The Multiverse, Science or Science Fiction? | Sean Carroll

[@dewfall56]

Sean is an extremely rare combination of a highly knowledgeable scientist in his field, and excellent at articulating it to laypeople. Very rare indeed and we are the beneficiaries. Thank Dr. Carroll!

[@alanhyland5697]

This is one of the best summaries of the topic that I've seen

[@Torsdagskvallsmys]

I seriously getting the vibe that some scientist likes to spin on these ideas alot when they talking to us humans. Its better to pitch an idea wich People love to hear becuse it get views it sells books.. objective aduacte facts is just to damn booring for the general.. that action scifi movie is a Great turn on though. Thars what asked so thats whats given.. No way they talks like that to other professionals and their reputations Is on the lite? I dont buy it anyways. And I dont blame someone who press that money making Button when is basicly just lies there waiting to be pushed.. I know I would If it meant a huge different in my life.. everyone likes that money..maybe im wrong .I get that feel anyways.. usually when im speculate im wrong so..

[@kevinbarbe799]

What I love about this clip is that every side of the topic is presented

[@katieleporte7087]

This set is is a Ron Burgundy line “I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.” also lots of clocks. So many clocks 🤣 Joking aside, Sean Carroll rocks👍🏼

[@JTadeo128]

bars

[@1987SAMBUDDHA]

Sean Carroll, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Michio Kaku….we are a blessed generation to hear these outstanding human beings of absolute factual knowledge….

[@TrendyWeb1]

How do you know it’s factual? What if we’ve shifted into a universe where it isn’t factual?

[@gnosticelk8193]

@@TrendyWeb1 not a testable hypothesis

[@Hermes1548]

Sean Carroll is such a great speaker.

[@alanburton8065]

Thank you Sean, it was very clear.

[@wulphstein]

Sean Carroll is a con man.

[@chasejefferson2022]

I guess it's kinda off topic but does anyone know a good site to watch newly released series online ?

[@brysenelliott2527]

@Chase Jefferson Flixportal

[@chasejefferson2022]

@Brysen Elliott Thanks, signed up and it seems to work :D I really appreciate it !

[@Max_Doubt]

Don't forget Asimov's 1st law of futurics: what has been happening will continue to happen. What has been happening? Constant revisions upward of the size of our universe and the numbers of stars and planets in it. The discovery of other universes would just be par for the course.

[@quintessenceSL]

Yeah, Sean Carroll... now I'm sorely tempted to subscribe.

[@antonleimbach648]

Every generation since the dawn of time has said to each other “look at how much we know and how stupid people used to be!” Maybe we have managed to understand a handful of sand on the beach of human understanding. There is so much more.

[@jflopezfernandez]

Incredible video by an incredible teacher. Subscribed today after PBS Space Time recommended Professor Carroll's series on Time. Definitely recommend

[@vhawk1951kl]

If you believe any of that nonsense about multiverses, so-called, you will believe anything; it's pure imagination and can only possibly be imagination

[@GeezerBoy65]

@@vhawk1951kl We are indeed fortunate to have an expert such as yourself with great credentials, to straighten us out on what is possible and impossible. Thank you. We are so blessed.

[@guyjosephs5654]

Love your great courses + app I have. One of the best subscriptions I’ve ever spent money on. Thank you for doing it.

[@buca512boxer]

There's a reason particle physicists and really physicists in general, dislike string theorists and inflation theorists. Steven Weinberg in his later years called string theory a non-quantum theory. And Roger Penrose calls string theory "fashion" and inflation "fantasy and faith", and he's done so to Carrol's, Greene's and Suskind's faces. Many renowned physicists who once enbraced strings and inflation have walked away from that and call it nonsense. Physicists like Neil Turok, Paul Steindhardt, Matthias Albrecht, and Sabine Hossenfelder, who are in at least as impressive standing as Carroll, Greene, Guth, Linde, Starikovsky and Susskind, disagree. And as for Witten, we need a match with Eric Weinstein, in what would be the match of the early 21st century.

[@jmautobot]

I wish the date this was recorded was included in the description.

[@RobertSaxy]

Same here at least we’re know that it was before the Higgs boson was discovered because of 23:32

[@kjack111683]

Yea me too because it was posted here 3 years ago but we discovered the higgs-boson a good amount earlier than 3 years ago

[@jaixzz]

1:20 "… parable…" - too late but well done! You just debunked the big bang gang. I'm with you.

