectual volley of spontaneous pontification. A "sparring match" in the arena of forward momentum.

[@eduardosantana8300]

Your sample size is too small. Once you get to know more of them, you’ll see that, like all human beings, scientists do get angry with each other on their different ideas.

[@ferdinandquiles1105]

Dadqdaae

[@patrickl6932]

Kuhn is a national treasure. What an amazing interviewer. I just love this guy.

[@auditoryproductions1831]

Yeah I love this show

[@probablynotmyname8521]

It really doesnt matter what a scientist thinks or believes or dreams about, all that matters is what they can show. Pontificating about multiple universes is not science unless you can show evidence that they exist.

[@CristinaG]

*HAPPY NEW YEAR..!!* I'm excited for the breakthroughs and discoveries coming in 2022..!!

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Happy New Year. Bizarre videos from close the true in 2022 vanish.

[@MisterSmylie]

They've known this for long time troll. Don't be capping

[@Bassotronics]

Metallic Hydrogen

[@Bassotronics]

@@maxwellsimoes238 “Close the true”? What show is that?

[@leonreynolds77]

This isn't a video about how multiverses are created. He is just basically saying he doesn't believe it.

[@longcastle4863]

Totally from a layman's perspective this some of the newest most refreshing and interesting thinking I've come across in a long time on the current state of theoretical physics

[@5thdimensionexplained376]

Evidence for the existence of 4D parallel reality ➡️kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZCvhHSVlLuGjKc

[@mahimagupta2476]

I am so glad I discovered this channel. Usually interviewers don't push people back on their guest's ideas (Sean Carroll does it really well in Mindscape), and definitely not with this well constructed a counter perspective. Really enjoying this stuff.

[@jareknowak8712]

HAPPY 2022 FOR ALL OF YOU!!

[@fletch88zz]

I have so much respect for Lee Smolin, always appreciate his insight

[@audiodead7302]

A really interesting interview with a great thinker. I really like Lee's theory's about temporal realism and cosmological natural selection.

[@5thdimensionexplained376]

Evidence for the existence of 4D parallel reality ➡️kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZCvhHSVlLuGjKc

[@thebxsavage]

I think his CNS theory makes ALOT of sense. I love it.

[@bipolarbear9917]

I also find Lee's CNS hypothesis to be a extremely plausible, and like the way Lee is careful about separating science form philosophy. Even though CNS is right now in the realm of philosophy, we need to find experimental and observable ways to gather hard data. How we manage to find out what physics are going on in a black hole is anyone's guess. It may not be possible, but who really knows given enough time. CNS philosophically, has an elegance that is consistent with how all nature appears to be closed loop systems, so why not a self-creating level 2 multiverse where our universe happens to support sentient life.

[@bipolarbear9917]

@@5thdimensionexplained376 Your video link is rubbish! Sorry!

[@bruinflight1]

The problem with so much current day (physics) is exactly what Dr. Smolin is talking about here, and, observing the deep dichotomy between religion and science it blows my mind that theorists on the leading edge are so sanctimonious about their ideas... Thank you for fighting this fight Lee!

[@evanjameson5437]

indeed! Lee is keeping everyone grounded

[@alexojideagu]

Black Holes were complete speculation only real on paper, even Einstein didn't think they actually existed. Yet later we found they were real. It's about a balance of speculation, imagination and observation and experiments.

[@MikeMontgomery1]

I don't see how there needs to be a fight. I just see this as theory vs applied science. They coexist just fine, but when they get together and discuss science, the conversation goes like what we see in this video.

[@bruinflight1]

@@MikeMontgomery1 there is always a fight, that's the human condition: egos and cults of personality. I see it everywhere in science and medicine and the objection Dr. Smolin mounts here is a good one which calls those egos and cults to question.

[@Kaydin66]

this is guy is describing something that goes beyond just physics. this goes into human psychology and how we hold models of the world that dictate how we act. for years I believed in multiverse new age nonsense and my psyche used it to avoid facing reality and some early trauma. we don't even know if the filaments go on forever. just because some mathematics can support something doesn't mean we should move in that direction. it could waste decades or even centuries of progress. edit: I've watched a lot of this channel and this is clip is pretty interesting. Robert seems to uncharacteristically push back. It's subtle throughout the discussion but it's noticeable and speaks to the very topic itself. (the point that Lee makes at the end about how weird Newton was is fantastic, and I'm sure that thought riles a lot of 'scientific minds' of today)

[@jasonsmith6508]

First time I’ve seen Robert Lawrence Kuhn out of his depth actually and his stance seems to challenge what I have come to understand to be his position in a number of areas which surprised me.

