Physicists Proved the Universe Doesn't Exist

[@BLAZENYCBLACKOPS]

Why does every documentary get this wrong, the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, not miles per hour.

[@philyvo]

17:05 … beats me. The narrator even says it out loud… ‘fun fact’: stating 300.000 m/s - meters per SECOND - right underneath being the correct (rounded) metric number.

[@Letsskatenaked]

Well he said labarnith for labyrinth and says temperature as tempchure

[@user-wm1xm5gm2k]

You're all wrong. There is no speed of light, since light is not particles. Light is an illumination of the aether.

[@ImCrz]

​@@user-wm1xm5gm2k Photon is considered as a particle and moves at light speed.

[@nrom5960]

It even showed mps but he said mph

[@ImUnadjusted]

Took physicists years to figure this out, most people just do lsd once and reach the same conclusion

[@bobbybob3865]

Most physicists don't do LSD.

[@johnbyrnes7912]

​@@bobbybob3865they should ! 🌈🤡

[@siroswaldfortitude5346]

I've always thought they should do DMT@@bobbybob3865

[@eddietamani]

​@@bobbybob3865 But LSD do physicists.... in😅

[@algalgod159]

Maybe not the same conclusin,but a similar one for sure

[@bobbybob3865]

If the universe isn't real, I'm going back to bed.

[@Anthony-ru7sk]

You were already asleep if you believed in this illusion 😂

[@TheLosrodri]

Glad to hear I’m not the only one who watches this stuff going to sleep in bed lol

[@Anthony-ru7sk]

@@TheLosrodri there’s 190k views and 500 comments. Literally everyone is watching this in bed 😂😂

[@germanomora6345]

❤IT'S REAL..NO ONE CAN DENAY THAT..NOW WE HAVE MORE KNOWLEDGE THAN EVER..THEY ALSO..BEEN TAKING ABOUT HAVE THERE IX A RELACION WITH GOD.😮😊❤😢😅

[@daniellewaller6454]

Right ✅

[@hammer8809]

If the universe is an illusion why isn't my illusion of my bank account of a million dollars not real??

[@NylonStrings83]

Let me try to give my opinion. The body that you had when u were 7 months old or 7 years old Dosent exist today as it was back then it changed so everything around us will change as it is call maya temporary how can something that is temporary be real where is that small body Today it’s gone did it ever exist or does jt even matter ? The soul and consciousness never changes it is eternal beyond time and is constant read the Bhagwat gita for more detail

[@gumshoe2273]

I met a theoretical physicist the other day. I was surprised to learn they actually exist.

[@LudyLoomy]

Did you think it was just a made up job? 😂

[@sargonofakad]

Yesterday upon the stair I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. I just wish he'd go away.

[@merabharataurbhimahan4270]

i know that you are not there to write this while i don't exist..

[@jaimesoldi6724]

What we call 'reality' is a trick of our senses. We say that something exists, and is 'real' (for us) if we can see it, hear it, smell it, feel it or taste it. Things we can't detect with our senses, we say they don't exist. But this is not necessarily true. There may be, could be, should be, must be, a great number of 'things' out there that go undetectable to our senses 🙄🤔

[@braddishner8597]

I assumed they were theoretical as the name implies

[@Mam-ur1]

Phew that's a relief. Let's agree that the only thing we know is that we don't know anything.

[@ConDual020]

And if we knew ' everything ', what would be of concern next.? 😊

[@scottwalker9766]

No, we only know one thing.

[@scottwalker9766]

It is the only thing we are allowed to know.

[@scottwalker9766]

How much do you think a cell knows? Only what it needs too to grow.

[@ConDual020]

The reality is that they we are educated just enough to believe what we have been taught and not educated enough to question what we have been taught. 😟

[@ChadLuciano]

17:16 The speed of light is 186 000 miles per second...not miles per hour...huge difference.

[@queenofdestiny]

It was narrated by yee haw! :P

[@rayraylalonde]

You cauth that too

[@rayraylalonde]

The 299,792,458 metres per second is correct.

[@ChadLuciano]

it's been covered no worries@@rayraylalonde

[@CharlesSelf-sq9ti]

I noticed the mistake too but I doubted myself and thought I was wrong.

[@IVANHOECHAPUT]

Since physicists have "proved the universe doesn't exist", does that mean that physicists also don't exist?

[@JasonRule-1]

Yes.

[@kateburns8126]

Fantastic question! LOL THANKS! Needed that laugh this morning. 😂

[@curtcoller3632]

hope so.

[@DanielEngsvang]

Seems so

[@The_Real_Indiana_Joe]

Then why do we still have to pay taxes?

[@stevenlidster1431]

The universe might not exist but the shriek of pain echoing through the void when you step on a Lego in the dark is sempiternal.

[@charlesmiller8107]

Despite me being one of the rare people who do a lot of reading I still had to look this word up "sempiternal". Even Google spellcheck don't know what it means. The only thing I learned here was a single word found in the comment section. Because of you I don't feel that it was a complete waste of time. Thank you.

[@MargaritaMagdalena]

​@@charlesmiller8107It's on the WordWeb app 😅

[@MegaLaMoto]

​@@charlesmiller8107 Ditto

[@tatesmobilewashandinstalla7025]

@@charlesmiller8107it means eternal or unchanging.

[@tatesmobilewashandinstalla7025]

Sempiternal is a new one. Thank you friend.

[@Three-Chord-Trick]

Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, p. 449 (2nd ed.): 'If in employing the principles of understanding we do not merely apply our reason to objects of experience, but venture to extend these principles beyond the limits of experience, there arise pseudo-rational doctrines which can neither hope for confirmation in experience or fear refutation by it. Each of them is not only in itself free from contradiction, but finds conditions of its necessity in the very nature of reason - only that, unfortunately, the assertion of the opposite has, on its side, grounds that are just as valid and necessary.'

