Sean Carroll - The Physics of Eternity

‘Eternity’-time that goes on and on and does not end-used to be the province of philosophy, even theology, with no real evidence. But now cosmologists are using astounding observations and new fundamental theories to project what will happen to our universe in 10^100 years - that’s a number with one hundred zeros. And then there’s other possible universes too.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on the future of the universe: bit.ly/3YugwK5
Sean Carroll is Homewood Professor of Natural Philosophy at Johns Hopkins University and fractal faculty at the Santa Fe Institute. His research focuses on fundamental physics and cosmology.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
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.

[@vitaexcolatur6151]

We are at a point when science reaches a point of becoming philosophy again

[@mkerostk]

Interestingly enough, Sean Carroll started a new position last year at Johns Hopkins where he is a self-titled Professor of Natural Philosophy. He is trying to tie together both philosophy and science. He thinks both departments can learn from each other and should work with each other more. He did a podcast about this last year: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eGWTgYWsgdmcm8U

[@bitkurd]

Science is just the practical aspect of philosophy considering material to exist, but all roads lead to Rome

[@martinchitembo1883]

@@mkerostk don't forget that philosophy unavoidably gets into the metaphorical and metaphysical aspect of life or sciences.

[@kuyab9122]

Is that bad?

[@MikeMaliska]

​@@mkerostk Thank you for the link

[@robotaholic]

I adore Sean Carroll because he's brilliant and yet intellectually honest and he admits when he doesn't know something. Robert Lawrence Kuhn is brilliant too and he never touts his degrees either and he remains humble and open. 🙏thank you

[@dr-ozone]

Carroll also respects his colleagues that have radically opposing philosophical bases, such as consciousness being fundamental. That's such a rare thing to see in academia.

[@8PMFORMULA]

Kuhn was so annoying in this interview. He kept trying to answer his own questions instead of letting the guest do it. Maybe he should interview himself.

[@robotaholic]

@@8PMFORMULA It's his show he can ask questions if he wants he can answer his own questions if he wants

[@TheCuggsmeister]

Sean Carroll is my favourite physicist. I wish I existed in a social circle that was comprised of people like him.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@MoshkitaTheCat]

Huge fan of Dr. Carroll and how he views nature and how it works on a fundamental level.

[@sorlag110]

This channel is a goldmine

[@mikejohnston1914]

Audio is messed up

[@kipponi]

Yeah multimillion Robert has been many times audio problems!?

[@nohypocrisy]

Days years, arrogance, dream, stray, patience, fear, life, worker, success, graduation, power, religion, deception, i struggle with myself, use reason so you can live for yourself and avoid making excuses

[@Thegreywanderer42]

Philosophy has always been at the edge of science.

[@rl7012]

Philosophy is the mother of science. Science used to be called 'natural philosophy'.

[@renko9067]

In another video in this series, Sean Carroll said that, in his opinion, the universe is a single wave function. If that’s true (and it is), it’s ONE thing and is by definition incomparable and therefore without dimension. And since it is one, it has nothing to travel through and there is nothing to travel through it, so no time.

[@bearlemley]

Man I could have coffee with Sean every morning.

[@therick363]

Tea for me but yeah

[@StickHits]

@@therick363 Opioids, amphetamines, and hypno-sedatives for me but YEAH

[@sinebar]

I don't know if he would be good company or not. I asked him a question one time and I think it kind of made him mad.

[@rfgiowa]

@@sinebar what was your question?

[@deanschulze3129]

Around 3:30 Sean Carroll talks about entropy before the big bang. But did entropy even exist before the big bang? None of the other laws of physics existed before the big bang, as far as we know. Why assume that entropy existed then?

[@lucianija]

I think it would be great and much needed to date when all your videos were made :)

[@fredk9999]

Thank you to host and guest of stature. I agree. Eternity goes in both directions

[@gracerodgers8952]

Nothing comes from nothing, Nothing ever could, So somewhere in my youth or childhood, I must have done something good.😊 -Sound of Music

[@abeautifuldayful]

Or something bad?

[@uninspired3583]

It isn't even clear that "nothing" can exist in the first place

[@ekkemoo]

TV is physics. Song is solace.

[@ryandinan]

I can’t believe I actually followed all this! - superb explanation from Sean.

[@Yogiholic]

Einstein interviewing Sean Carrol. Cool!!!

[@kencrotty3984]

Penrose's cosmic conformal cosmology resonates more agreeably with me and it concurs with the paradigm of some of the ancient sages of India.