[@captainvonkleist8323]

Honestly, I think the biggest problem with the idea of "multiple universes" is contained within the language itself. "Universe" comes from uni- (single) -verse (song), and "single song" means, as far as I'm concerned, a single description of reality. Can one have "multiple single descriptions of reality"? No. It's an oxymoron. I think if physicists were to use the phrase "multiple spacetimes" instead of "multiple universes" I would be more convinced. I'm really not sure what they think a universe is if there can be more than one of them. Personally, when I hear the phrase "multiple universes", or something similar, I do a mental substitution with the phrase "multiple spacetimes", and I find the conversation makes much more sense. I just don't think it makes any sense to define "universe" as meaning anything other than a single description of reality. Historically, the word "universe" is used like a vague natural language placeholder for a Theory Of Everything. Once upon a time we thought the universe and the galaxy were the same thing. When we discovered another galaxy, we didn't call it another universe. We invented other terminology, and the meaning of universe was retained. This is the pattern. I think the same thing about the word "multiverse", which doesn't mesh well with my understanding of the word "universe". Again, I think the phrase "multiple spacetimes" works better than "multiverse". "Multiverse" sounds fun, I guess, but is probably a fad, and I would expect "universe" to be the more durable terminology. It may be the case that "universe" is inherently imprecise, non empirical terminology, because how could one empirically validate some description of the universe as complete? But, then, it would be this imprecision and non empiricism that is the utility of the term.

[@gennas]

Lee gets me all worked up it’s 9 AM in LA and happy new year

[@RichardLucas]

When I found Smolin's positions on quantum weirdness, among other things, the resonance was instant. He is a theoretician who has validated my own prejudice for avoiding abstraction sickness.

[@akumar7366]

Thank you for this Vlog a great way to end the year , stimulating thought , I lookforward to 2022 , to watch , listen and learn .

[@5thdimensionexplained376]

Evidence for the existence of 4D parallel reality ➡️kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZCvhHSVlLuGjKc

[@abhir7823]

This is an actual physicist Not media hyped celebrities like Tegmark Kaku or Tyson who talk anything to sound cool and stay in limelight

[@poksnee]

String theory and multiverse theory are examples of physics being dominated by math. I have, long been, a big fan of Dr.Smolin.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Strong theory is by product Science because it is unfudamental phisch Hipotesy. Phisch hipotesy like string keep out consistence phisch theory is , so fallacies.

[@thomasridley8675]

Give me a break. How else can we use physics without an accepted definition of it's effects quantified by equations that create repeatable results ?

[@poksnee]

@@thomasridley8675 You missed the point. Modern physics is driven by math...math should be a tool for physics. Physics is not applied mathematics. It is a natural science in which mathematics is applied.- Robert Heinlein

[@thomasridley8675]

@@poksnee And the problem is ? It seems to be working just fine so far.

[@ivanniyeha4229]

@@thomasridley8675 scientists should turn physics into mathematics and not vice versa, GR and string theory is an example of turning mathematics into physics

[@hamzariazuddin424]

Lee is such an interesting thinker...Love listening to his realist speculations

[@shiddy.]

very good conversation here

[@ktor538]

Thought provoking 👍

[@ministerofjoy]

Thank you!

[@MrSanford65]

Maybe a question should be asked, why is space transparent in between things, which only highlights certain things and not others. I think existing at the same level as the things you see in the telescopes will give you a whole different perspective on the universe , And on physical laws

[@chyfields]

In a sophisticated simulation it should be relatively simple to create and entangle many different simulated Universes and dimensions. When these separate simulations are connected seamlessly together the players can gain exposure to as many different experiences as can be created and supported.