[@rogerhill138]

The fact that we exist does not lead to the question that "can the universe exist without us?" What we can say is that we experience the universe as humans. So although the universal laws may stay the same our experience of them will be unique. Other life forms will experience it differently, even here on earth. Objective reality means that our universe exists whether we are here or not.

[@derekmiles9306]

Very well put

[@bigpicture3]

But that is the "assumption" made: that the universe is "objective". Assuming that it can exist without any consciousness to be "aware" of it, and maybe even that "creates" it. But that (objective) "assumption" cannot be made for sure. The double slit experiment is the most repeated experiment there ever was, and of all the various ways that it can be set up, the observed results have never changed. Entanglement, Superposition, and Retrocausality, has an inescapable conclusion, although they have tried to get around it with various mathematical gymnastics, that Space Time does not actually exist in the way that the "conscious mind" conceptualizes it. (that the "conscious mind" in some way creates that illusion) And according to Jung the "conceptualized self" often referred to as the ego, also does not exist. (it is an illusion, or a false self) That the "reality" of self and the Universe cannot be conceptualized at all. That the "real Self" and perceived / conceptualized reality of any kind emerges from the Jungian "individual unconscious" and the "collective unconscious." The part of, or the nature of, "consciousness" that we are not even "consciously aware" of.

[@martinnewtonholmes]

My "version" of the Universe dies with me

[@chrisstevens-xq2vb]

We are the Universe.

[@bigpicture3]

@@chrisstevens-xq2vb But the mystery for the physicists is: What are the "processes" by which that happens, and that is before they even address the issue of: What are the "causes". And they think if they have enough confusing detail on the processes, that maybe the causes can be ignored. But since "consciousness" (whatever that might be) is required to understand the "processes", and itself might be the "primary cause". In other words there cannot be "experiences" without it, and maybe also there cannot be anything "to experience" without it, so that could cause a little bit of an "empirical" quandary.

[@wayneasiam65]

When we really don't have a clue of Anything, we can at least dream of everything.

[@davidmartin2442]

Wayne’s World, Wayne’s World…. SHWING 😂

[@minhnguyen-mk9om]

we care about the Universe but the Universe doesnt care about us, the Universe is still moving along with or without us.

[@gravity00x]

no.

[@nassirshahshah7216]

Me and the universe are homies bro

[@healthiswealth1452]

We are part of the universe

[@howmathematicianscreatemat9226]

We all have the same universal consciousness. If you don’t believe me, go deep inside yourself in a meditative state. If you do this many months, you will finally come to a state where you basically become clairvoyant, you are everyone and everyone is you. This is why badass Chinese poets said: „self recognition is the source of all valuable knowledge“

[@CraftyLemons]

What if the universe doesn't exist without a conscious observer?

[@tedgriffiths5216]

"No matter where you go, there you are."....Buckaroo Banzai.

[@bobbybob3865]

I've been studying this and I think Bucky is right.

[@texwade2169]

During this presentation at 17:15 the speaker makes a mistake saying that light travels at 186,000 mph, It is 186,000 miles per second not miles per hour!

[@19501960]

That's enough for me not to watch this. Sounds like an AI bot presentation

[@babyrazor6887]

The universe perceived by a moth is quite different than ours yet it works perfectly well for the moth. the limitations of sensory perception determine ones reality. Thankfully this is true for the ability to "see" what the world "really" looks like would make us unable to function in it.

[@chrisstevens-xq2vb]

No, perception doesn’t determine reality. If I perceive you as a chicken nugget are you?

[@kittyc3525]

👍

[@crowley3015]

If there was no creature to perceive reality, then reality doesn't exist, because existence is one of our attributes. Perception is everything. You can't force "perception" so your argument is actually wrong, i think you mean "will" him into a chicken nugget, because you don't know English or the definition of perception xd. @@chrisstevens-xq2vb

[@crowley3015]

I mean "Doesn't not" explains it all.@@chrisstevens-xq2vb

[@HABLA_GUIRRRI]

don't insult moths they are my only friends

[@tourvideo1970]

If something exists, you can say it doesn't exist. If something doesn't exist, you have nothing to say.

[@kencastleberry5126]

Is that a quote from something? Looks like something written by the same guy who came up with the gem "Whether you're rich or poor, our graves are the same size" People have plenty to say about things that don't exist all the time. It's called fantasy.

[@Wiseman108]

@@kencastleberry5126 Fantasy still exist as a thought, and as art in many cases. Also by saying that fantasy doesn't exist you are proving the point of original post.

[@kencastleberry5126]

@Wiseman108 I didn't say fantasy doesn't exist I said fantasy concerns itself with things that don't exist. Keep up please.

[@Wiseman108]

@@kencastleberry5126 My point is that it does exist within the context of fantasy. Keep up please.

[@MeganVictoriaKearns]

​@@Wiseman108i understand your perspective.

[@jmk1727]

This being a little bit more recent and discussing the flaws in past theories, even reminding people at times that today's models are just that- models and NOT fact (no matter how many times the discovery channel replays their space/universe shows), I had high hopes for updated info that's not based on 1930's text books. Where's the electric force or how plasma and charged particles interact and affect every piece of the universe? Or how the electric force to attract or repel is 2.4 x 10⁴³ times greater than that of gravity. When every article and research paper about planets/stars/even our own solar system and the expected results starts out with "Scientists Are Stunned" or "They Never Expected These Results" means it's time to invest a little more into other areas. I enjoyed the pretty pictures and the soothing voice though.

[@chrisstevens-xq2vb]

Gravity is an electric force. Electric forces manifest in different ways. Consider electromagnetism and electrostatic force. Both electric like gravity but vary greatly in strength

[@AndreasDrakos-c6o]

Gravity is an electric force. Κοιτα κυριε τι μαθαινει ο ανθρωπος. Thanks!