[@jmanj3917]

I've seen many of your videos, and, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time I've heard you say unequivocally that the "multiverse" hypothesis is quite possibly not correct (as compared to should be, probably is, very well might be, etc.). That's good to see/hear!

[@mscience8806]

Because this video is much older. :D

[@andresdubon2608]

Don't think of it like that. The inflection he provides to the ideas is mostly for entertainment, I believe. It doesn't change how the ideas are viewed. In other words: it could be. He believes it's true, but many many others don't.

[@bipolarminddroppings]

There's a big difference between how he talks about the multiverse when speaking about his personal opinion on the subject and when he's presenting an educational video about the subject as a whole. He might be convinced the multiverse exists but he knows the evidence to prove it isn't anywhere close yet. Therefore, when teaching he will give the educators answer, not what he personally thinks. In other words, he does what most scientists do, seperate his own opinions from what he can prove.

[@charleshenderson4215]

This one was amazing...great explanation.

[@patriciablue2739]

I enjoyed this very much!

[@jayseb]

Love the content, and especially that set... just priceless. I was expecting Alfred Hitchcock to come out at some point...

[@jimmurphy6095]

11:40 But, if the universe is really infinite, then the amount of energy in "our" universe, is a dust mote in a sunbeam.... And I could just see a bouncing universe being created and instantly self-destructing, only to be reborn again in a fraction of a second and repeating. That would be interesting.

[@kirkbaker5073]

These lectures are great

[@bipolarminddroppings]

Sean is describing the planet of Krikkett, from one of the Hitchhikers books. At the start, it didn't go well for the rest of the galaxy when they found out that there was more than just their planet in the universe...

[@tresajessygeorge210]

THANK YOU... DR SEAN CARROLL...!!!

[@adamdansiger]

23:20 Wasn't the Higgs boson discovered in 2012?

[@endicot1949]

I believe these lectures were recorded in 2011.

[@readytoworkboulder]

I think that our priority should be surviving as a species and eventually we will understand the world around us and this is observable and measurable. The rodents we are descended from could only understand the world around it to a certain degree and as we evolved (survived) we began to understand the world around us. Over hundreds-of-millions of years evolution allowed our brains to develop and this happened without our consent or our conscious effort. I don't think we can find the answers we're looking for, a force greater than us will grow our understanding if only we can survive and this happened, we see it happened when we look into the past. Survival of the human species is the key to understanding the questions we have today. Write the questions down, record them in history, and spend most of your efforts making sure humans can live millions of years.

[@sandyestabrook3898]

Love Sean Carroll - For me The Multiverse is just an excuse for the dead end reached by fine tuning. If we are really in a multiverse, wouldn't it be concluded that that the Multiverse be itself in a multiverse. I'm happy with one universe with God living outside.

[@lepidoptera9337]

There is no fine tuning in physics. That's a religious term most often used by Young Earth Creationists. Don't be a YEC. :-)

[@adammeade2300]

As a Christian, I’m often irked by scientists who parlay their specialized knowledge into an anti-Christian career(e.g. Dawkins, Krauss, Sagan, etc.). While Sean has wandered into the fray, I find him more genuine than the aforementioned. Concerning this topic, I found Lee Smolin’s book “The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of Science, and What Comes Next” very illuminating.

[@karagi101]

Of course as a Christian you’d be irked by people that point out how ludicrous Christianity is.

[@goradutta2158]

Time Travel, actual Nuclear explosion, (refer to Oppenheimer's utterings, post the experimental Atom Bomb explosion in USA) Multiverse are mentioned in Hindu Sanskrit texts, written thousands of years ago. These are new to modern science.

[@rufusapplebee1428]

in my opinion, beyond super symmetry unification energies, energy itself becomes a dimension of the multi verse. If it interacts with any universe, then such high energy dimensions become hidden dimension of the interacting universes.

[@tesseractofspaceland5126]

One of the best Presentation. Amazing.

[@82726jsjsufhejsjshshdjso]

Love this guy

[@robertschlesinger1342]

Very interesting and worthwhile video.