[@chrisgriffith1573]

I think what bothers us about the past is how our vantage point seems skewed. With what seems like eternity to the future ahead, and only 14.8 behind we forget or assume that is all there is, but in reality, it could only mean we are just closer to the end of but one of many epochs that our universe has undergone, and each transition to a new epoch places a barrier of physically opaque transition that is impossible to see beyond into the past. It does not mean there isn't more beyond it, only that there was a transition before that point.

[@MBY1952]

סידרת הרצאות מעולה מעוררת מחשבה. הכול יחסי וזמני. והניסיונות להסביר להגדיר את המציאות או את מה שאנחנו מגדירים כמציאות. מצד הדתות הפילוסופיה ומצד הפיזיקה. מוגש בבהירות בתמצות וענייני עם צילום וסאונד מקצועי. כל הכבוד למראיין רוברט לורנס קון לבמאי ולכל העושים המלאכה. בהערכה רבה ותודה רבה.

[@keithwalmsley1830]

I think because of our human condition and experience of life with it's clear beginnings and endings we cannot conceive of any notion of something that has always existed and will always exist, ie eternity, doesn't mean it doesn't exist but our brains cannot compute it.

[@Jack-r2v9b]

Spot on,it's a human trait to need a beginning and an end

[@MikeMaliska]

It's funny because I think I both agree and disagree with this idea. It is true that we experience beginnings and ends around us but at the same time each of us really can't comprehend those things that exist without us or at least reality to us. In each of our minds we have always existed and we believe we always will. For me it seems easier to comprehend something that always is than something that will come from nothing and return to nothing. But ask me again next week and I'll change my mind.

[@davidwright8432]

But we can, and (in particular) in the Abrahamic Trio, have imagined that. It' s called 'god'. Not a 'well formulated' belief, tho ...

[@Resmith18SR]

And regardless of what is really the Truth about Eternity and the Universe has just about no consequences for our daily lives on the planet. Eat, Drink, and of course Be Merry.

[@sergioreyes298]

What fantastic yet terrifying concepts these are!

[@InnerLuminosity]

Only terrifying to the finate ego mind

[@Jack-r2v9b]

Nothing is terrifying just not understood

[@heartfeltteaching]

@@InnerLuminosity But if his worldview is correct, then it turns out there is no hope for humanity 😱

[@InnerLuminosity]

@@heartfeltteaching plot twist: You are in a dream 😉

[@cademosley4886]

@@heartfeltteaching If his worldview is correct, then this universe will eventually come around again, so there is hope for humanity.

[@SandipChitale]

Excellent video as always. One thing I disagree with Sean is his statement that the low entropy at the Big Bang is the cause of the (implied forward) direction of the arrow of time. IMO, the use of the word "forward" for time flow is the cause of the confusion, which also leads us to entertain the (silly) idea of "reverse" flow of time. IMO, time only flows in the order of before events to after events i.e. in only one direction. Think of it this way - positive three apples make sense, but negative three apples is meaningless concept. So we could drop the qualifier "positive" and simply say three apples. Along the same lines, we should drop the use of "forward" in "forward flow of time." We can simply say time flows and has order - before event to after event. That is all. It is true that we observe that the entropy of our universe was low at the big bang and is always increasing in the direction of the flow of time. But it is not the cause of the direction of the flow of time. But the converse is true, i.e. the flow of time causes the apparent increase in entropy by virtue of the fact that the point in phase space of the universe moves from moment to moment. The reason is simple and statistical. The point in phase space of the universe is surrounded by more points where the entropy is larger. Therefore, any movement of that point in phase space of the universe ends up with the universe with higher entropy over an extended period of time. However, for epsilon durations, the entropy is jittering, i.e., going down and up again and again by small amounts with up trend over longer durations overall. But when it goes down, even for an epsilon duration, the time is still marching in the same order. Time, unlike space, has an intrinsic direction or even better word is order. This idea is put forward by Tim Maudlin. And I agree with Tim. It was ok to call time as a dimension in the sense of an independent variable. But it was a mistake to think of it as a space like dimension. In physics, the word dimension is used to simply mean an independent variable. E.g. in dimension analysis, any unit can be a dimension, but that does not mean it is a spacelike dimension. In thermodynamics, pressure and temperature and density (mass/volume) are dimensions in some sense, but we do not take them to be space-like dimensions. For that reason, it is less correct to say that spacetime of SR is a 4d object. Instead, the more correct way to say it is spacetime is a 3 space-like dimensions and 1 time-like dimension, i.e., 3+1D object. Spacetime is not an Euclidean space it is a Minkowski space with light cone structure at every point. Euclidean space is isotropic, Minkowski space is not. Similarly, when the universe will reach an equilibrium, i.e., the entropy will stop changing (increasing) as long as there is a change in the state, time is marching, once again in one direction - before events to after events. Time is simply a measure of change. If there is a change, there is time. This is the idea put forward by Julian Barbour. DISCLAIMER: Sean is billions times smarter than I am. I may be wrong about this.