[@aceventura5398]

Gravity is truely the greatest magic of all. It holds every drop of water in the oceans from leveling out while allowing it to go on hollidays moving freely about the planet. Wont let it fall but allows it to form waves and swells. Its the weakest force but most dominant of all. Amazin ! BRAVO !

[@PeterSon-x2g]

0

[@jmk1727]

You're all playing with words trying to change what they were meaning. When they ever speak of gravity they never mention the planets and their "electromagnetic force" they in fact never mention the planets having an electric charge. Wish they did but thankfully a few scientists in the mainstream are finding the courage to change the conversation.

[@marquezsmith8889]

I saw the duration 1:10:13 ... yes this will definitely put me to sleep, I usually just lay the phone down and fall asleep listening 😆

[@dan98257]

Casuality or causality? Which is it? 👍😜❤️🙏 This is a great episode. Concise, comprehendible, comprehensible, and compelling. 👍

[@kenmocabee2325]

Yeah, that bugged me!

[@jakubhladik5898]

Causality. I guess they missed that slip up.

[@E_Cleazy]

Nothing exists until a form of sensory reception can detect and conceptualize it.

[@LuigiMordelAlaume]

So if a subatomic tree falls in the forest and no humans are around to see it, the answer is that it exists in a superposition of both upright and fallen unless it was entangled and it's partner was observed. Good job god, very elegant code you wrote for us.

[@kittyc3525]

I was reflecting on entanglement as well…

[@smrodriguez-mr9ng]

Ha! You actually articulated this in a way that I can understand. This even cleared up Schroedingers cat. I don't feel like looking up the spelling of his name but I'm sure you know who he is. I couldn't fully grasp the concept. Not even through this program. I'm glad I decided to click on the comments Thank you

[@StephenBingham-kp2ld]

What is a subatomic tree!

[@RyannLagattuta]

@@StephenBingham-kp2ldsame 😫

[@jimpemberton]

There is a lot of good information here. Something that confounds us is our lack of ability to make predictions in multiple temporal frames of reference (TFORs). We can acknowledge time and distance dilation, but fail to apply it when answering the questions of why things behave the way they do in our TFOR. So we explain these behaviors such as to attempt to make predictions within our own TFOR without understanding causal interactions with other TFORs. If our experience depends on quantum behaviors, then it is a homogenized experience that depends on countless other quantum TFORs. I propose, for example, that distance is caused by quantum movement approaching the speed of light in one TFOR and translated as a persistent distance in other TFORs. Electromagnetic radiation, therefore, becomes merely a disjunction between different TFORs where the distance has collapsed in at least one of them. In each TFOR, the conservation of matter/energy must still be represented. And what happens in one TFOR influences all other local TFORs. I think this is where gravity comes from. It's not a force. It's a collapsing of distance that also affects the TFOR of passing photons which themselves are based on a different collapse. Superposition is caused by a distance that has already collapsed in one TFOR while that distance has not collapsed in other TFORs. So distant particles of the same originating source can affect each other without any noticeable attachment within the homogenized TFOR. It could be as simple as that.

[@fairyprincess911]

Sounds good to me 👍🏽

[@DaManWilliams-ye9iq]

We will all be the same again not a shame

[@RickSanchezpicklerick-jq5tq]

"Man, I don't know what the fok you just little kid, but you special man. You reached out, and you touched a brother heart."~ Tracy Morgan/Pumkin Escobar ~ Jay & Slilent Bob srike back. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😈

[@robertwieczorek5838]

Have you heard the theory that the universe is actually someone's brain. And we exist inside that brain. Universe and brain seem very similar. Imagine using 100% brain power. Who's to say that can't be it.

[@jimpemberton]

@@robertwieczorek5838 Yes. That's the Bultzmann Brain thought experiment. That's not physics. It's philosophy, particularly a metaphysical discussion. The problem with 'who's to say?' discussions is that you end up with any number of untestable hypotheses purporting to explain the same thing. The Bulzmann Brain just happened to get more famous than the rest as being kind of the first one to be widely discussed. It's no more likely than any other such supposition.

[@billmackie8226]

If the universe does Not exist, then nothing we think we know also doesn't exist; Ergo, the physicists who "proved" this theory, themselves, do not exist - which blows their entire theory

[@philharmer198]

The Universe does exist . The Universe never hasn't existed . Space has never not existed .

[@philharmer198]

It does . The confusion between reality and mathematics , which is real ? Physical Reality .

[@1FoxxFace1]

If the universe doesn't exist - therefore my mother-in-law doesn't exist. Everything is fine.

[@Jiji-ym6ss]

😂😂😂

[@rayarmijo4512]

No its not 😂

[@Dabergyt]

When the narrator doesn't know the difference between casual and causal. 😂

[@PugFaceMusic]

He probably just pulls info from the web and other videos and regurgitates it for profit.

[@ginnygin7141]

He did say labry nith instead of labyrinth in like the first minute so it was always gonna be that kinda time here

[@arcyhicks8335]

The problem with all of this is that the problem itself only exists if we as a real entity think of it as a problem. Nothing unreal exists. From the perspective of humanity as well as all other biological entities, there are only two states of reality, tangible and non-tangible. If one can think of it, it exists. It's real. It may not yet be in a tangible state, but that doesn't make it unreal. 10,000 yrs ago, there were a rare few who dreamed of soaring with the birds. Well, it took a while, but here we are.

[@sharesgames9546]

"If one can think of it, it exists." Not to be rude, but did you read this somewhere? This is exactly the same conclusion I arrived at, decades ago, when I was thinking about another, unrelated subject. The colleagues around my desk were not impressed. The reasoning is also backwards, "you cannot think of something if it cannot exist", which how it started off my train of thought, way back then.

[@watchthiscrap]

Try that on physical laws and mathematics. Dumb ideas. Keep trying though.