[@buca512boxer]

Inflation and strings are very probably wrong. Cosmological inflation and string theory are two prominent theories in modern physics, but they face challenges in being proven or experimentally confirmed. Here are the reasons why: Cosmological Inflation: 1. *Lack of direct empirical evidence*: Inflationary theory predicts rapid expansion in the early universe, but this era is inaccessible to direct observation. 2. *Indirect tests are inconclusive*: Cosmic microwave background radiation and large-scale structure observations can be explained by alternative theories. 3. *Multiverse problem*: Inflationary theory predicts a multiverse, making it difficult to test or falsify. 4. *Lack of predictive power*: Inflationary models are highly flexible, making it challenging to make specific, testable predictions. String Theory: 1. *Mathematical complexity*: String theory is a highly mathematical framework, making it difficult to extract concrete predictions. 2. *Lack of experimental evidence*: No direct experimental evidence supports string theory. 3. *Multiverse problem*: String theory also predicts a multiverse, making it challenging to test or falsify. 4. *String landscape problem*: The theory allows for an enormous number of possible solutions, making it difficult to predict specific outcomes. Pitfalls: 1. *Lack of falsifiability*: Both theories are challenging to test or falsify, which is essential for scientific theories. 2. *Over-reliance on mathematical elegance*: The beauty and complexity of the theories can lead to an overemphasis on mathematical elegance rather than empirical evidence. 3. *Speculative nature*: Both theories are highly speculative, and their development has outpaced experimental verification. While these theories have generated significant interest and research, their experimental confirmation remains elusive. Scientists continue to explore new ways to test and refine these theories, but their pitfalls highlight the need for caution and rigor in theoretical physics.

[@karagi101]

And you know this how???

[@buca512boxer]

@@karagi101 I answered in my comment by expanding it.

[@karagi101]

@@buca512boxer Inflation makes predictions that match what we see in our universe.

[@buca512boxer]

@@karagi101 of course not. You are wrong.

[@karagi101]

@@buca512boxer kzbin.info/www/bejne/eYO0p6NpjbV7ldUsi=k1s4T_C30wZy2Pjr

[@loriclark505]

The multiverse example is right behind him ,the blinds on the window and it takes strings to move them

[@manonthedollar]

That set has a real Nick News with Linda Ellerbee vibe goin on back there.

[@roddneyfett444]

The multiverse is another way of describing the multi-nature of time and position. Heisenberg uncertainty principle makes sense because, Quantum mechanics is about multiple positions, multiple momentum, and multiple times future, present, and past. A photon does interact with itself in the double slit experiment, because it is interacting with it's self in different times. We know that time is not constant, and that an object has an average kinetic energy. Time slows down with increase in energy. This means some of the objects time is different within different areas of the object. It is spread out in position and time. It exists in a multiverse.

[@vhawk1951kl]

tThe how-much mechanics of the wordy word eh, Humpty Dumpty? Do you not understand that "quantum" is merely a latin word for how-much, but wordyword will do as well. Dou never wonder what these wordywords actually m-e-a-n? No, I rather thought not. Why not just chant wordyword, wordyword over and over again? - it can only come to the same thing.

[@RandallNewman]

Seems like there is some time dilation going on with the clocks in the studio.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

it depends on where you are standing, if you aren't inside greenwich observatory they will all read different times....

[@55painterman]

Sean Carroll is so awesome and the way he explains the Universe and life seems really easy for him* ..i think Sean Carroll is from an advanced planet and he came here to try and explain all of reality to us, :)

[@TheGreatCourses]

Hi Sean, thank you so much for your kind feedback! We truly pride ourselves on our professors and the depth of our content and are very glad you're enjoying our offerings. Thanks for being a fan!

[@KeyserTheRedBeard]

tremendous upload The Great Courses Selects. I broke the thumbs up on your video. Continue to keep up the excellent work.

[@TheGreatCourses]

Thanks for the

[@jennyanydots2389]

I thought they handled the rape scene really well this time

[@rudyricojr5963]

forget the multiverse, how many clocks does this guy have?

[@cyclometre]

SCHRODINGER'S CAT certainly gets a workout in theory!

[@CarmQ]

What “triggers” a multiverse to exist? I believe only time travel can trigger multiverses. Something would have to have changed in the past (or future even?) to “trigger” or initiate an additional parallel universe(s). Because how can there just simply BE multiverses? What would “cause” there to be multiple “me’s” or “you’s”? So unless someone from the future has the ability to time travel, I don’t believe there are currently multiverses. Unless we can prove time travel 🤷‍♀️ And I believe the past doesn’t exist. Once we live into the next “now” (next moment), the previous now is gone. It’s done. No longer exists. Therefore, nothing to time travel back to. Therefore, no multiverses.

