Mysteries of the Cosmos, From Dark Energy to the Big Bang: State of the Universe with Michael Turner

Рет қаралды 24,359

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 43

@mattmiller4917 4 ай бұрын

Sometimes I wish I'd pursued one of the physical sciences instead of writing about poets. Your informed repartee and comradery makes me feel this way again.

@hanochlivneh771 Ай бұрын

A wonderful, exciting verbal interaction between two great scientists

@2011vortex 4 ай бұрын

Long time fan Lawrence! love your passion for science and truth.

@ohalloranjames 5 ай бұрын

this was a fun informative conversation that taught me some general ideas about the universe. thanks Dr- I quite appreciate that you both took time to do this

@TheVicar 5 ай бұрын

Its always a joy Even if I never get to understanding the complexity of it all, it stretches the mind in a comfortable and calming manner

@nunomaroco583 4 ай бұрын

Hi, tremendous talk, lots of knowledge and interesting ideias....

@karagi101 4 ай бұрын

Love your discussions Lawrence!

@kcmule 5 ай бұрын

Enjoyed the discussion! Although I find the self-adjusting camera to be quite distracting.

@scottpennington6167 4 ай бұрын

Fantastic interview! One of your best. I've listened to it twice.

@miramarensis 3 ай бұрын

Thanks Larry for this wonderful podcast. I watched this video twice as it was so enjoyable. Michael Turner is a great communicator.

@vmccall399 4 ай бұрын

I love your podcasts, but please leave the camera's focus still.

@saeidaliyounkhajehdizaj9903 5 ай бұрын

I am very excited for this one

@yrebrac 5 ай бұрын

I'm more like "gee I hope Lawrence let's Michael talk for at least 30% of the time"

@mikhailfranco 4 ай бұрын

Enjoyed the interview very much. A nice blend of anecdote, explanation and discussion of the frontiers. Wonderful. One tiny quibble is that the most conservative explanation of dark matter via WIMPS is RH neutrinos. They are literally in the Standard Model, and even if the weak force is maximally parity violating (it is) they would still interact by (at least) gravity and maybe beyond SM forces. Please talk with Neil Turok...... TBC (I hope)

@Mike-x9h5f 3 ай бұрын

now they're doing the Jewish admission thing with the Asians

@LittleCutiePodcast 5 ай бұрын

Feynman told me I'm just jiggling

@ready1fire1aim1 5 ай бұрын

Mapping properties of zero and non-zero numbers onto 0D and higher dimensional concepts in physics could indeed yield fascinating insights. Let's explore some key parallels: 1. Additive Identity: - Arithmetic: 0 is the additive identity; any number plus 0 remains unchanged. - Physics/Geometry: 0D could be seen as the "identity" dimension, from which all other dimensions emerge without changing the fundamental nature of reality. 2. Multiplicative Annihilator: - Arithmetic: Multiplying any number by 0 results in 0. - Physics: Interactions or operations involving 0D entities might "collapse" higher-dimensional structures back to their 0D fundament. 3. Division Undefined: - Arithmetic: Division by 0 is undefined. - Physics: This could parallel the breakdown of physical theories at singularities, suggesting 0D as a limit of our current understanding. 4. Parity: - Arithmetic: 0 is the only number that is neither positive nor negative. - Physics: 0D could represent a state of symmetry or balance from which asymmetries (like matter/antimatter) emerge in higher dimensions. 5. Cardinality: - Set Theory: The empty set {} has 0 elements but is fundamental to building all other sets. - Physics: 0D entities, while "empty" of extension, could be the building blocks of all higher-dimensional structures. 6. Limits: - Calculus: Many limits approach but never reach 0. - Physics: This could relate to quantum uncertainty principles, where precise 0D localization is impossible. 7. Exponents: - Arithmetic: Any number to the 0 power equals 1 (except 0^0 which is indeterminate). - Physics: This might suggest that 0D entities have a kind of "unitary" nature, fundamental to quantum mechanics. 8. Countability: - Number Theory: There are infinitely many non-zero integers, but only one 0. - Physics: This could parallel the idea of a single, unified 0D substrate giving rise to infinite higher-dimensional configurations. 9. Continuum: - Real Analysis: 0 separates positive and negative reals on the number line. - Physics: 0D might represent a kind of "phase transition" point between different states or topologies of higher-dimensional spaces. 10. Complex Plane: - Complex Analysis: 0 is the only point where real and imaginary axes intersect. - Physics: This could relate to 0D as a nexus where different aspects of reality (e.g., matter and spacetime) unify. 11. Polynomial Roots: - Algebra: 0 is often a special case in root-finding (e.g., the constant term in a polynomial). - Physics: This might suggest 0D entities as "ground states" or fundamental solutions in physical theories. 12. Modular Arithmetic: - Number Theory: 0 behaves uniquely in modular systems. - Physics: This could relate to cyclic or periodic behaviors emerging from 0D foundations in higher dimensions. These parallels suggest that just as 0 plays a unique and fundamental role in mathematics, 0D entities could play a similarly crucial role in physics. This mapping hints at a deep connection between abstract mathematical structures and physical reality, potentially offering new ways to conceptualize and model fundamental physics. Such analogies could inspire new approaches to quantum gravity, the nature of time, the emergence of spacetime, and the unification of forces. They might also provide intuitive frameworks for understanding seemingly paradoxical quantum phenomena.