[@jaredfleischer8966]

I'm still waiting for them to be able to get us cell phone to work in my basement before I believe they're running remote controls on other planets... And like when they launch the Vikings explorers the technology wasn't good enough to still be sending his pictures and if space is a vacuum you can't have thrust

[@OhAncientOne]

The Universe observes itself. Whether we are here or not.

[@Sharperthanu1]

Where can I find proof of that?

[@OhAncientOne]

@@Sharperthanu1 You can't, it's a catch 22. If you are here, in this universe, the proof is impossible because someone is in the universe observing lol. So, if you can get outside the universe... 🤷‍♂️

[@OhAncientOne]

Sir Roger Penrose does not believe that the universe requires an observer.

[@XaelX777]

Hello are we having this conversation or not? What happens if we Really find out the universe doesn't exist? We all disappear simultaneous leaving only the number 42 written in our dust? 😆😅😅 If there's no universe there's nowhere to live there's nothing and I can't be typing this. But ultimately I have a spoiler alert: the universe doesn't exist. Go figure 😆

[@OhAncientOne]

@@XaelX777 Yes, well, the universe does exist but, since the creation of Earth Mark II, 42 is no longer the correct answer. We have to wait for the program to recalculate. I'll be at the restaurant in the meantime. 🧙‍♂️😉😂

[@meditateforbliss9382]

This is what Sage Sankaracharya stated in his philosophy more 1300 years ago. "Brahma Sathyam Jagath Mithya Jeevo Brahmaiwa na para"

[@Nancy-px7hn]

We experience our world as real though. We feel pain, hunger,etc.

[@69weed.420]

Rt it ain't real at all though that's the thing. It's all about the Christ 👍🧙‍♂️ and in December, Christmas ☮️

[@bandulaamarawardena6576]

Because 'WE' created our own selves from the time our brains developed while in mother's womb, and up to now, using the senses... a false world, a false universe, etc etc... As some commented: 'A DREAM FOR OURSELVES'...!!

[@tobberfutooagain2628]

Time is not real, but I get older every day. Sheesh…

[@sannytizer7772]

I was 3 minutes late for work and got sacked, so time matters to some.

[@rogerdiogo6893]

At first i was skeptical when scientist told us the universe wasn't real, but now there's at least 2 of them, i'm even more skeptical...

[@sannytizer7772]

you mean less skeptical@@rogerdiogo6893

[@tobberfutooagain2628]

God is such a sinister joker…..

[@despicableone4495]

that isnt due to the so-called passage of time though. It's due to the constant activity of the metabolic processes in your body causing deterioration the same way that friction and heat degrade a vehicle's engine

[@theinspector7882]

Not a single thing is permanent, it's only change (time) we've always perceived.

[@markfromct2]

So. If I look at a table and leave the room the table no longer exists? I have a hard time getting my head around that sir. Please explain. What happens if I peek in the window?

[@bandulaamarawardena6576]

The bottom line is, ENERGY. Our senses perceive the energy in many ways. Colour is merely a wave-length of magnetism. All our senses are deceiving our brain..!! The table you looked at was energy.... Our brain is energy... Our thinking is energy... All an illusion, hence the hologram theory..!!

[@Dani-zv4rw]

What spoon Neo? There is no spoon. Only in your mind.

[@adriancopping1253]

I know, what a load of nonsense.

[@kabukillmee.0125]

You’re still observing it

[@kdub9812]

if you see a table in a video game then you leave the area does the table exist? no because tables exist as rendered objects and when you leave that area of the game you are no longer rendering stuff that used to be there. howeve, something always remains without perception. the founders of QM called it consciousness, modern physicist prefer the term “information” regardless there exist a world outside of your perception but that world is not physical, “rendered” as the rendered world is something that only occurs in ones observation

[@danielash1704]

Aliens don't exist until they give you their selfie

[@danstewart2770]

[41:02] Before you go on, please explain: 1) Why an object's mass increases as its speed increases? 2) How a particle can have no mass?

[@69weed.420]

You don't know?? Wow 😂

[@jackspence625]

If the speed of light is 186,000 mph, then it seems that light would take about 500 hours to reach us from the sun. I was under the impression light takes about 8 minutes.

[@redbirdauto1713]

It's 186,000 miles per second.

[@shawnn6541]

It does

[@jackspence625]

Thanks for the correction. I was being a little facetious.@@redbirdauto1713

[@jackspence625]

Thanks. I guess it was a little too much dry humor.@@shawnn6541

[@queenofdestiny]

🤠

[@johnrieger2461]

👍Fantastically Interesting.. I enjoy daydreaming about this subject, convinced we are part of something much Bigger🤔. Thanks!!

[@PAULLONDEN]

It's obvious we're part of something bigger...... which might be the universe ? Even a down syndrome patient could come to such a conclusion.

[@shawnn6541]

Nope

[@mohammadsareh4732]

Physicists can replace falsehood with truth and vice versa for ordinary people.

[@boogathon]

Try telling that to “climate change” believers...

[@charlesmcmillion5118]

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that it's impossible not possible. Who the hell wrote this script?

[@matthewschwartz8730]

I wanted to share something that I read in a book about the nature of the way objects move through space-time. Early in the second part of this documentary The voice spoke of how we are already moving at the speed of light or something to that extent and gave almost no explanation. Everything moves through space-time with a maximum amount of"movement" split between moving through space and moving through time. From what I can understand everything moves through space-time in a way such that if you are moving faster meaning that you are moving through space more u then move less through time. For example if an object is not moving at all through space then all of its motion is through Time meaning that that object's clock is moving at maximum speed. On The other extreme if an object is moving at the speed of light meaning that its clock will be stationary. I do hope I explained this properly and I also hope that you can understand what I am trying to get at.

[@JasonRule-1]

I agree. And that would explain why photons do not experience time.