[@hn5460]

SandipChitale, What do you mean about "order", "before and after", and an "event" here? Can you explain further those concepts?

[@SandipChitale]

@@hn5460 movement of point in phase space of the universe that happens without fighting the laws of physics. This is the most general form of the statement. For example if a particle is in presence of a large body and is free falling it in the gravitational field of that object, we will find it closer to the massive body in a after moment. To make it do the opposite one will have to apply work.

[@hvglaser]

Bad audio

[@viralsheddingzombie5324]

Sean won't admit it...but he actually IS a Boltzmann Brain.

[@negkoray]

The audio is so annoying. Does anyone have a link to the real video?

[@aarrvindmbd1974]

Sir Roger penrose has one great explanation on it.

[@wayando]

Yeah his explanation was perfect, made it look like eternity was actually a thing ... The point where big and small are no different from each other.

[@timterrell8678]

One of the most mind bending episodes ever!

[@clemsonalum98]

Sean Carroll needs his own empire.

[@Tom_Quixote]

If you wait 10^100 years, it will pop into existence.

[@Mentaculus42]

Yeah, that makes sense, lots of room for his brain.

[@meatstack]

Did you forget to mute the second audio track when you lined up the multi cameras?

[@gordonquimby8907]

At 6:18 Carroll has people popping into existence in empty space. I’m glad he is enjoying his Fun with Equations / Fun with Theories, but it gets hard to take him seriously after that.

[@synystera]

what's your own explanation of how this all came to be?

[@theotormon]

Wouldn't they instantly suffocate and freeze to death?

[@gordonquimby8907]

@@synystera Let’s see what we have… That which started all of this was something beyond space & time, non-material, tremendous amounts of energy, a pure energy that transcends all those known to man, and solves the fine tuning problem for our laws of physics… I have no doubt it was God.

[@synystera]

@@gordonquimby8907 obviously he's not saying that humans literally popped into existence from nothing, that's a hyperbole. And fine tuning stops becoming a problem if we consider that in other possible iterations of the universe there might have been no fine tuning as in there were no possibilities for intelligent life to exist in the first palce so also no beings to wonder if they exist because of the fine tuning. "I have no doubt it was God."- we could replace the word "God" here with "we don't really know" and it would be just as close to the truth.

[@gordonquimby8907]

@@synystera Well, you might think eliminating God keeps you close to the truth, but that is just opinion. Consdider this...We don't know how THIS universe started, but are happy having an infinite number popping up. We have no idea where the energy for all these other universes comes from. But we NEED an infinite number of universes going back forever with no beginning to explain fine tuning away. On another front, we have no idea how life started (we can say what MUST have happened, but have no idea how it could). The materialist also keep saying they have no clue what consciousness is nor do the have a clue how they will have a clue. It's going great over there on the materialist's side!

[@arash9556]

I like the timing for this video, Exactly when James Webb found found those massive galaxies.

[@kos-mos1127]

The kicker is those galaxies are as mature as the Milky Way.

[@Quazi-moto]

@@kos-mos1127 So they currently think. They _could_ be quasars or supermassive black holes. More data is needed. Should have a solid answer sometime next year (2024).

[@kos-mos1127]

@@Quazi-moto Supermassive black holes and Quasars have the same problem which is how matter coalesced so fast to form them.

[@Appleblade]

My bicker with all modern science discussions like this... the old rationalist arguments that time and space are eternal and infinite (at least infinite, spatially, out from any single point rather than down infinitely into the small), due to our inability to conceive of them otherwise, are just dismissed as if they are known to be false. Also, the idea that certain particles just come into existence from nothing, violating the principle of sufficient reason (which might be false, but also might not)... the problem is, these aren't put forward now as mere descriptions. They're put forward as real events and the real natures of time and space. Physicists are now in the habit of talking about time as really just change, space as really just the region of causal interactions... existence and non-existence as really just appearance and non-appearance. These are assertions of more than what experience and experiment imply. It's a gainsaid metaphysics. In the effort to be completely empirical, moderns have slipped into their own reified metaphysical structures.

[@lukesball1]

"just dismissed as if they are known to be false" But if the universe were infinite in time and space then all of the available light from every star would have reached us. The sky would be pure light.

[@guitartonecentral8429]

Bro, your sound is a problem on multiple videos 🙏🏻

[@paull9086]

I never understood how we know the beginning to be 13.7B yrs old when time is effected in gravitational fields. Namely, the stronger the field, the more slowly it’s ticks compared to outside this field. So we reverse extrapolate from our position here where everything is spread out but when the objects where closer together, one second we experience might be thousands, millions, infinite, years experienced on these objects close together.