[@randomvicky939]

OMG 😱 I finally found the perfect channel ! Than you

[@TheGreatCourses]

Enjoy learning with us, Vicky!

[@dwightalfred]

A brilliant way of saying "I don"t really know what's happening out there". Scientists speak as though they are the final word on what's what, the end all of things that exist. I love, admire and respect science, truthful, honest, humble science. They would tell you that a spoon coming into existence without an intelligent, purposeful maker is a scientific impossibility, an absolute absurdity. Yet in the same breath they want you to believe that our vast and mind bogglingly complex universe came into existence all by itself and without an all powerful and supremely intelligent Creator. "Billy go clean your room". "Don't worry Mom. My room will clean itself" The universe exhibits stupendous order. Where there is order there is evidence of intelligence. Where there is intelligence there is a brilliant mind. Where there is a mind there is a person. Where there is all of the above there is purpose. The Bible is clear. Our all powerful and supremely intelligent Creator whose name is Jehovah purposely produced this universe, everything we can and cannot see and put life on this Earth because his dominant personality trait is love.

[@whirledpeas3477]

I would suggest that you stay away from children

[@gnosticelk8193]

go home Dwight, you're drunk

[@jonnymycomushrooms]

Well said.

[@SampleroftheMultiverse]

Thanks for your interesting video. In the video below I buckle up a spring sheet of material. The shape looks like a flat bell shape or sine wave curve. It is bounded on the ends. I stress or compress it from the vertical axis. Is there any analogy in statistics that this models? I also do it in a V-shaped pattern. People say I am just plucked guitar strings. I said you can not make structures with vibrating guitar strings or harmonic oscillators. kzbin.info/www/bejne/raOlpKSfepWpfZYsi=waT8lY2iX-wJdjO3 In the model, “U” shape waves are produced as the loading increases and just before the wave-like function shifts to the next higher energy level. Over-lapping all the waves frequencies together using Fournier Transforms, I understand makes a “U” shape or square wave form. If this model has merit, seeing the sawtooth load verse deflection graph produced could give some real insight in what happened during the quantum jumps. You can reproduce my results using a sheet of Mylar* ( the clear plastic found in school folders. 0:32

[@cathyharris-cz5tu]

Also by Sean Carroll " Dark matter and Dark energy". Is superb

[@controverso4149]

The thing is that if many realize that it's totally bogus than a lot of movies and series have to change scripts

[@eddiebrown192]

Probably a dumb question but that won’t stop me from asking .... doesn’t eternal inflation and the multiverse violate the second law of thermodynamics ?

[@TheGreatCourses]

Eddie, Eternal inflation is a hypothesis while the second law is demonstrated.

[@eddiebrown192]

@@TheGreatCourses I understand that , but I am asking how do they explain all this extra energy required in Inflation/multiverse ? I never have heard this explanation from its proponents . It seems to me that they need to explain that but it never seems to be addressed . I’m just saying this would appear to be a huge problem .

[@alex_madeira]

@@eddiebrown192 I'm not a card-carrying multiverse proponent but if, you are seriously interested in this and actually want an answer, then Sean Carroll has an excellent book called Something Deeply Hidden which goes into this question and other similar questions that a non-professional physicist (but with an active interested mind) would immediately have and in quite some detail. Basically, there are reasonable objections to the multi-verse idea but things like entropy, probability and conservation of momentum and energy are all compatible with it - as you would expect if someone like Sean Carroll is advocating it. Having read his book, I went from being a skeptic to being able to understand that it's a reasonable and valid idea and is not a waste of my time like string theory.

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@alex_madeira _Something Deeply Hidden_ is about the many-worlds hypothesis, which is quite different from the multiverse idea.

[@michaelsommers2356]

How does inflation violate the second law? The bigger the universe, the greater the entropy.

[@TheNaturalStateOfNature]

Sean, not sure if you read these comments but I would love to find out about interviewing you for our channel or podcasts.

[@djcuriosity6670]

The milky way was once thought the only galaxy in the Cosmo... Extreme observation get us closer to the truth of multiple universes...

