Видео

It’s those damn Sophons

Fascinating. Awesome telescope next gen tech and awesome video.

It's not homogeneous, it's pronounced homogenous.

Brazil mentioned!

Cool theories but how are all these details empirically proven?

This is the first time I've heard of ocsilons. Would like to know more about this concept. Even so, if the inflaton field was the "first" thing after the singularity, is there an inflaton field inside every black hole?

This was brilliant! Though I would point out your confusion around minute 9 is warranted. The Hubble parameter (H) is a constant measure of time, this is different to the relative measure of time (t) - there are two time frames. Einstein described coordinate time and proper time. And here's the freaky bit, co-ordinate time (H) is the time that your conscious experience runs on. Your conscious experience is provided by a body of matter that runs on relative time (t). This is all to say that the non-linear and relative actions of the human body, create a linear and constant experience in the present moment. Therefore, we can describe the "present moment" as passing at the same rate as the expansion of the universe. It'll take you a while to get your head around that I'm sure, but it's true. 🤯

Very informative. I am none the wiser but I really enjoyed listening.

sounds like he just made all that stuff up - these are just his theories nothing can be proven.

I always said, an empty universe is a barmy universe.

Could oscillons explain the preponderance of matter compared to antimatter?

2 hanging eggs are always attractive

Great!

I’m now a flat universer

Flat spacers 🙄

What about The Great Attractor, and The Boötes void? Are these smaller than the dimensions used for defining Homogeneity and Isotopism of the Universe?

Great video! Could the inflaton field be reconstructed under extreme conditions, like in black holes?

I love seeing some of the maths!

This had a perturbative effect on my mind.

He didn't explain flatness very well to someone who would be prone to "Flat Earth" notions. Flat in the sense of all dimensions including time on the largest of scales (so ignoring black holes and such). If you take an index card and hold it horizontal to the ground. Seems flat. Turn it 90 degrees against an edge. Hmm. Still seems flat. Turn it 90 degrees on the other edge. Yep. Pretty flat. That covers all three dimensions. That's what he means by flat. Time is trickier to demonstrate but it's flat too just in a Lorentz transformation which is I'll admit, difficult to visualize.

Excuse my ignorance if Im way off, the heating and inflation isn't some atomic runaway effect is it?

imagine being Ed's student...

Nuclei heavier than electrons, electrons go round nuclei, is that not quantum gravity?

For those who can think Hello. With the help of the “HYBRID gyroscope” you can make scientific discoveries; in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, higher theoretical physics,... I am writing to you with a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, TWO coils with a new type of optical fiber with a “hollow core photonic-substituted vacuum zone or (NANF)” where - the light travels 250000 meters in each arm, while it does not exceed the parameters 88/88/88 cm, and the weight is 14 kg. Manufacturers of “Fiber Optic Gyroscopes” can produce HYBRID gyroscopes for educational and practical use in schools and higher education institutions. Einstein dreamed of measuring the speed of a train, an airplane - through the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1881/2024, and only then would the experiment be more than 70% complete. This can be done using a fiber optic HYBRID gyroscope. Based on the completion of more than 70% of Michelson's experiment, the following postulates can be proven: Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and dominant gravitational fields adjust the speed of light in a vacuum. (We are not looking for ether, we will see the work of gravitational quanta) The result is a «theory of everything» in a simple teaching device and a new tape measure for measuring the universe.

I think about weak measurement like this: we've got a hockey puck on the ice, of unknown dimension; if we poke it we gain some information about its diameter at a point, but it moves/slides by an unknown amount, confounding our efforts to learn the diameter by poking it again on the opposite side. BUT: if we poke it SOFTLY ENOUGH, it won't slide at all. Now it may be difficult to gain the same amount of information from our gentlest of pokes as from our hard poke, but we can do this over and over, and take averages. That's the idea, but by the time you get don't propagating the error my money says you're right back at Heisenberg's limit

Technically you can't measure anything with a microscope; to do that you need to add a scale, turning your microSCOPE into a microMETER.

The sound quality is terrible

What doesn't, seriously.