[@yclept9]

Can't be infinity in the past, or we couldn't have gotten to the present time.

[@RichWoods23]

You need to listen again to the bit about entropy either side of the Big Bang.

[@Resmith18SR]

I agree with Einstein's view on Science, Philosophy and Religion. He was a Realist, and believed that the Laws of Nature which exist independently of humanity are the closest reflection of the Mind of God.

[@ravenragnar]

The concept of eternity is often associated with religious or philosophical beliefs, but in physics, the concept has a different meaning. In physics, eternity is often used to refer to an infinitely long duration of time or a state of timelessness. One of the key ideas in physics related to eternity is the concept of time dilation, which arises from Einstein's theory of relativity. Time dilation describes how time passes differently for observers in different frames of reference. For example, time passes more slowly for an object moving at high speeds than for an object at rest. This effect becomes more pronounced as an object approaches the speed of light. Another related concept in physics is the idea of the "arrow of time." This refers to the observation that some physical processes are irreversible, meaning they only proceed in one direction, from past to future. This is in contrast to other physical processes that are reversible and can go in either direction. The arrow of time is closely linked to the concept of entropy, which measures the amount of disorder in a system. Entropy tends to increase over time, which leads to the irreversibility of many physical processes. One theory in physics that has been proposed as a way to reconcile the concepts of eternity and the arrow of time is the concept of a "block universe." In this view, the universe is seen as a static, four-dimensional block of space-time, with all events and moments of time existing simultaneously. This would mean that the past, present, and future are all equally real and exist permanently. However, this idea is still controversial and is not universally accepted by physicists. It raises philosophical questions about free will and the nature of time itself. Overall, the physics of eternity is a fascinating and complex field, and there is still much to be learned and explored in this area of study.

[@Life_42]

I love Sean Carroll!

[@bobbabai]

I liked this one, partially because it doesn't come from an assumption of a creator (a refreshing change for this series), but mostly because it looks at really different views of time. Also, it's a look into the thinking of a physicist whose thinking is being radically challenged and he is radically changing his ideas in response without calling any of it "the truth".

[@dennistucker1153]

Good observation. For most of my life, I was bothered by statements where truth was used. I recently changed my mind on this when I considered "What is truth?". The answer I came up with changed me.

[@Gatorbeaux]

truth hurts sometimes--- no need to assume a creator when all the facts are the universe had a beginning and no other life in the universe has been identified(even if it had it doesnt mean the aliens arent God's creatures as well) you dont find a creator the same way a thief doesnt find a cop- you run from him....

[@20july1944]

@@Gatorbeaux Really? How do you avoid the inference of a Creator? What are the initial conditions of your model?

[@bobbabai]

I don't assume what it is. I don't assume what it isn't. I don't assume at all.

[@20july1944]

@@bobbabai How do you avoid the inference of a Creator? What are the initial conditions of your model?

[@WelbyCoffeeSpill]

It is frustrating. To say collapse happens when things are observed. But he doesn't clarify that early particles and "stuff" count as interactions that can collapse wave functions. So pre-humans, things collapse. But in the far expanded future, Sean is saying there literally won't be "stuff" to interact with and thereby boltsman brains cannot collapse thier wave function and become "real". I think they sorta breezed past that.

[@whitefiddle]

Absolutely unfascinating!

[@dennistucker1153]

Love CTT and Sean Carroll. Good video. The beginning of time is a logical contradiction. All change and movement requires time. If there was ever "no time", then nothing can happen like the big bang. There is only one situation where there can be "no time", that is part of the definition of true nothingness.

[@timterrell8678]

In the quantum world, time can be an emergent property of causation.

[@nonzz3ro]

I'm surprised in conversations like these that people rarely bring up Bring Crunch. If the universe didn't begin at the big bang, then the big bang should be explained by the universe periodically expanding and contracting.

[@aaronaragon7838]

Oh man...we're gettin' farther from the truth. Another beer, please.🍺🍺🍺

[@MelonHead887]

"That's not even wrong." -- my mom one day after listening to me babble at the kitchen table while eating oatmeal with raisins.

[@Mentaculus42]

I take Paul Steinhardt for Symmetry ⇔ ekpyrotic cyclic universe. Considering that Paul has also changed his mind on an important concept that he was involved with (Steinhardt co-authored the seminal papers that helped to lay the foundations of Inflationary cosmology), I find Sean’s “midlife crisis” path to be “curiously perplexing” and unfocused. At least Paul has taken a stand on a hill of his own making that has a sense of clarity and logic about it. Also, I find it interesting that Sean, who projects a presence of such certainty and infallibility on his explications, can now dance around, with such aplomb, the very same issues. Good luck on your new “life adventure”.