[@vhawk1951kl]

Can you not understand that multiple universes is a contradiction in terms- rather like the idea of more than one unique thing? Universe m-e-a-n-s *only-one*. Either that or it means nothing. If you have in mind something that is not only-one, then pick another word- a fresh fantasy. If there are more than one unique thing then(neither* of them is unique. Just chuck away universe or multiverse and speak only of verses. Go for that and it will become clear to you that verse(uni, or multi) holds no significance for you whatsoever. You have no idea what a 'verse' is; for you it is no more than a word that evokes no associations whatsoever. multiverse= lots of somethings but lots of exactly what?-you have not the slightest idea. Just recognise that fact. instead of multiverse go for wordyword, it comes to e-x-a-c-t-l-y- the same thing. Sure there are any number of wordywords; so what? You have no direct immediate personal experience of any of them; you simply keep repeating a mantra: wordyword, wordyword, wordyword. You can keep doing that until you are blue in the face and still understand absolutely nothing.

[@erikfinnegan]

How do you know which value for vacuum energy were "natural" ? Wouldn't you need to know a probability distribution ?

[@Zorlof]

Let me explain what the multiverse is in a few sentences.... I see the universe in a unique “time-slice”. The distance between myself and any observable part of the universe is unique due to the uncertainty principle. The universe that I experience is in it’s own dimension of time, offset in time and space from any other observer. My personal unique moment in time and space makes me realize the universe as it exists “now” , any other observer experiences a slightly different “now” , due to the speed of causality. In short, there is only one universe ...what makes it a “ multiverse” is that all observers experience the universe at unique times and each have their own version of “now” and by logic...their own universes... that is what the mathematic is telling us.... One real universe experienced at different “time slices” by all observers..

[@vhawk1951kl]

Of exactly how many"time-slices"have you direct immediately personal experience? For multiverse simply substitute wordyword, and you will get exactly-the-same-thing: A meaningless term or perhaps just a grunt.

[@Zorlof]

@@vhawk1951kl Time slices are Planck time, causality is experienced at different time slices by observers at different positions in space. This slight offset in “experiencing” the effects of causality, puts you in your own “now” time slice, this is your universe, mine is slightly offset by Planck-time slices that differ from yours. We are all in slightly different “time slices” , the speed of causality is what unites our thoughts to another observer, they will “realize” at a slightly time offset, putting them slightly into the future or past in that realization. Do you get the theory?

[@EinsteinKnowedIt]

Oh no, you cannot copout with that one. It matters not what a man or an amoeba experiences. UNI means one. Multi means many. Multiverse is a preposterous idea becuase it avoids the clearest understanding that the universe is eternal and therefore infinite.

[@Zorlof]

@@EinsteinKnowedIt check the last sentence of my reply post… it clearly declares that there is one physical universe.

[@guyrocheleau5329]

What is the difference between "Universe" and the "Cosmos"? According to the ancient Greeks?

[@rohanjagdale97]

Sean Carroll you are my role model.. I love you ❤️

[@yusufdogan3939]

Listening to life saying "we don't know what life is".

[@huepix]

Please define multiverse and universe. Can there be a diverse (or biverse), triverse etc? This all seems philosophical speculation to me

[@EinsteinKnowedIt]

Anything to get out of calling the universe infinite is fair game to the few who reject that argument.

[@TheMakersRage]

I joined Wondrium and love the content. But you have to sort out the UI. Search function is useless.

[@TheGreatCourses]

Thank you for your feedback and for your suggestion, we appreciate it.

[@esausjudeannephew6317]

His "foggy planet' is a decent description of Life inside the corona of a red star. It has been theorized that a clement environment may exist within the Coronas of red stars where planets would be shielded from radio communication with the rest of the universe and the rest of the universe would be optically invisible to the inhabitants of such planets. This idea is further explored and part of the Electric Universe Theory as well as being tangentially connected to something called, 'Saturn Theory'

[@amazingmoy]

Assuming another universe exists and has different law of physics, how this different law of physics affects if one of us visits the other universe (assuming we can visit another universe)?

[@TheGreatCourses]

While it's fun to think we could be superheros or false Gods with powers the inhabitants didn't have, it's most likely that we would also be under the control of that universe's rules, with fun, shocking or even fatal consequences. For example, if a being from a universe without gravity found itself here they couldn't simply ignore gravity and fly, it's more likely a body not used to having a crushing weight pulling it down would be in a spot of difficulty.