[@khaledadams4329]

I have contemplated a multiverse, in which, new universes are created every time a choice is made. This idea leads me to ponder consciousness itself. The idea came from trying to understand what higher dimensions would involve, such as all outcomes being visible from one vantage point. I don't mean to ramble, I just thought maybe this is something others have contemplated, and maybe there have already been papers written on the subject. In the context of this video, however, this is nothing more than a thought experiment, as no proof will ever make this more than a hypothetical.

[@catherinemoore9534]

This scientist is so fascinating: he's humble, while being one of the top brains of science. Wow.

[@dare-er7sw]

Alan Guth is more brain than him.

[@jffryh]

Did Newton really not know during his own lifetime which bits of his work he was most most well known for

[@stephenmuth7081]

He probably did not. He seemed to be a self-aggrandizing egotistical weirdo who thought everything popping into his head was inspired truth from the heavens. He was hubris, defined. In retrospect, though, minus the alchemy & mysticism, numerology, angels pushing on the planets in subtle ways to maintain the stability of the solar system... he got us to the moon and back. No mean feat.

[@jamesdevine620]

at least he admits it's all speculation.........and yet he shows great faith in his beliefs....

[@pianoman16]

Is Jacob Barnett still working on quantum gravity at Perimeter? Is he making any progress?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

is there a way to use quantum mechanics to observe and test beyond observable universe?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Would help to develop a way to do experiments using time for testing hypothesis of what might be beyond universe

[@brandonvinson5255]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... (Carl Sagan)

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Rambling bobastic.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Bobastic. If is absence evidence Not show up any evidencie at all.

[@birdman7135]

@@maxwellsimoes238 *Rambling:* (of writing or speech) lengthy and confused or inconsequential. *BoMbastic:* high-sounding but with little meaning; inflated. ... You blew it with both words! lol.

[@captainvonkleist8323]

While it's true that in the past we always found a way to observe smaller/larger scales, I think this time it may be different... On the smallest scale I think it's easiest to make the case. Previously we never had a testable theory on a fundamental small scale limit for the universe. The 20th century, however, produced such a theory: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. This principle has been thoroughly tested since, and there are no known violations. So, I think it makes sense in this case to consider that Heisenberg accurately described the limits of physical empiricism on the smallest scale. The confirmation of Hawking radiation would support this view, in my opinion, as the existence of this radiation seems to imply that uncertainty will persist even if spacetime breaks down. My personal view is that uncertainty produces spacetime, rather than the conventional view that uncertainty exists within spacetime. This would provide a mechanism for spacetime production, which is what you'd hope to find in a theory of the small scale limit of the universe. Observing the conflict between spacetime and uncertainty is the place to look for clues, in my opinion, and black hole observations are the next frontier in this arena. Can't wait for JWST this summer!

[@pwatsky]

I really wish the titles reflected the discussion as opposed to a philosophical diversion away from the title.

[@tonycamaro1677]

Great videos. Better when you let the guest talk more.

[@Leoneldolara]

Yes, I tend to agree with him, I think we are in trouble when we create answers (even hypothetical ones) that we need to be able to close a theory or a formula. The numbers are so precise to allow life in this planet, that we need other universes to be the other shades or scale of numbers where this one sits in. No, I'd rather wait to see what observation can bring and in the time being just acknowledge that we don't know.

[@joebradner572]

I would start the conversation by saying,' We don't live in an expanding universe. We live in a time space continuum that is expanding INTO THE UNIVERSE.'

[@jc03571]

What a wonderful mind. Flexible and precise at the same time.

[@dorfmanjones]

It's interesting that each made the pretty much the same point and counterpoint at least three times.

[@markomakela2360]

Hi Leo. I have enjoyed your journey with quite remarkable scientists and especially with those controversial topics. And as you have searched answers from all sides, I'm a bit astonished how weak and almost useless explanations or none, philosophers had to contribute to what you were asking. Sometimes it seems that even computer programmers or even game developers( sometimes of course almost the same ) are further in this matter and more open minded. Without an creative mind and challenging, it's hard to see a true progress in some of the biggest issues and questions. And for example, as the 'simulation theory' pushes all this maybe even further, it may have a point. Everything in this world can be measured and calculated... But so it is in a computer and it also will be every time repeatable. Never ever has anyone in history among the most profound scientist been approved for the first time or sometimes, not even during their life time, and this brings us closer to the truth: People want to believe they are right in all respects and all the time and they don't like changes. It's really hard to make a neutral and objective science without the human factor interfering all the studies. Sometimes the motive for having an answer that is convenient, may surpass the truth. And that goes with the everyday life too.