@ready1fire1aim1 5 ай бұрын

Your questions delve into a fascinating philosophical and theoretical realm. Let's explore these ideas: 1. Proving 0D is non-natural vs. 1D-4D being natural: While we can't definitively "prove" this in the strict mathematical sense, we can make a compelling argument: - Natural dimensions (1D-4D) are observable, measurable, and part of our everyday experience. - 0D, representing a dimensionless point, lacks spatial or temporal extension and thus exists outside our natural, observable universe. - In mathematics, natural numbers start from 1, while 0 is often treated separately, suggesting a fundamental difference. This distinction could align with the concept of 0D being more fundamental or "pre-geometric," existing prior to or outside of what we consider natural space-time. 2. Proving natural can't exist without the non-natural: Again, while a formal proof is challenging, we can construct a logical argument: - If 0D entities are truly fundamental and non-natural, and higher dimensions emerge from them, then by definition, the natural (1D-4D) requires the non-natural (0D) as its foundation. - This mirrors how in mathematics, complex structures are built upon more abstract, foundational concepts. - Quantum field theories often rely on abstract, non-observable entities (like virtual particles or fields) to explain observable phenomena. 3. Novel implications: If we accept these premises, several intriguing implications arise: a) Ontological Priority: The non-natural (0D) would have ontological priority over the natural, reversing traditional materialist philosophies. b) Information Fundamentalism: If 0D entities are fundamental, reality at its core might be informational rather than material. c) Emergent Naturalism: Our entire concept of "natural" laws and phenomena would be emergent properties of a more fundamental non-natural substrate. d) Limits of Science: Traditional scientific methods, designed to study the natural world, might be fundamentally limited in probing the true nature of reality. e) Bridging Physics and Metaphysics: This framework could provide a bridge between physical theories and metaphysical or even spiritual concepts that have traditionally been seen as separate from science. f) New Approach to Quantum Gravity: This perspective could offer a novel approach to quantum gravity, where gravity emerges from the interaction of 0D entities rather than being a fundamental force. g) Redefinition of Existence: We might need to redefine what we mean by "existence" if the most fundamental entities exist in a non-natural, 0D state. h) Computational Universe: If 0D entities are informational, it could lend credence to theories that our universe is fundamentally computational in nature. i) New Mathematical Frameworks: This could spur the development of new mathematical frameworks designed to model the emergence of natural dimensions from non-natural 0D foundations. These ideas, while highly speculative, open up exciting avenues for theoretical exploration and could potentially lead to revolutionary changes in our understanding of physics, philosophy, and the nature of reality itself.

@vladimirrogozhin7797 5 ай бұрын

@@ready1fire1aim1 Mathematician and philosopher Dmitry Bukin in the article "THE CRISIS OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS AS A CRISIS OF ONTOLOGY" concludes: "The crisis of the foundations of mathematics is, first of all, a crisis of ontology, the essence of which is the inability to describe objects, the fact of existence or formation of which goes beyond the usual ideas about the world. The way out of such a crisis must be sought not so much in improving the methods of mathematics itself, but in updating cognitive means of ontology that do not deny the classical paradigm, but can go beyond its framework. In this sense, dialectics is a historically proven method of comprehending the existence of a mathematical object in its development and relationship with objective reality." Today, the "problem No. 1 of the millennium" is the ontological justification of mathematics (ontological basification), and therefore knowledge in general, the construction of the New Extended Ideality - the ontological basis of knowledge and cognition for the New information age: ontological frame, carcass, foundation. Mathematicians sweep the problem of the ontological justification of mathematics “under the rug”. *_"The event of grasping the structure means understanding."_* (G. Gutner "Ontology of mathematical discourse") I will add: "grasping the ontological structure". To understand the beginning/origin of the Universe and knowledge is to “grasp” the primordial (absolute, ontological) generating structure.

@missh1774 5 ай бұрын

I've heard that lamp post story a few times, but since I had seen one myself... I'm a little confused about that story now.

@LaboriousCretin 5 ай бұрын

What about lithium burn and deterium burn from free neutrons then? Think castle bravo for part. Thank you for sharing the video.

@saeidaliyounkhajehdizaj9903 5 ай бұрын

Let's go

@jjzr2man1 4 ай бұрын

10 -37 seconds. Universe is already an old man......😅

@tolhumexy6706 5 ай бұрын

Yes, it's James Ellroy.

@gregoryhead382 5 ай бұрын

≈ 1 a_H (acceleration associated with the cosmological expansion rate) = (Λ c^2 l_Λ/7) is an Einstein | Head square equivalency to Einstein coefficient B ≈ 1 predicted gravitational constant gradient according to projective unified field theory = ((-1. α c)/(Λ m_Λ t_Λ^2)) for photorefractive figure of merit.

@jjzr2man1 4 ай бұрын

My takeaway..........just add asparagus 😅