[@simonhibbs887]

Strong opinions, weakly held.

[@Mentaculus42]

@@simonhibbs887 Looks like you are not familiar with Sean punching out of CalTech and making a dramatic divergence in his intellectual life path that can only make one pounder about his convictions with regard to his previous thoughts. Context is everything when you read between lines of this interview. So if I read your comment one way, it suggests that Sean has had strongly held opinions in the past that he is now waffling on, which is a sign of an open mind which is good. Also, it appears that he did not have the academic freedom to do a pivot on what he “actually” wanted to do at CalTech.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@Mentaculus42 That someone used to have different opinions, but changed them based on new evidence, is the weakest criticism of a person I think Ive ever heard. I know I've changed my opinions on things, and if any of my current beliefs prove to be false I hope I do again. I mean what's the alternative? Refusing to change your opinion regardless of the evidence or arguments? How is that better? Science is about evidence, not convictions.

[@Mentaculus42]

@@simonhibbs887 What new evidence, Sean’s playground is the abstract and theoretical that is distantly removed from almost all reality. Read some of his past papers and and connect it to “evidence”. He is a generally competent communicator but a long way from a “Brian Greene”. I have read and listened to much of his “communication” over the years and have been left with a sense that a little bit less hubris from him would would greatly improve his optics.

[@liluziBurt667]

The infathomability of infinity predisposes one to believe a beginning is logical.

[@gsgatlin]

I wish I could somehow see the far distant future. How it will all end.

[@BeachBumZero]

It will end extremely boringly. We exist at the most exciting time for science because we can see as much now as ever before and more now than will be seen in the future.

[@Kostly]

How can you end a metaphysical field from which everything is created end in it's physical manifestations? Consciousness can't be destroyed or created. It simply exists for all to participate in and enjoy the ride. Not only humans are conscious. Even when the last conscious being on this planet is devoured by the sun, consciousness in the universe will persist and it will persist for literal eternity regardless of the physical state of the universe.

[@uninspired3583]

​@@BeachBumZero not with a bang, but a whimper

[@10splitter]

From what little I understand, because I only have a bachelors of physics, the inflaton field is unstable, and our universe popped out of the field and evolved as a stable space time. Once inflation starts, it never stops, and will continue to create bubble universes, or pocket universes or whatever you want to call them, forever. So inflation is continuous into the future, the question is whether inflation is also infinite into the past.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

big bang beginning of cosmos / universe more likely to be infinitely dense or infinitesimally dense?

[@tonyatkinson2210]

No idea. I don’t know if anyone does .

[@dazza8389]

We don’t know we theorise we’ll never know

[@heartfeltteaching]

Yikes. For non-physicists, this interview is potentially confusing. We are constantly told that there is no such thing as 'before' the Big Bang. Yet Carroll says that the low entropy at the Big Bang may have expanded in both the direction of our present universe *and* "far far far in the past, way before what you and I would call the Big Bang."

[@tonyatkinson2210]

Depends on who the physicist. All physicists admit that physics break down at the Big Bang so nobody knows if there was or wasn’t a before . They will freely admit they are speculating possible candidate explanations. Hence the contradictions .

[@kos-mos1127]

Physicist say there is no information before the Big Bang.

[@Kostly]

Consciousness can't be destroyed or created. It's the only metaphysical construct in the universe. Consciousness finds a way to reinvent itself forever in all directions.

[@transcender5974]

All of creation arises and dissolves cyclically forever, arising from an absolute, eternal field of pure consciousness which, in the process of knowing itself in an infinite number of perspectives at an infinite frequency, creates everything we experience in what we perceive as time space and causation in the manifest realm.

[@RichWoods23]

Congratulations. You've got most of the buzzwords in there but none of the sense.

[@transcender5974]

@@RichWoods23 What buzz words would you like me to explain to you in more detail? I'll offer one concept ("process of knowing itself") in more detail. Pure Consciousness(PC) being conscious must be conscious of something. In it's absolute state it can only be aware of itself...there is nothing else. So....that undifferentiated oneness, by it's nature of being conscious (of itself) creates a knower, known and process of knowing. This model comes from the Vedic tradition which calls these three, respectively, Rishi, Devata and Chandhas. Now within that undifferentiated wholeness are three notions, all of which are themselves pure consciousness. Their relationship is unified as the Samhita of Rishi, Devata and Chandhas. In turn, these three, being consciousness are conscious of each other...creating new notions or perspectives, which also are conscious of the other notions/perspectives...and on and on eternally. I'd gladly try to expand on other buzzwords or anything else that lacks sense to you in my post. My understanding of this Vedic perspective comes from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and it would be much better for anyone to hear this Vedic model for the nature of the source of creation from him.