[@danbreilin9169]

It's all relative. If we race our spaceships at light speed to Andromeda our dashboard clocks keep ticking, we keep growing older. I don't know some of this stuff is ridiculous. You can't stop time. The universe is not a holograph and the future is not preordained.

[@JasonRule-1]

@@danbreilin9169If we were traveling at the speed of light I suspect that even though the clocks keep ticking what would happen is that we would arrive at our destination instantly without any travel time at all in our own perception. No time would pass for the passengers on our ship. All the while time would have continued on in the outside world at its normal pace.

[@danbreilin9169]

@@JasonRule-1 No, it takes 8 minutes for sunlight to reach earth. Imagine if you're a photon at the surface of the Sun and we communicate instantaneously and I tell you to leave right now head towards the earth, how long is it going to take you to get here? It's not instantaneous so time must elapse

[@JasonRule-1]

@@danbreilin9169 It's not instantaneous for an external observer, as from the Earth. But it IS instantaneous for the photon. The photon experiences no elapsed time.

[@Vile_Entity_3545]

186,000 miles per second more like

[@boogathon]

…but only in a Hoover.

[@melissadwiggins]

10:09 so if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, it does not make a sound. That's what I'm getting from this lol

[@Anthony-gm3jp]

A deaf dog still barks

[@guiseppe36749]

sound is just our brain's interpretation of shockwaves of air displacement. so when a tree falls, there will always be air displacement. it never makes 'sound' because 'sound' only exists in our mind. when someone's there to 'hear it', it just means someone interprets the air displacement of a tree falling and calls it 'the sound of a tree falling'

[@thewinesmith]

Yep gotta observe it. Before its observed its just like a probability that a bear shits in the woods.

[@QuantumAnswer]

No, that's not it and also all the answers you got are just... bad. Mainly the @guiseppe36749 who thinks they sound smart but basically said nothing. They said "sound is just our brain's interpretation of shockwaves of air displacement. so when a tree falls, there will always be air displacement. it never makes 'sound'"... WUT... thanks for nothing... Yeah "Sound" is word for Air displacement so they are equal therefore IT DOES MAKE SOUND.It's just nonsense equivocation on "sound" trying to differentiate between the fact and what "word" we use to describe that fact to be able to communicate about it between each other - unless you define "sound" as "observed sound wave" and then OFC yes, but at that moment it's definitional and nothing can make sound unless observed, obviously. Ergo they said literally nothing of any value. @thewinesmith is also wrong, it's not probability of making sound, when the tree fell down it did make a sound regardless If someone was there or not to observe it. The macro world is still predictable, this result of violation of bell's inequality has outcome for quantum world (there are different worlds with different rules). Just like for a bug the gravity is negligible, surfice tention is what matters = different rules. So hopefully we now understand that what violation of bell's inequality changes is "our understanding of quantum mechanics", it has little to no effect of our understanding of reality "in different frame" (table is still table, tree that fell without no one around still made waves (sound) that no one observed). The change that happen was, there were 2 theories of how quantum world works, it could have been deterministic "with hidden variables" or "non-deterministic", the violation of bell's inequality shows that it is non-deterministic and therefore they only way for us to describe quantum behaviour is using "probability" because results of measurement cannot be determined. That is to say, If you take 2 boxes and you put left shoe in 1st and right shoe in 2nd and you send this box to your friend once she opens the box "she knows what's in your box", now nothing changed about your box, what changed is her beeing able to determine an information about it. This does not apply for quantum entanglement for pre-detrmined quantum states - that's what bell inequality is about, it's a upper bound of quantum entaglement "parallel measurement" correlation instead of orthogonal (notice, parallel is important, for example if you messaure vertical motion on one side the horizontal motion on other side there is no correlation between meassurements, however If you meassure both vertically they are maximally correlated - and if your meassurements go into diagonals that's what we are talking about here). So if you meassure parallel you can tell how strongly they are correlated until the "upper bound" (=bell inequality). What many meassurements shown is that it can be violated and therefore is not "local" ergo not determined. And that's all it says, that quantum mechanics seems to be not determined and non-local. It has little to no implications on your normal life whatsoever and falling tree still makes the sound even If nobody "observes it" because such a statement equivocates on "observer" which in case of that tree are air particles reacting to particles of falling tree, ergo "observe" their movement - all this still happen regardless of our observation. I tried... but it's a bit complicated to put it in words like this, I suggest to find video that explains it with visual help :)

[@martinnewtonholmes]

You are probably right@@thewinesmith

[@Raging.Geekazoid]

7:00 The good news is that we can retain reality by giving up locality, which is just a glorified way of saying the speed of light as a universal speed limit. And we'll have to do that anyway if we're going to develop hyperdrives and explore the universe. 😋 So the universe does exist in some form or another, but so far nobody knows what that really is. 🤔

[@bigimskiweisenheimer8325]

When it all comes down to it, we still have to go to work and pay our bills. When we don't, then I'll consider it a major discovery.

[@jlg4398]

It is most certainly real as we define it.

[@junes2k]

he said elon musk is a scientist. anything goes, man. BTW I'm a firetruck.

[@LloydSavage-ob3qy]

Since Hawkin passed even he now knows the truth and will bow his knee like all others will giving glory to the Father of all creatures and things.

[@malcolmlewis6014]

Anything goes these days where the human brain is starting to run amok with incredible ideas and imagination.

[@kieran-299]

It's about mocking the American standards of measurement, so since they usually use METRIC they mindlessly did the conversion so came up with 300 mi/sec

[@bobbybob3865]

An interesting thing to me is that, with the current speed of communication worldwide, a good idea in New Zealand can be put to use two days later in the United States.

[@hammer8809]

The double split experiment is flawed, it's not the human observation turning waves to particles, it is simply the electronic instrument used that does this.

[@tatesmobilewashandinstalla7025]

Interesting theory.

[@samuraisteve2775]

Nope, your understanding is flawed. Any observations, video, electronic monitoring, etc. It cannot be a person watching as we cannot see stuff that small, genius.