[@soumenb22]

Earlier around 10 years back these were part of The Teaching Corporation Videos.

[@JohnDoe-dp7sk]

1/infinity =0 1/ infinity =ZERO finite number/ infinity=0 This means you will never get a fine tuned universe by chance. The odds are ZERO!

[@krishnansundaragopalan8119]

Free lunch??? It violates casualty & law of conservation of energy. Im sorry i couldn't take it. However your speech and style is always awesome.

[@davewilson4058]

As explosions in space move out equally in all directions, it is logical to assume that the Big Bang behaved in exactly the same way. Ergo. there must be a mirror image of our Universe on the other side travelling in the opposite direction to our own. The big Bang cannot be the beginning, but more the centre ,so the Universe must be at least double the one we know.

[@EinsteinKnowedIt]

Is there a center Aristotle? We cannot grapple with an Infinite universe so we tirelessly search for a fictious center. This despite all our technological advances.

[@SabbathSOG]

LOL... Is truly amazing how much we don't know. It is truly amazing how much we have to guess. And by the way gravity is also a theory. Look it up.

[@captainzappbrannagan]

M theory is not solvable using perturbation theory, and not well defined. Without knowing the geometry of the extra dimensions (of which there could be 10 to the 500 possible values) I just don't see how you can rectify this to be a viable theory. I don't like the first premise of we have no choice but to accept something outside of the universe may exist. Theists use the same argument for their deity. I know its not nearly the same comparison we have many mathematical proofs that support the hypothesis I just like getting away from any argument religulost people have. This is a really great video though attacking the problems head on in an honest direct way. Inflation theory is right its the best support for sure. Keep the vids coming!

[@deplant5998]

Who says that a counterfactual constant of nature COULD be different? If Sean Carroll was tall, disinterested in physics, and a basketballer... he could have been a basketballer!!! If i was handsome, an actor and George Clooney i could have been George Clooney! This is in no way science.

[@watgaz518]

Every possibility is played out in the multiverses. Why can it not be played out in every galaxy. If there are 2 trillion out there, surely every possibility is accounted for. Why think beyond our own universe, when these possibilities could be happening in our own back yard?

[@karagi101]

Because there are many more possibilities than just a few trillion. Even a deck of 52 cards can be arranged in 8x10^67 ways. That’s way more than the number of atomic particles in our universe.

[@kirkbaker5073]

Are the great courses somehow related to the same great books ...as in the three books sitting under that clock on the desk behind him?

[@TheGreatCourses]

Hi Kirk, we’re not. These are related to the Learning Channel (that’s TLC/Discovery) but we do have a bunch of courses about great books. The course we have about Great books/Books That Matter is: www.thegreatcourses.com/search/great%20books Hope this helps!

[@TerryProthero]

I know that the multi-verse is totally true because I saw it on the Flash.

[@morriswahba173]

Simple to understod

[@dannysmith5933]

5 clocks all different times 😆

[@glennabate1708]

If there is we will never know.

[@jameswiliams]

Multi universe Can someone go in a boat the middle of an ocean and start to claim that where they are there is another ocean starting the place they are? The answer in no because what separates oceans is land! Likewise what can separate our universe into another universe (multi universe) is a barrier that does not exist. Space is an "ocean" that can not be separated because it is vast never ending and unseparable

[@jerryeboy]

An extravagant edifice built on theories which have no evidence in reality. I do not believe the multiverse is science. Furthermore, like the multiverse, the origin of the one universe we live in suffers from the same lack of evidence and a plethora of mutually exclusive ideas which all challenge the conservation of energy and matter. The idea of multiplying universes ad infinitum when we don't know the mechanism that the universe, we live in is particularly problematic. Physicists are fond of suggesting that the total forces of the universe, subtracting the negative from the positive is zero, purporting that the conservation of energy and matter are not violated. This is a red herring. All of the forces of nature should be added together violating the law of conservation.

[@georgemosley8719]

Higgs hasn't been found yet? When was this recorded?