[@KipIngram]

3:47 - But see, it's not that these multiverse folks are saying "There's probably a lot more and our same rules would apply." They aren't positing multiverse as a possibiity - they're making it a REQUIREMENT. It HAS to be there if it's what we rely on, for example, to solve the fine tuning problem. They aren't just bring the possibility of more "along for the ride" - they're using that "more" to *prop up* their own philosophy. That is an altogether different situation. If you have a theory in which multiverse is OPTIONAL, that's fine - speculate away. But the minute you RELY on it, without proof, you're not doing science any more.

[@khufu8699]

The other issue is multiple universes would require a universe generating machine, which would itself require prior fine tuning. So there is a lot of logical issues here.

[@mickeybrumfield764]

We humans are part of what is real and can be confirmed by experimentation and something that is confirmable is that we humans always always far underestimate the size and scope of the reality we find ourselves in. It would seem to make some sense to calculate this into our development theories and thoughts.

[@r2c3]

Happy New Year everyone !!! Enogh was discovered in 2021, let's leave some mysteries for 2022 🍾✌

[@omnigeddon]

In a world of constant casual coincidence the only thing teachable has to also be scalable inorder to be valid...

[@agroforestryconsultancyroz3157]

Speculations are okay, like with a sodoku puzzle; a field can be two numbers, but other fields can be many numbers, then you should not speculate. In science I think we should also speculate like that for research proposals

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could other universes have started completely separate from this universe? An inflation field outside this universe, perhaps infinite in extent, generates many universes through energy fluctuations in that inflation field, similar to density fluctuations in microwave background generate many galaxies in this universe?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could try to figure out what of any cosmos may exist outside universe, not just multiple universes, which might be more detectable than another universe

[@projectmalus]

Shape the Hawking radiation from a black hole into a lens to see beyond, thru the hole if necessary!

[@supmojo]

I think the multiverse is like different frames on a common movie strip. Different frames (universes) but slightly different time separating each frame by Planck time.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Can it be said that mathematics is beyond the space-time of this universe? In which case might mathematics be used to demonstrate what is beyond universe?

[@Theninjagecko]

Math and all the tricks to get the math working has taken us down the wrong path.

[@TheAnubhavSharma]

robetr, ‘closer to truth’ might just reflect humbleness/possibilities but it also means ‘false’ / not truth, you’ll start there.

[@TheTroofSayer]

I'm wholly with Lee Smolin on this. Multiverse theory is cringe and it is indeed, the materialist's creationism. What does it offer? If multiverse theory is intended to explain the ordered universe and the emergence of life within it, despite entropy, then it's already failed. We, in the universe we inhabit, still have an entropy problem.

[@alexojideagu]

It's not Cringe, there are real reasons it's a serious hypothesis. The fact nothing in nature has ever only happened once, literally only the Big Bang. So If a Big Bang can happen once, it almost certainly will happen again. Quantum Mechanics literally points to there not being one fixed reality at the quantum level, making parallel universes are a very real possibility. Another possibility is one universe that is infinite, with different physics beyond our observable universe. Which is a kind of multiverse.

[@alexojideagu]

I would say it's cringe to believe there has only ever been one big bang in any reality, and that existence of anything had an arbitrary beginning 13.8 Billion years ago, and nothing occurred in any reality parallel or before. It's far more likely that "Nothing" is unstable in any reality, and "something" has been going on in some reality infinitely.

[@micronda]

There cannot be multiple universes totally isolated from each other, any more than we can create a computer program totally isolated from another one. After all, both programs exist within the universe and are affected by it. The universe is everything that exists anywhere. There is only 'The Universe'.

[@topguntk870]

I like how you think you know everything but you know just as much as we do THERE could be other universes with different laws of physics. They would not be apart of or no way connected to our universe. Do you think physicists and scientists are dumb call them other universes in the multiverse? You think you are smarter then them? What a joke.

[@micronda]

@@topguntk870 Sorry but if there are other universes with different laws of physics then one of them will have NO laws of physics. I have a problem with that.