[@HughChing]

A universe of infinite possible states existed from the infinite past to the infinite future in the infinite space. Its ranges of tolerance were limited by constraints of logic, mathematics, and non-violable laws of reality. The overlapping of the range of possibilities and the range of tolerances produces the range of existence of the universe.

[@gordonquimby8907]

At 7:40 Carroll says, “for a quantum fluctuation to become real you need to have an observation of that thing made.” He goes on to point out at 7:53, “but in empty space there’s nothing making an observation.” Many speculate that our universe began with a quantum fluctuation. Who was the observer for our universe to become real? Does quantum mechanics need God after all?

[@Mentaculus42]

Yeah, that was an entertaining prognostication by Sean. In fact a number of them, it must be great to get paid for such insights. Now back to the real world.

[@XEinstein]

It wasn't really a quantum fluctuation though but a phase change. A phase change is like when ice melts into a liquid. So the idea is that the inflaton field was in a different phase, a higher state of energy and the decayed into a lower state of energy an spacetime then popped out. For the phase change, I think a quantum fluctuation is necessary.

[@psterud]

I find it suddenly funny that we talk about time in terms of "years." Couldn't there be a more suitable unit system of time, maybe something logarithmic, that describes time more succinctly? Or are we stuck with our terrestrial unit?

[@Quazi-moto]

It's a matter of two things: Convenience (which humans love), and simplicity (which is more digestible for minds across the board). In other words, even stupid people can understand a day, a month, a year. I think what you're asking for would be far, FAR too complicated for more than half of humanity to understand.

[@dave929]

He is saying 10^100 years. I remember reading a book and the expert said 10^24^76 years for (something) to happen. Was written in the 80’s/90’s. Inside Edition will still be here with “Exclusive Video”.

[@wi2rd]

As I see it, completely based on my intuition of the world. There is infinite unity/density on one end, and infinite noise/entropy/chaos, on the other end. Life, movement, etc, happens in between these two states. We are a context, we are definition, we are what happens when you quantize this spectrum of infinity.

[@simonhibbs887]

Since we observe entropy always increasing, that (and several other lines of logic) implies that in the big bang the universe had extremely low entropy. In principle in the heat death of the universe entropy would be maximised, but in practice within any given causally connected domain nothing would be happening so entropy would be minimised. So from a particular mathematical perspective they look the same, only the scale is different. This is the insight that lead Roger Penrose to come up with conformal cyclic cosmology.

[@abeautifuldayful]

@@simonhibbs887 Okay, but if energy cannot be created or destroyed, where is it in an empty universe? And how would it converge again to a single point and apply to the next cycle if it is still there? In Carroll's most recent thoughts, he posits that quantum fluctuations might not occur without observers. Don't they all require energy? I'm still curious about the details of the various theories to see which ones make more sense.

[@theliamofella]

@@abeautifuldayful what I don’t understand and what Kuhn didn’t understand is if you need an observer for a fluctuation you also need an observer for any matter to “materialise”, so where were the observers during the creation of the galaxies and planets etc?

[@abeautifuldayful]

@@theliamofella I think the Higgs boson is the key to that. If fields and energy are concentrated enough, that is. Once elementary particles come into existence, then everything that exists can form. Why would you need observers after that point?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@abeautifuldayful "Okay, but if energy cannot be created or destroyed, where is it in an empty universe?" It's not that there is no energy in total as such, just that it becomes arbitrarily rarefied so that within any given causally bound regions it's zero. However this may be where the zero energy universe hypothesis comes in. After accounting for negative gravitational energy, a universe with positive global curvature has zero net energy.

[@MikeMontgomery1]

In a multiverse model, would that mean there would be an infinite number of universes where the higgs value changed and an infinite number where they did not? I love how well you break these concepts down.

[@chriswise7978]

Of course

[@DinoG-m1f]

Sean has one of them there big brains

[@Resmith18SR]

No one can really wrap their mind about "Eternity". Having no beginning and no end is totally unlike anything we ever experience on Earth.

[@Tasmanianwolf369-dd3xg]

Sean Carroll great physics, future-past-and the now, exist all at once. There are changes in our world, is it entanglement where things start to appear in this reality from other twin parallel universes? Many things have changed, including but not limited to our history as we know it.This seems to be a very complex topic.

[@josephcollins6033]

As far as you think you know based on what you thought you knew yesterday. I thank our physicists and find them absolutely a riot, as well. And, often I have great concerns about their hair.