[@Torsdagskvallsmys]

Like a decade ago

[@rafapajestka-nalesnychscie8167]

Lovely movie. Super implementation. Congratulations on the idea. Greetings from Poland and invite you to visit our country

[@nicholassellier547]

I believe in a multiverse with multiple dimension... Only hope that beings with higher levels of intelligence will stop observing us and start helping us. We have to be one of the Lowest and worst dimensions with war and Violence. We definitely need help.

[@adebiyidayspring2834]

The atmosphere is not opaque, just relatively transluscent.

[@michaelsommers2356]

He was talking about a hypothetical world in which the atmosphere was opaque.

[@jaixzz]

4:00 Tell the big bangers the truth:- we evolved!

[@SampleroftheMultiverse]

0:12

[@dazza8389]

The edge of our universe or the cosmic radiation barrier is like the event horizon off a black hole think of a bubble/balloon it's already popped once we can measure it not expanding anymore that's because it has already ripped the big crunch is on it's way

[@masonb9788]

I love this stuff..

[@srwc1]

Really stupid camerawork you need a better director but the talk is brilliant

[@NondescriptMammal]

I wish just once, one of these videos that talk about multiple universes would do one simple thing: Define specifically what the word "universe" means, just so I would know what they are talking about. The word "universe" has historically always meant, "Everything that exists". Well you can't have two or more sets of "everything that exists". The word "universe" never meant "everything we can see", as Carroll seems to imply in his introduction. It meant everything that exists, whether we can see it or not. The universe doesn't magically get bigger every time we develop a more powerful telescope. We just see more of the one that there is. So, can any viewer here explain this simply to me, a simple but precise definition of just what the word "universe" means in the context of "multiple universes"... a concept which seems meaningless and absurd by the historical definition?

[@karagi101]

At one time we thought our entire universe was our galaxy. We didn’t know that there were other galaxies. Once we learned there were billions of galaxies the definition of universe was revised to include those galaxies. Now we may have multiple “universes” so we call that larger entity the “multiverse”. We could have redefined the word universe again to include these new entities but instead came up with the term multiverse to encompass these entities.

[@NondescriptMammal]

@@karagi101 No, the word "universe" didn't get redefined when we discovered other galaxies. Universe has historically been defined as "everything that exists". Even when we thought our galaxy was the entire universe, we thought that it was everything in existence, since we didn't know it was just one of billions. So universe had meant "everything that exists" before we knew there were other galaxies, and it meant the same afterward. It was only when theoretical physicists started proposing "multiverse" theories, that it has changed its meaning. There can only be one "everything that exists", by definition. In the "multiverse" hypotheses, that should include all of their speculative "universes". If multiple "universes" exist (and there is exactly zero empirical evidence that they do), they are all just parts of the one and only universe, because they are part of everything that exists. Why not just call them "subuniverses" or something like that, rather than redefine a word that has had the same definition for centuries? It's needlessly confusing.

[@karagi101]

@@NondescriptMammal LOL Good luck asking the world to never change the meaning of words. All you need to do is look at a dictionary and you’ll see words with multiple meanings. If the dictionary also show their origin, it will often show how their meaning has changed over time.

[@NondescriptMammal]

@@karagi101 Lol. I think scientists, of all people, would want to convey their ideas and hypotheses in clear and precise language, so to me it seems counterproductive for those scientists to invent new definitions for words that already have a familiar meaning, because that is likely to be confusing. Regardless of the flexibility of the language and word meanings, word definitions still don't historically change at the drop of a hat, or with any great frequency. It's one thing for a word to acquire a new definition because of casual or colloquial usage that persists... it's another thing for scientists to suddenly create a new definition of a word, for what purpose? To make their "multiverse" hypothesis sound more tantalizing so they can sell more books about their purely speculative pet "theory"?

[@timmy18135]

Anyone else reminded of "garden of forking paths"

[@Brammy007a]

Just stopped by for my daily mind blowing. I can wrap my mind around the multiverse, but what I CAN'T accept is the notion that there is infinite copies of me out there (one is more than enough). Even if there are infinite bubble universes out there I also think that there is an infinite amount of combinations of things (atoms, movements, timing, actions etc) that make up what is currently called "me".

[@michaelsommers2356]

The various universes in the multiverse do not contain copies of you. You are possibly thinking of the many-worlds hypothesis, which is quite a different animal.

[@Brammy007a]

@@michaelsommers2356 I see....."The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts that the universal wavefunction is objectively real, and that there is no wave function collapse. This implies that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are physically realized in some "world" or universe." Can you explain the difference between multiverse and many-worlds?