[@hammer8809]

@@samuraisteve2775 Oh dah, the humans observe using the instruments. Did you really think they just put them there for show? 🙄

[@Joe-fe2xl]

All I know for a fact is when your twenty years old, it takes forever to reach thirty years old. As if you'll never get there! But when you hit thirty, forty comes quicker then thirty took, and every ten years after that gets here quicker also!

[@karmasutra4774]

Wait until 50!

[@Joe-fe2xl]

@@karmasutra4774 I don't have to wait for 50. It's already came and is long gone!

[@EarthView-se6zm]

It's interconnected not innerconnected

[@mikeransom1168]

At 41:40 the narrator says if I sit at home I am not moving, but if I go to the store I am moving. I was under the impression that we are all moving with our planet as it rotates and orbits our sun and simultaneously travels around the center of our galaxy while we travel with our galaxy as we head on our collision course toward the Andromeda galaxy. Doesn't that count as moving?

[@sharesgames9546]

"movement" is a change of position relative to another object. If you move your little finger, it has moved relative to the other fingers, relative to your body, and relative to the bed you are sitting on. If you move two fingers are the same time and in the same fashion, both your fingers have moved relative to your arm, and relative to your body and to the bed you are sitting on. But both fingers have been completely stationary relative to each other, no movement at all.

[@shawncarter7188]

Of course it does. You don't need to initiate your own movement to be considered to move. Whether your muscles generate the motion or an outside force interacts with you, you'll be moving. I.e. if you get rear ended, you'll move

[@sharesgames9546]

"Movement" is relative, and is always defined "with respect to another object". In our universe there are objects moving in all possible directions, from large galaxies to small pebbles flying about space, and according to relativity all objects are linked together. Because no object can travel at the speed of light. Which means if an object travels at half the speed of light, there can be no other object in the whole universe that can travel at half the speed of light in the opposite direction.

[@shawncarter7188]

@sharesgames9546 right except for that last part. You're saying that only one object in the universe can travel at C÷2 at any given time. That's not accurate

[@sharesgames9546]

@@shawncarter7188 I said that if object A is moving at half speed of light with respect to another object B, there cannot be an object C that travels at half the speed of light in the opposite direction of A. This constraint links A, B and C together, regardless of distance, or size. As there are so many objects in the universe, this constraint would seem to imply that the maximum achievable speed is 1/2 the speed of light, because if you try and go any faster there will surely be some other object, no matter how far away, that travels faster than light with respect to you.

[@UrbanDefensiveTactics]

Question: If a spirrow galaxy is located along the same plane relatively, according the blue-shift observation, the side of the galaxy that rotating towards our point of reference should appear blue and the side of the same galaxy moving away, should appear red, correct?

[@Raging.Geekazoid]

Correct.

[@bruss4580]

Id almost have no doubt the (most) galaxies moving toward ea other. Say andromeda and milky way…..the speed in which they are approaching is much higher than the speed of rotation. Sooo rotation vs light shift would be negligible to our perception. No?

[@Raging.Geekazoid]

@@bruss4580 "Expanding universe" means most galaxies are moving away from each other. That was Edwin Hubble's great discovery in 1929. Andromeda is approaching the Milky Way at about 110 kilometers per second, and its rotational velocity has a maximum of 225 kilometers per second (at a radius of 1300 light years from the center).

[@thekingofmojacar5333]

Our life isn´t always so "real", but the cosmos exists (we are an insignificant part of it) and that´s 100% a reality and not just a hallucination, and I am absolutely sure about it!

[@chrisstevens-xq2vb]

Touché. Some people perceive governments as honest🥴

[@seditt5146]

To bad you are wrong OP. See Donald Hoffman for a better explanation of the following statements but as it stands all forms of life perceive reality totally different. To believe Humans have the only true real reality is absurd. It is 100% a hallucination and psychology could have told you this over 100 years ago.

[@thekingofmojacar5333]

@@chrisstevens-xq2vb I perceive governments as an obligated tax payer (and wasting my money)...🤬

[@madolinereed8885]

the adverts are just abusive now...every 2 minutes, not even tv was this bad! KZbin is losing its appeal quickly

[@danstewart2770]

[29:11] Why say time is an _"emergent property"_ of the universe, instead of just a _"property"_ of the universe?

[@robertmossberger3385]

Oh, I see. I don't exist, you don't exist, we don't exist it doesn't exist and the computer running our programs doesn't exist. Got it.

[@Daniel_P116]

I would respond to that, but I don't exist so I can't.

[@maxtek73]

ok so I have put some thought in to this and have also talked to others, the ones that think this way about our existence have no skills and little experience in working with things. they can't see in their minds what people talk about. things like "it is becoming hard to steer the car" in your mind you would see a power steering fluid holder or if you are a mechanic you might see a power steering mechanism. this is how my mind works. work does not scare me but concerns I do have. I am always concerned with quality! on my stuff it is ok to tweak with stuff but when you are dealing with work you are dealing with people. so if life is a simulation then what if I chose to believe this theory then i can do a crappy job and as soon as i leave everything will fix itself, right? so I can basically sit there and do nothing because a simulation has default rules and everything is written in stone, yes? well I am having a non existing lunch.

[@Daniel_P116]

@@maxtek73 Nothing would fix itself, according to that theory. But I don't really know what you're trying to say.

[@juuu7801]

@@Daniel_P116idk either lol. All i know is that we humans do not know what anything is and scientists are making theories that isnt real. We Might get clearance when we die

[@PatrickVath-t4g]

Causality, not casualty.

[@tfurbee]

at 40:18 he claims the speed of light is 186,000 mile per hour. this is incorrect. its 186,000 miles per second.

[@michaelvonfriedrich3924]

In the absence of the fabric of space, can light transverse this void or does light require the fabric of space in order for it to travel?