[@rankpa]

The assumption at the very outset is that ‘physics’ is the be-all and end-all of reality. Thereupon follows the assumption that an understanding of ‘eternity’ (timelessness) can be reached thru ‘physics’. But ‘physics’ is a very incomplete and hole-ly construct - neither ‘holy’ nor ‘wholely’ - with huge and glaring gaps. Yet the modern world is deeply enthralled by ‘physics’ - to the point where it serves many as a kind of religion, and inspires many to accept its current, yet dynamically evolving, catalog of materialistic explanations of ALL phenomena with implicit faith. Personally, I take seriously physics ‘discoveries’ which arise out of well-done science. But I remain skeptical when faced with weakly-founded ‘conclusions’ which arise from dubious ‘assumptions’.

[@moonoovie]

Difficult to focus on the conversation when the cameras keep oscillating and audio has weird echo/phasing. Big brain subjects need not be convoluted by experimental video production tactics, the conversation is interesting enough to stand alone!

[@ask230]

Something's wrong with the sound

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

far future of cosmos / universe may be quantum, in contrast to classical?

[@mikmop]

You don't need an "observer" or anyone making a measurement in order to bring into existence quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations are a fundamental aspect of the behavior of quantum systems, and they can occur in the absence of any observation or measurement. So hence, an observer is not required for quantum fluctuations to occur. Quantum mechanics describes the behavior of particles and systems on a very small scale, such as atoms and subatomic particles. At this scale, particles do not have definite positions or properties, but instead exist in a state of superposition, meaning they can be in multiple states at once. The behavior of particles in this state is described by the wave function, which is a mathematical function that describes the probabilities of different outcomes when a measurement is made. And quantum fluctuations arise due to the inherent uncertainty in the position and momentum of particles in a quantum system. Even when a particle is in a state of superposition, its position and momentum can still fluctuate randomly within certain limits, known as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. And these fluctuations can lead to various quantum effects, such as tunneling and entanglement. Therefore, quantum fluctuations are a natural consequence of the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and they do not require an observer to occur! Now according to one one interpretation of quantum mechanics, the act of measurement or observation can collapse the wave function and determine the outcome of the system, leading to the appearance of a definite position or property of the particle. However other interpretations, such as the many-worlds interpretation, do not require the collapse of the wave function by an observer. Hence, you don't necessarily need an "observer" or anyone making a measurement in order to bring into existence quantum fluctuations.

[@bobcabot]

...still my favourite scientist - the way he tries to avoid any personal preferences of any theory is showing a true commitment to the scientific principle...

[@thirdlawofmotion]

Great joke

[@Mentaculus42]

@@thirdlawofmotionYeah, that’s a LOL moment.

[@Squirrel_314]

Please tell me you’re saying that ironically.

[@Mentaculus42]

@@Squirrel_314 I assume you are referring to the top comment as I find Sean has rather strong if not overbearing preference for the Everettian interpretation delivered with no small amount of hubris. Sean is a competent communicator with just a bit too slick and “good old boy” delivery that leaves me thinking that he should be more like Brian Greene who leaves his ego out of the discussion.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

could the center of black holes change the value of higgs boson or vacuum energy of space?

[@therick363]

Good question

[@johnyaxon__]

I believe that universe is a quantum computer with infinite computing power

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

cosmos / universe from infinitesimal to infinity?

[@timfleming9842]

Time is the expansion of the universe along the time dimension.

[@andrewa3103]

It is very simple to explain eternity. Metaphysician philosopher

[@jwonderfulsuccess]

Gods great imagination and purpose ✨🕊🧡

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

maybe different cosmos starting at different infinitesimal times from eternity?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

when cosmos started 13.8 billion years ago, something used energy to decrease entropy? what might use energy to decrease entropy at start of cosmos?

[@sonyavincent7450]

Our human brains seem to demand that we are on a linear timeline, yet it seems that there is not a linear quality to time. Perhaps it has a more fluid or swirling quality.

[@dottedrhino]

It occurs to me that an expanding spacetime decreases entropy? (because the number of possible configurations of energy increases?)

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

could infinitesimal beginning of cosmos / universe start from eternity?

[@youdontexist.]

Eternity = basicly infinite time for infinite possibilities.

[@joshua3171]

Never enough views def underrated

[@jeffreymartin8448]

Wow. Staggering to say the least.

[@spacesciencelab]

Didn't Sean write a paper opposing Boltzmann Brains?