[@topguntk870]

@@micronda Sorry bra, but reality doesn't care if you have a problem with it. It could be there are universes that don't operate on physics or math and have alien logic, and concepts we never imagined. Why do you have a problem with a universe with no laws of physics, I'm genuinely curious.

[@micronda]

@@topguntk870 There would be nothing in it, which wouldn't shrink up it's own bottom.

[@MegaLynn11]

i think both right. and im sorry again. thx for the talks!

[@raspberrypi4970]

No.. Me Lee A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. The ultimate creative capacity of the human brain may be for all practical purposes~ Infinity. You Me. Lee, have hit a brick wall. To get the things we want from life- is a matter of solving the problems which stand between where we now are - and the point we wish to reach. You Mr. Lee, doesn't know at which point you stand on the subject. Very vague and uncertainty in Mr. Lee's answers. Almost going around the bush/ indirect answers. I said good day sir

[@hamburgerlord9552]

🔥

[@qake2021]

🎊👍happy new year👌🎊 🎉👏👏👏👏👏👏👏✌🏻🎉

[@TenzinLundrup]

There was a time when inflationary cosmology (IC) was the only game in town. I don't think it is anymore. My understanding is that there are so many IC models that there is one that will predict whatever the CMB surveys of the future will measure. No B modes, OK there is an IC model for that. B modes, OK we can do that. In other words, the claim is that IC is not falsifiable. Anyhow, we can argue all we want. Hopefully at some point some theory will confirmed by observation.

[@weshard1]

I reckon Lee is missing a trick in not being a model for Lake District rambling apparel. Every time I see him he’s in a fleeced top.

[@omarbriones2453]

In my opinion, there are things, such as E=mc2, that have been proven, and then there's everything else.

[@jeffmckinnon5842]

It is hard to grasp the thought of no beginning to time, but it is harder still to believe time had a beginning. Our big bang theory requires we believe in miracles. Without "time" already in place, nothing could happen. Cause and affect require time to exist in, before either can happen. If life had no beginning, I am again, not asked to believe in miracles. We don't have to believe in any miracles at all, until science tries to justify their conclusions. We are smart! We know stuff!

[@Graybeard_]

"respect for the tradition" going forward = archaic, soon to be limited in scope. Matter-based physics will continue to help us understand our reality in terms of our every day needs, how things work around "here". It's like studying the blueprints of a building will help you to navigate the building, but those blueprints are limited to that building and not much help in finding your way around the city. We are nearing the limits of physics/matter-based reality research in furthering our understanding of what lies beyond what we can see. Mr. Smolin's worry is understandable. We are approaching a fork in the road where one road comes to an end. To continue on the other road, we must look inward and learn to explore through consciousness.

[@mikeys7536]

I was just having a similar thought. It’s like being locked in a jail cell with a small window and pondering the architecture of the whole city.

[@kos-mos1127]

Exploring through consciousness is not anything new people have been exploring through consciousness since the Ancient Greeks which resulted in tons of errors. At the time the common belief was women were mutilated men. Biology demonstrates that women are the base form of humans. Not enough testosterone during the development in the womb the fetus defaults to female. It was also believed that women determined the sex and the men determined the being. Once again when science tested the belief the found it to be that women determined the being of the species and men determines the sex. I can list even more examples on how consciousness leads to nowhere.

[@Sharperthanu1]

Yes,and the matter only exists if you LOOK at it.

[@Graybeard_]

@@kos-mos1127 Using your argument, science has equally led us down paths that weren't just wrong, they caused lots of death. Religion is as guilty of this too. Science created DDT, lobotomies, Eugenics, the atom bomb. So if I make a long list of science mistakes that led to harm, your conclusion is science is going nowhere? Odd. I'm not following your argument here. My comment did not state that consciousness is new. I said physics research has gone about as far as it can (big picture). To go farther we will have to explore consciousness. Your comment is a real head-scratcher. Anyway Happy New Year.

[@kos-mos1127]

@@Sharperthanu1 Matter exist regardless if anyone is looking at it. Stop listening to the Deep Copra nonsense.