[@BaronoftheDead]

Light needs something to be "absorbed" by in order to be seen. I believe the light would travel through the "Void" but would not be observed until it reaches something that it can reflect on.

[@rd4908]

@@BaronoftheDead There is no void. The fabric of space is everywhere in the universe

[@BaronoftheDead]

@@rd4908 That's why I put quotes around "Void." I wanted it to retain the context the OP meant.

[@sannytizer7772]

I you don't pay your leccy bill then there's no light

[@hulamei3117]

It's OK we're still doing illusionary calls on our cell phone and eating invisible- visible burgers! 😅 Enjoy!

[@Shadow_B4nned]

Yea? no. The universe absolutely exists and does not need an observer. An observer's view of the universe is merely a perspective. It's a recreation of reality within one's mind. Time dilates around each observer so that everyone experiences the universe differently. But it's the same vibrating universe. Furthermore entangled particles don't magically stay entangled. They decohere very rapidly. You can't magically plop entangled particles on opposite sides of the universe.

[@IBADSNU]

Prove it.

[@Shadow_B4nned]

@@IBADSNU Prove what exactly?

[@Shadow_B4nned]

@@IBADSNU Would you like me to prove the earth is round? Or the moon exists even if you don't look at it? Are you asking about time dilation? Such as, no two watches are ever truly in sync. Are you asking about how decoherence works? What's your conundrum?

[@davidwestfall4336]

Argue if you will, but I'm moving if an 18-wheeler is barreling down the highway towards me. "Reality"

[@DWKThedogbreaths]

Beautiful graphics and exceptional narration of complex ideas, without which, most of the information would be too giddy to comprehend. Your presentation is outstanding for this alone; the graphics are a bonus.

[@RickHansbury]

Do you mean too stoned to comprehend? 😂

[@NomadSupreme911]

If you are reading this you are the only sentiant being in the universe. Every other living being is an illusion projected into your mind. -The Universe

[@XaelX777]

Thanks -Your Mom

[@randallhackworth421]

@@XaelX777😂

[@TheEnigmaUniverse-vt2pm]

Finally! The documentary narrated by an actual human being. Which is so much nicer than computer generated voices. It made this documentary so enjoyable I will listen to the whole thing. And I'm only a minute into it and I've already enjoying it

[@thegamingflyhd1397]

The only video I listened to every word (watching most of it) and jus realized it's almost over lmao literally the only video ever thats over 30-45 mins tops that i actually sat through the entire video which is crazy

[@PlebianGorilla]

It’s possible this is a computer generated voice. If you capture enough samples of someone, you can create something that fools us into thinking it’s real.

[@kenpotter6745]

This was actually a computer generated voice made from a sampled voice and then the transcript was converted using text to speech. If listening to it carefully there are several points when the synthesized voice made GIANT errors in the correct pronunciation of certain words. This ‘screams’ of ‘text to speech’ synthesis as systems like this can occasionally make these kinds of errors AND ALSO will not catch common sense typos in the transcript like a human would catch because the human would easily catch the contextual error in the sentence the moment the wrong word was used. For example at 24 seconds into the video the synthesized voice says ‘laberNinth of time’ instead of the correct word ‘labyrinth’. Another example during the narration at the 28 minute and 20 second mark in this video, the narrating synthesized voice says the word “casualty” instead of the word “causality”. This renders the sentence meaningless as it doesn’t make sense with the incorrect word (“casualty”). No human would make that mistake and not catch the stupidity of the sentence they just said… This video was a narration from a very good text to speech engine with a unique Midwest American accented voice.

[@craigfowler7098]

Well if the universe is a hologram or simulation, your theory is wrong

[@ButchersSM]

I think that all possible outcomes are played out within reality, and time is the vehicle that consciousness uses to navigate through different outcomes within reality. Free will is only the conscious decision in which consciousness itself uses time to navigate within all outcomes that exist all at the same time. So we see time choice by choice, in a line, Every outcome that can exist already does. We just ride time through all the outcomes, and it looks like free will. which basically it is. Its just the physicality of existence already exists. Does that make any sense to you??

[@bartb7450]

This gets the speed of light wrong - it’s per second, not per hour

[@Arcticstar69]

"I think, therefore I am..." -Descartes.

[@rogerhill138]

If time didn't exist at the big bang then we can't time how long it took.

[@shawnn6541]

Nope

[@BaronoftheDead]

We use mathematics to determine how fast things are moving away from the "epicenter" of the Universe. We measure everything around us and the direction they move. Once we have that number we use it to calculate how long it could have taken to travel that distance and create a timeline with this data. It's similar to "How far does a car travel moving at 60mph if it's moving at 60mph?"

[@BaronoftheDead]

@@Hat_With_A_Hat_On It is a fun problem to look at lol. Trying to calculate objects paths through space based on their interactions with each other is kind of interesting. I'm not sure how useful it would be to apply to the "Big Bang"; I honestly haven't studied it much. (I'm not a mathematician lol) An object 20 light years away could have affected an object's path before being flung away on its journey and that's too much information needed. Our best approximation is good enough for me. The Universe is chaos haha We would have to be present during the Big Bang to truly know.

[@naomidoner9803]

The big bang is a theroy... widely accepted but not proven

[@martinmurry3]

​@@BaronoftheDeadwhere is the "epicenter" of the universe?

[@mds1171]

Dont understand how a clock can run slower because of gravity. Clocks arent meters, they're just machines set to run at a certain pace.

[@boat1280]

Everything is physics. Physical systems slowly breaking down Gravity affects time and these physics Because time is different in different gravity, the clocks will be off when returning to “normal time” The corrections the international space station makes are incredibly small, but they are made

[@Greenishprint]

The universe doesn't exist? Says the Physicists, who also doesn't exist!😅 The irony

[@a.od-reszki4674]

But they are still harmonic oscillators. Even when they don't exist.

