Sean Carroll - The Physics of Eternity (Closer to Truth)
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
'Eternity'—time that goes on and on and does not end—used to be the province of philosophy, even theology, with no real evidence. But now cosmologists are using astounding observations and new fundamental theories to project what will happen to our universe in 10^100 years - that's a number with one hundred zeros. And then there's other possible universes too. From the PBS series 'Closer to Truth', presented by Robert Lawrence Kuhn. Click here to buy episodes/seasons of Closer To Truth and show your support: http://bit.ly/cttmaximus
Comments
-
So what the fuck are the implications of the fact that the universe takes just as long to be created as it does to dissipate? Like fuck these physicists for saying these things and not elaborating
-
The UNBELIEVABLE similarities between Sean Carroll’s many ideas (2016) or Franck WiIczek' ideas (2016, Nobel prize) and my ideas (2002-2010) at http://philpapers.org/rec/VACTUS-5 or https://plus.google.com/u/0/+GabrielVacariu
-
Not a physicist in the slightest. I've listened to Sean Carroll talk about this a few times and am fascinated by the concept of an infinite universe. Concerning the "big bang", inflation and multiple universes. Could the big bang not have been a fluctuation in an already existing space with what we call universes; organised energy/matter scattered all about this infinitely expanding space? For example, imagine space as an infinite ocean, and the matter/energy that inhabits it as the material that is jettisoned from those hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor. Or like a "membrane" hitting another, the resulting matter then spreads outs and organises itself according to the laws of this infinite space; which already has matter/energy inhabiting it or "universe", the newly ejected enegy/matter then reaches a certain energy state which causes the fluctuation to happen again, and again, and again. Giving an infinite past and future, infinite matter/energy?
-
Instead of considering the frequency that Boltzmann brains pop into existence against the frequency that whole universes of billions of galaxies pop into existence (far more often),
Shouldn't we consider the frequency that Boltzmann brains pop into existence against the frequency that an ultra-simple big bang singularity would pop into existence? (far less often)
The first seems more like comparing the chance of Boltzmann brains to the chance of Last Thursdayism, not the right alternative. -
So on one hand Sean says that Boltzmann brains might not be physically possible because there are no observers to collapse the wave function and cause a fluctuation, but on the other hand, he thinks you can get a Big Bang from a quantum fluctuation in empty space after 10^100 years? How are these two ideas consistent?
-
A philosophical "update" from Sean Carroll is always interesting and welcome.
11m 22sLenght
52Rating