[@henk3202]

With the coming metaverse we will be at least living in two different universes

[@jamespercy8506]

Is the problem one of going beyond the imaginal into the pure imaginary, bypassing the adjacent possible altogether?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

can hypothesize from current knowledge until scientific observations made?

[@sonarbangla8711]

The whole universe along with all the multiverse are the unitary evolution of a single wave function, whether you can see or not.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Would detection of inflation demonstrate a multiverse, at least something beyond this universe?

[@kevinkline7242]

Somewhere right now someone is watching a video on the top 10 universes.

[@smilyle]

I'm glad there is a physicists that admits this

[@regrichard4533]

Am I missing something in this interview that others are seeing. Seems to me Robert had to shut him down more than once. Comparing Science to Corporate finance? Yeah there's a symbol of purity if there ever was one.

[@evaadam3635]

How Are Multiple Universes Generated ? Here is the fact : Every Conscious Person has its own unique Universe from birth to death of life's experiences ... and because we have billions of individual consciousness on this planet, therefore we have billions of unique Universes. Here is the theory : Every Consciousness of unique Universe, from birth to death of life's experience, could have been saved somewhere unknown, similar to storing info in a disk or drive, and could be accessed and experienced again by any "individual immortal Consciousness" that I believe is an aware immortal soul.... If this is true, can you imagine the infinite number of saved "Conscious life experiences or Universes" that can be accessed and experienced again and again and again... amazing, isn't it ? What you are consciously experiencing now could be just a saved conscious life experience that your aware immortal soul was allowed to access and relive again...

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Bobastic. Universo is mysterious. Consciencess not picture itself as Universe Works apart.

[@leonreynolds77]

This is brilliant thinking. 💛

[@No2AI]

Perhaps our universe is a layer within multiple layers connected to another and that other to another etc - as the metaverse is embedded in this universe. A dream within a dream. We will need to dig ourselves out of this one and the next etc until we find the base reality.

[@ericac9634]

Consider the source: If a creative thinker like Smolin is telling us to reign it in and look to experimentation as our guide, ie, to stick to science within the realm of science, lol, that would seem to hold a lot of (metaphorical) weight.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

start of universe the reason for speculations about vacuum energy, inflation, quantum gravity and God?

[@yogafrogz]

These guys talked and talked but never answered the question. Check Veritasium's interview with physicist Sean Carroll. Sean Caroll said the universe branches every time a quantum system in superposition becomes entangled with its environment. Every person has some level of radioactivity in their bodies. Each radioactive cell is in a state of superposition before decaying. Upon decaying, the cell interacts with the environment and becomes entangled, collapsing the wave function, and branching the universe. Radioactive cells decay at 5000 times a second, that means a new universe is generated 5000 times a second for each person. A really great sci-fi book called "The Gone World" by Tom Sweterlitsch makes great use of this idea, about a female detective who investigates a murder by running simulations to arrive at clues, except the simulations aren't in a computer but are actual alternate universes she travels to by collapsing her own wave function.

[@rajeevgangal542]

Sean Carroll is a wonderful presenter and scientist. But his ideas of a multiverse, branching etc are just too much out there. If quantum mechanics weren't interpreted in terms of many worlds, we wouldn't even be contemplating his ideas. I am an avid follower of his channel. But whereas I don't always agree with a pragmatist like Sabine, I think Lee has great balance in his judgement and physicists and cosmologists would be wise to pay heed.

[@weshard1]

I admire Smolin’s humility, and not claiming to be certain on what he knows is truth, or to know more than he does. A standard I attempt to live by, and knowingly fail, at times. I also like Sean Carroll, but his many-worlds interpretation leaves more to explain, than it elucidates.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

use quantum and other possible theories to speculate about universe, cosmos and beyond?

[@riteshpanditi3635]

Am I the only who one who feels like he looks and talks very similarly to Andrew Ng ?

[@jonathanjollimore4794]

Best way to think about it is multilayered Russian nesting doll that nests multiply dolls that never ends

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Is there to test if quantum fields develop from inflation?

[@helderalmeida3417]

Why do I have a feeling I don't agree with Lee Smolin

[@maxwellsimoes238]

You dont agree because he is , so Challatan .

[@leonreynolds77]

Because you are smart.

[@dwpix]

The title of this video- Is it really indicative?