Yes, extend the cern collider in a mind thru digital computers in a system. Simualate and update with all this hypothical theories.

"Can't be bothered to decay..." lol, I don't know if Ed was trying to be funny there or not.

Ed sounds like he's got a bit of a cold in this video.

1/2 way through now & I've heard "scalar field drives..." how is something like a number field causal? It makes no sense. But if you're building a model of what you believe to be true... how is that not "physics of the gaps"?

I don't understand the idea that the properties of the universe had to be "fined tuned" (which suggest something doing the tuning). It seems like a more logical way to look at it is that the universe randomly settled with the current properties, and continued to evolve with those properties. If they were different, it would have evolved differently. Any conclusions we draw from this is nothing more than a type of survivor bias. Alternatively, we have no evidence that the universe could have settled with any other properties. The "fabric" (for the lack of a better word) that makes up the universe could have intrinsic properties that leads to a universe that inevitably has its current properties. We have no other universes to compare it to. Any speculation that it could be different, may be a valid argument, but can't be a sound argument. Of course, this is just my understanding. If there are inaccuracies in my logic, I would love to be corrected.

Great video! Did anyone else notice this: It felt like Eds voice was sounding somewhat strange sometimes, like if there was some resonance ;-) of another mic or something, that was interfering

This channel remains a true gem.💙

9:39 what was that noise lol

15:54 Only English cars. Definitely not American cars.

👎👎👎Much this sci-fi lore actually comes from the Materialist/Atomist/Reductionist imaginations of the proponents of Scientism, with its strange marriage of quasi-religious cosmology and math-friendly model criterion.

Whenever I think about these kinds of things relating to how stuff exists etc. I get a terrible pit in my stomach and my brain starts telling me to stop thinking about this and start thinking about something else. Is there a way I can get over this feeling? Out of this pit of dread or despair? I feel like an animal when it happens, like my instincts are telling me "back to thinking about something else." Like I'm programmed not to think about it. It makes it much harder to learn.

Is the resonant frequency phenomenon the same thing that supposedly allows opera singers to shatter glasses with the sound of a particular note? It’s amazing that all this stuff ties together, even if I don’t have the mind to do the advanced maths to systematise it.

17:20 Ah yes, I've heard of these before! These are the cats in the jungle biomes I believe.

My question to the professor (as a complete novice in this field) is that it seems the support of inflation are solely based on its ability to produce initial conditions in quantum mechanics that match basic properties of the universe. But if we are fairly confident inflation was real, does this imply that it is the ONLY CONCEIVABLE mechanism to create the conditions that account for the general flatness ind isotropic nature of our universe?

The more i learn about inflation the more confusing it becomes. It's supposed to solve the cosmic horizon problem, right? It puts distant parts of space in causal connection in the early universe. But it wasn't modern particles that were casually connected since they didn't exist until after inflation. So what was? Was it the inflaton field, since that decayed into modern particles? So the inflaton field had to start out tiny so it could smooth itself out before expanding, and the thing that expanded it was the inflaton field 🤔 That sounds a bit chicken and egg-y. Does a universe simply need to start with an energetic scalar field in order to inflate? Also, why did it need to smooth out its energy distribution? What was its starting configuration? Why wasn't it already smooth? Are quantum fields not generally the same everywhere? It makes me wonder how a field can exist everywhere in space yet not have some kind of default value. Like, what even is a field and where does it come from. But at that point i should also ask what spacetime is and where it comes from. Maybe this ends up more of a philosophical question than a scientific one.

Assuming we live inside a black-hole universe, inflation (for us) occurred when time stretched the singularity out ahead of any matter still falling in to the black hole we're in. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it! 👍😆

Any day with a new video from Ed is literally the best day of the year.

Where don’t they come from is the hard question…. You. Me. Everything and everyone emits particles…

One thing I can't wrap my head around is the idea of anything happening "in a few 10^(27) seconds" BEFORE time exists.

inflation is memory allocation of the universe

Very theoretical. "Assume a room full of cats is a ball." Amazing how much we can imagine with almost no information.

Hmm... I kept thinking about Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. Could this be part of a cyclic process?