[@EnlightenedEyes11]

I find it hard to take content seriously when it clearly has such a weak grasp on rudimentary epistemic concepts such as "proof" and "certainty." 🙄

[@allanmcgee7324]

What happened to the recent re calculation of the age of this universe to 27 billion years old not 13.8?

[@diliproy6455]

India’s Vedantic philosophy has known this theory since time began

[@Bavarian-ko9il]

Agreed 200% Western thinkers still catching up 😅

[@samboychip1]

Because it’s based on consciousness, the observer, not the observed, as the source of reality

[@dfreshMC]

It all boils down to the age old axiom: "I think therefore I am" More profound and more aprapo than one might think it to be at 1st glance 12:18

[@bandulaamarawardena6576]

Yes.. Perfect.. I like to say that the universe is energy, our brains are energy.. and the thinking is energy... Our thinking deceives us to think that we exist.

[@y5mgisi]

I really like these thought provoking videos.

[@martinnewtonholmes]

Maybe you just think you like them

[@ralphpeirson8475]

Jane Roberts channeled a number of books dictated by a being named SETH, who describes himself as a multidimensional personality no long in human form. On one of these books, Seth also says that the universe does not exist! Interesting!

[@philharmer198]

To your last statement . Seth is wrong . The Universe does exist . It has space and physical things , And Life .

[@jacksawyer3626]

Why do so many of these videos obsess with close ups of eyeballs?

[@KithEsq]

Humans aren't the observer who makes the universe real. GOD is watching us!

[@nassirshahshah7216]

Yo god watching me game? Finally a friend

[@KithEsq]

@nassirshahshah7216 You are the main character in a world of n.p.c's "player 1"

[@uuzd4s]

The very fact that the best and brightest minds on the Planet can prove opposing theories exist about the origins and makeup of the Universe tells you everything you need to know . . . and that is that we DON'T Know. When you hear words or descriptions like, Singularity, Event Horizon, Dark Energy and Dark Matter, these are undifinable words meaning we Don't Know what they are. They're just made-up words to describe the unknown. We, Mankind, has Always gone w/ the most popular definitions of the Universe until something better comes along, That's the only constant here. Still, Well Presented and definitely stimulates any spare neurons floating around, of which I've only One. The other two keep me breathing and help my Lips move. 😉

[@VideoVidYT]

The Universe Is Real

[@Ieffmacloud]

So if the Universe is not real.... Why are we EVEN having this discussion? If something is real it requires understanding. If we don't have understanding we can't say it doesn't exist if we know it does exist.... Just sayin' 😆.

[@chrisevans1255]

If the universe doesn't exist then neither do physicists...so how can they prove anything? Don't let this non-existent comment upset you.

[@keithford460]

Malfunctions such as the Mandela affect perhaps?... maybe these things that we are being told we misremember actually happened in a previously overwritten version of the current simulation. I have been places that I looked up and have never existed, but, I was there, uninfluenced by intoxication of any sort. I witnessed these events in these places that never were. Could that make me an artifact carried over from a former glitch repair? Many of us have shared "mismemories", could that mean that we are all artifacts of previous versions? Or perhaps there were many parallel "servers" on which simulations were being run that the runners of these simulations have decided to combine the servers, thus bringing the minutia of the different servers into conflict with each other. Thus BOTH events DID happen just as "misremembered" by the current versions of us. I Love the thought experiments that videos such as this open up!!!

[@yanan3681]

No universes were harmed in the making of this video

[@Synthematix]

If the universe doesn’t exist then nothing exists

[@suatustel746]

Maybe simulators.

[@reezevlog]

or lucid dreams

[@martinnewtonholmes]

Who wrote this ?

[@suatustel746]

@@martinnewtonholmes holograms.....

[@RajagopalRajagopal-s7u]

The universe exist both physically and Concisely To our physical science material world exists To our spiritual science Consciousness exists

[@swastika-kz2pg]

It’s “causality”, not “casualty”

[@ycc9369]

If the universe is not real, so what? life goes on.

[@naomidoner9803]

In or out of the body... it goes on

[@davidluck1678]

glad to know that I don't exist. Maybe this tooth will stop hurting.....

[@tomgrinnell4536]

Check your hearing David

[@Jmoney-1603]

I'm from Texas, you voice makes me like home.

[@TheOttomann64]

I always imagine the narrator looking like a mix of Pixars Woody and John Wayne 😊

[@johnnyringo9759]

If this came from Texas, then it all makes sense!!!

[@MaxineMJahn]

3:55 PM 😅 it's always good to watch current views of scientists.

[@shaneburroughs3717]

Casuality? I think the narrator was supposed to say causality. But it's odd that no one picked up on that all through the editing and screening process before this was released. If not the what is casuality and what does it have to do with this subject?

[@outofhere7623]

Universe is misspelled on your watermark

[@danstewart2770]

[17:16] The speed of light ( _c_ ) is 299.792.458 m/s.

[@69weed.420]

Is it up to that fast now?

[@Int00blivion]

Cause-al-ity. Not cass-u-ality. Drove me nuts each time. Otherwise great breakdown

[@DuanTorruellas]

When I had ADS they said I have to learn to concentrate more hahahahahaha

[@vanamalik6669]

This is Kid's stuff in Indian Philosophy. Advaitam. How about simply translating and sounding like a discoverer. My God. This is getting crazy. Brahma satyam jagat mityaa.

[@flockecogames]

I didn't hear anything in the video indicating the universe doesn't exist. Only the title. By contrast, in Advaita, real means permanent and nothing exists apart from Brahman. Correct me where I am wrong

[@BLASTIC0]

What if Penrose’s CCC is right and each cycle creates another larger surface/top dimension(s)? Thoughts?

[@DuanTorruellas]

Wayne Newton chopped down the apple tree to discover gravity hahahahahahah.

[@orale_]

waiting for physicists to prove rent doesnt exist