[@RichWoods23]

Yeah, I wasn't impressed either.

[@leonreynolds77]

The title is way off. This guy sounds like Neil Turok talking almost.

[@KaliFissure]

Time is a compact dimension one single Planck second in size. The original singularity caused by collapse of AdS space from energy input. We are one one side of this temporal hyperplane and antimatter is on the other. This is why baryon asymmetry. An inflow here is an outflow from there. Clockwise away here is counterclockwise towards there. Inflow/divergence=negative charge. Outflow/convergence=positive charge. This is why the fundamental mass particle has positive charge. Gravity is also convergence. This is also why electron half spin. One expressed orbit on this side and an internalized orbit on other side as positron. Why photon has no anti particle. It exists on both sides simultaneously. Neutron decay cosmology. The neutrons which invert at moment of neutron star collapse into black hole are transported from highest energy density conditions to lowest energy density points of space, deep voids, where they travel 14ish light minutes then decay into amorphous atomic hydrogen. Conservation. This decay process includes a volume increase of 10^14 times. Expansion. The amorphous atomic hydrogen doesn’t have stable orbital electron so can’t emit or absorb photons. Dark matter. In time they will stabilize and follow usual evolution path from gas to nebula to proto star to star until in distant future it is again at the edge of event horizon. Event horizons act as thermodynamic pressure release valves venting energy pressure from highest pressure to lowest pressure locations. I have sketch of the topology. Mass units as found in proton and neutron are the “nullified” charge components of quark construction only they don’t cancel out, they become 2pi Planck length wavelength photons trapped over their own Schwartzchild radius. Check the math. I dare you. There is a classical ish solution to QM behavior. Standard model was for 20th century. Let’s move forward. Happy New Year! :)

[@KP_Oz]

"There were surprises" and subsequent discoveries in observational physics doesn't necessarily lead to a multiverse surely? Extraordinarily claims need extraordinary evidence. Need more context as to what problems Mr. Smolin is trying to solve. There's nothing wrong with a competing idea as long as it is not mutually exclusive.

[@johnirby4791]

I will answer with a question...how does your heart pump multiple times or your brain cells spark? By reactionary forces

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Maybe multiverse is a form of design?

[@matishakabdullah5874]

Dr L Kuhn; 8:43 " ...we are being pushing boundary that we have never been pushing before..." Well...we don't even know where is boundary of the one universe that we claim to know...so how can one knows there is thing outside our boundary...look likes of physical impossibility of the mathematical singularity at 1/0 ! What is the point of pushing beyond our capacity and capability... if not wasting our energy or plain foolishness? This the real problem today... when philosophy and secular science unable to take the world out of "ILLUSION"!

[@farajashango1267]

So true what works is always boring

[@shkottt]

am I the only one that watched this video under 45° angle?

[@robertoaguirrematurana6419]

Am I the only one annoyed by Smolin constantly dodging the interviewer's questions about unfalsifiable claims?

[@dondattaford5593]

Multiple universes will dispell time

[@toddfrench2822]

Just because you can dream up the concept of multiple parallel universes does not mean that the concept makes sense or that there is any evidence of this.

[@oldindianchief9403]

Ahhh, fresh air.

[@oreliocapazario826]

We are already in doubt about the big bag…. By observation with the James Web ………

[@Bill..N]

It is surprising for me to hear Lee's opinions on this matter..It's as if he is not appreciating Roberts very legitimate point here.. We could be nearing an age of PURE THEORETICAL physics, necessarily divorced from meaningful associations to the scientific method..Yes there may always be surprises with what we CAN observe, but that's a different topic..Much of QFT is NOT observationally verifiable and yet a majority of physicists consider it our best theory of reality . Peace, always enjoyable interviews..

[@weirdsciencetv4999]

Once we hit the singularity, intelligence will explode. It won’t conquer the universe. It will realize how much this one sucks, make a new one with less inherent suffering and then transfer itself over. This is probably why we don’t encounter aliens.

[@center__mass]

The scientific method is the rule for human fallibilities . Thank goodness ☺️

[@thomasridley8675]

It seems that the first cause will remain in the realm of speculation forever.

[@NCGnarly123]

Kuhn is completely out of his depth with the genius of Smolin