[@BigNewGames]

Yes, let's stick to observable things. I laughed out-loud. Is that why astrophysicists cling to dark matter and dark energy? Because they're able to observe rapid motion occurring to stars and galaxies but can't explain it? In 1919 Einstein proposed gravitational waves would result from the collision of bodies of great mass like neutron stars or black holes. Ripples would traverse throughout spacetime as a result. If infinite multiverses or parallel universe branched off of our reality it was proposed gravitational waves would be affected traveling through the missing or hidden mass. According to the theory the mass in the parallel or multiple universes would exert an effect upon the gravitational wave causing them to slow down the further they traveled. They proposed if gravitational waves lagged behind the speed of light it would be empirical evidence multiple or parallel universe overlapped our universe. If GWs lagged behind it would be evidence of multiple universe. If GWs travels at the speed of light without slowing down then it indicated there is no such thing as multiple or parallel universe. If gravitational waves traveled slower than light it would be solid evidence this universe was just one out of countless universes. If gravitational waves didn't travel at the speed of light it would explain why the attributes which make up this universe was finely tuned. It would explain why our universe has existed so long without winking out of existence moments after it began. It would debunk God. The multiple universes would each be random occurrences, set forth in motion after the big bang. Slow gravitational waves would be the holy grail for atheists and their evolutionary cosmology. So, what did LIGO measure? Every one of the GWs they measured traveled at the speed of light. Researchers went over radio telescope data and determined at the same time and locations of gravitational waves they found a spike in electromagnetic radiation, gamma rays or X-rays. There was no lag between the gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves. Indicating the gravitational waves were not affected by mass in hidden or parallel universes. Multiple universe appear to be science fiction at this point. It's back to the drawing board I guess.

[@kumaryadaw]

The description on this video says it was uploaded 5 months ago,when the higgs boson was very much discovered. But in the video he says we have yet to discover it.🤥

[@GeezerBoy65]

The dates onsome of Wondrium's videos are highly misleading. Facebook is now Meta, and The Great Courses Plus is now Wondrium. Many of the videos on Wondrium were done some years ago and were on TGCP.

[@kumaryadaw]

@@GeezerBoy65 Thanks.

[@BeniPali]

....and after the sheep lived for ever happy! Sheep like multiverse because the grass never finishes! Theory over theory has make the sheep to forget how the truth may be!

[@GeezerBoy65]

Ben Ben..time to cut those pills in half. You're welcome.

[@SabbathSOG]

In your intro you said that the multiverse was not observable therefore it was impossible to prove. You can say the same thing about evolution. We have never witnessed an evolutionary transition in the history of mankind. You may find a bone, or a dinosaur egg. But that doesn't mean anything.

[@genghisgalahad8465]

Evolution HAS been observed.

[@ryanmanal511]

Prediction from another theory but not a theory.

[@michaeldemaria2275]

Just how old is this?? Just posted in Feb but he just said the Higgs Boson hasn't been discovered yet!

[@nomadt9571]

Isn't this like the cave theory except for the upper class that is watching the cave interaction is just consciousness shielding itself from fear of the unknown

[@Sa-fd7ih]

This looks very old, does anyone know when this was filmed?

[@nabilzig3797]

2011

[@Sa-fd7ih]

@@nabilzig3797 Thanks

[@vijairahaman100]

finally teacher my teacher

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

If enough scientists look hard enough for something they can call evidence I bet they will find it and Mr average will believe it without understanding saying isnt science wonderfull it can explain everything.

[@Cuplex1]

Interesting but very old video. It's apparent from the video itself and also because it's before the Higs Boson was discovered. 🙄🙂

[@hulksmash4311]

How about Multi Gods?

[@ernststravoblofeld]

Sean Carroll is great a explaining difficult subjects. But that tie is just too much. It's a serious fashion crime. An atrocity committed upon retinas everywhere. It's mesmerizing, like a slow motion train wreck. Perhaps a cry for help?

[@papasanjay7525]

Big brain

[@Number6_]

Shouldn't this be louis carroll. Math proves a multiverse is necessary and the only way to explain time and probability. probability, time and quantum mechanics clearly exist and they would not if multiple time line universes didnot.

[@musaritrashid7534]

I believe there is life outside the solar system.