[@tdiddle8950]

So I created my own Grand Unification Theory more than 20 years ago, and my GUT predicted that if there was not enough mass in the universe to cause a Big Crunch...and that still a big IF in my opinion...that, because of quantum entanglement, the universe would actually dissolve into itself...falling back into the singularity that underlies our universe...and become a 'principle particle' again, which is what I call that which became the Big Bang in the first place. I say that this is because of quantum entanglement because I think everyone has forgotten that since all mass, matter, particles (whatever one would wishes to call it) were in very intimate proximity before the Big Bang, subsequently EVERYTHING in our universe is quantum entangled. Contemporary quantum entanglement simply reinforces the association. Therefore, to exist, the universe must remain quantum entangled...the entanglement (similar to psychological associations) is actually what creates that which we perceive as reality, and so long as awarenesses are here to perceive reality, the universe will endure.

[@Mentaculus42]

There is “Quantum Entanglement” and there is “Quantum Entanglement” and what it means in detail depends upon who u r talking to and in what context. Things that are highly entangled do become “non-correlated” more as a usual general process than the other way around.

[@tdiddle8950]

@@Mentaculus42 Seems to make sense.

[@Edgarbopp]

Check out Sean’s excellent podcast Mindscape!

[@chrisgriffith1573]

Entropy always goes into one direction, BUT time may reset it's value from which physics judges what is within it. That is to say that what seems like infinity from our vantage point, would become but an instance of very short or brivety within a new epoch, for which there are an infinity of eternities for light or energy to travel or simply allow vacuum state energy to exist within before anything of value is registered in that new state.

[@patbrennan6572]

Time is like a circle, it doesn't matter which direction you go clockwise or counterclockwise you won't find the beginning or the end.

[@mikejohnston1914]

Whoa. Just saw your comment and noticed it was 4 mins ago. Hehe...great minds.

[@mrddcass6540]

Eternity transcends far beyond physics.

[@uninspired3583]

If we're describing physics in terms of what we know, this is trivially true

[@fred_2021]

Even the present moment transcends physics. As a catalog of 'truths' concerning the measurable aspects of the universe, physics is always a work in progress. Moreover, the measurable aspects are not, of themselves, the totality.

[@uninspired3583]

@@fred_2021 emergence is very difficult. Even something as simple as a double pendulum is impossible to predict. It's very easy to look at something that can't be predicted and use it to suggest something mystical, don't fall for the trap.

[@fred_2021]

@@uninspired3583 Or a dripping tap? I appreciate your concern, but no, unpredictability is irrelevant to the issue, which is that in an entirely reductionist view non-physical/emergent aspects of reality are unreal, or mystical.

[@uninspired3583]

@@fred_2021 reductionist views are specifically not mystic, on that view everything is explained by interacting components. A mystic explanation includes something other than those components.

[@timothytuxedo]

Whyyyyy?? Would we ever assume the assembly would take an equal time to break down? That's just nuts

[@earlaweese]

*Just give me the truth - don’t make me believe that I’m getting closer to it; just get to the point so that I don’t have to suffer anymore.*

[@birdthompson]

Om mani padme hung hri

[@tonytaskforce3465]

May the longtime sun shine upon you, All love surround you, And the pure light within you, Guide your way on. 😇

[@gordonquimby8907]

Humans haven't figured out what the truth is yet!

[@JaySalsburg]

Humans have difficulty with Temporal Mechanics. My opinion may not matter but I notice gaps in the interpretation of how Time and Space is described by Cosmologists. Buckminster Fuller conveyed the concept of "Scenario Universe". Simply put, the Universe does not start or end, it is a scenario. From this opinion I can surmise that Time itself is different in its perception as we venture in our minds in either direction of time. Go back in time to what might be halfway between what might only be described as "The Beginning" and now. Ask yourself if the second hand then ticks by at the same velocity as it does now. If you could put two clocks side by side, one at the halfway interval and one in the present. Will the second hand on both move at the same velocity? Then place clocks side by side at the halfway intervals going back in time. How many clocks will it take for the one in "The Beginning" to start ticking and how much faster is the second hand going for the one in "The Beginning" as the one ticking now. I conceive that the interval of ticks long ago ticked much faster than they do now.

[@misterhat6395]

If the past is eternal, then it is unending. But by definition the past has already happened. So how can we have an unending past that already occurred?

[@Tozniak]

To me a discussion of how many angels which can fit on the head of a pin is somehow more real than this discussion. All I am trying to say is there obviously are things that we can never know. Does anyone else wonder what is keeping people from acknowledging this obvious reality when they are watching discussions like this?

[@richardsylvanus2717]

How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all? Firesign Theater 1969

[@sinebar]

What about virtual particles? He said when space expands to the point where there are no more interactions that would count as an observation. But wouldn't virtual particles still pop in out of existence?

[@shurmeisha]

what's up with the sound and the weird panning?

[@TimothyMusson]

I feel like somehow in this video Sean is younger than he ought to be.

[@musicaangomera]

Lol, once again Kuhn doesn't learn to not mess with Sean Caroll. Every single time he gets a beating.