i love the way you take such crazy sounding questions so seriously. and make them seem not so crazy

@mathiassteven6695

2 жыл бұрын

you probably dont give a shit but if you guys are stoned like me during the covid times you can watch pretty much all of the latest series on InstaFlixxer. Been streaming with my girlfriend for the last few weeks :)

@benedictfelix9480

2 жыл бұрын

@Mathias Steven Yup, I've been using InstaFlixxer for years myself :D

One of my favourite podcast love listening !!! MindScape .

Thank you Dr. Carroll for spending your valuable time and resources to give us a better insight into the universe!!! This is awesome and you're doing a fantastic job sir!!!

Enjoying these Sean I hope you continue with this series

I love Sean Carroll and his podcasts

I would love to hear your views on Roger Penrose CCC theory.

Great video Prof. Sean

Thanks, Sean!

Agree that violence in Quentin movies: I don't like, AND love it at the same time. Jusr as the time analogy before it shows, it's what the "moment" is tied to before and after. The violence/laugh maybe uncomfortable that "others" laugh at it... but ANY reason for people to laugh is a good one, as it allows for thinking about the world that is new and unexplored. Laughter improves the planet. It will be included in formulating a bridge between Relativity and quantum mechanics. 🙂

I guess I sit and wait for part three *fingers crossed*

2 parts! What a great surprise!!!! 🇹🇭😀

( for a wave in an expanding / accellerating vacuum the wave/wavelength strech/increase - then to preserve energy we get an increaese of mass )

1:39:22 Thank you! I'm processing your view on inflation vs shrinking.

Can anyone lmk if Sean has had Sabine Hossenfelder on Mindscape? I’ve looked but can’t find any episodes with her. If not, has he explained anywhere why not?

O.K. I apologize Dr. Carroll because I haven't watched and comprehend all of your videos. I have a lingering question that I better write as I am old and may forget. Here is a thought; I am between two masses in space such that the net influence of gravity is zero. I 'feel' no acceleration to either body. I have been told (Cornell) that time is dilated even though I note no net acceleration of gravity. Now if I extrapolate that to more than two masses or let's say to an infinite number of masses, would time therefore be stopped? Or thinking about the expanding universe, as the universe expanded from the big bang and assuming that time did not 'stop', is the mass of the universe therefore finite? Thank you for the wonder lectures.

Sean have you watched "Devs" ?? I know its fiction but seemed kind of relevant to your multiverse theorys. :)

how the many worlds interpretation explains the interference pattern at the double slit experiment ?

What is the maximum theoretical frequency of a gamma ray? Is it the plank length? If so what happens to a plank length gamma ray when it gets more energy?

@alvarorodriguez1592

4 жыл бұрын

Google kugelblitz

Good Tube *2

The early universe DID have a low entropy!

Regarding your second question about the existence of time outside of our universe -- Why is there only one timelike dimension? Why not two? The idea that timelike and spacelike can flip inside the event horizon of a black hole suggests that -- at least to some extent -- the 3+1 paradigm isn't inescapable. Imagine some state of things where time travel in reverse is possible, wouldn't it have to be at least two dimensions? It's not true that Caesar was assassinated on the 14th of March. But I go back in time and talk Cassius and Brutus and Marc Antony et.al to step it up by a day. So that it is NOW true that he was assassinated on the 14th. But it used to be true that he was assassinated on the 15th. The changes in the timeline now have to be describable as separate things. That might not be useful for much other than as a setup for an episode of a cheesy Netflix SciFi series, but still I have to wonder "why not?"

@schmetterling4477

2 жыл бұрын

Time is not a dimension at all. Somebody just didn't pay attention in school. :-)

Where do I go to ask you questions? I always feel like I've missed the boat and a new video comes out ... its frustrating because I have questions professor... I also have a life ... I'd like my life to be physics sadly it's not... but I have questions... I have insane amounts of them because I've spent over a decade reading on the subject and thought I would be like "ahah, that is how it all works" instead it's more like ... 🤷‍♂️... kinda sorta best guess but we make predictions and so far okki dokki and dont asks about that one thing ... sir I'll reasonably pay patreon or whatever to have guidance... and to know where and how we dont know ... billions of folks on the planet and like what? Half a million are on board? The rest do the motions and earn a paycheck ... I do this because it's so much ... learning how things work and how we discover these is fascinating... but breaking down the gap of formal to informal to what the experts think and will not say is annoying... I've always had questions and I'm not totally onboard with your views ... but hands down you are the best explainer and the ... well you're my favorite no bullshit physicists... Laurence Krauss is up there but I always feel theres a motive ... regardless you are all light years ahead of me I've just learnt more from the books from a few and all of you oppose one another ... wheres the goddamn question box I have some shit to drope in 🧐

I think I disagree with the statement "It's not at all like electrons have free will" because I believe that a human's free will is very much the same as an electrons. If you were Laplace's demon you could know exactly what every person was going to do, and therefore it would be silly to think of them as having "free will." I think we mostly see eye to eye about what freewill is, but my understanding of your comment "free will is as real as baseball" (haven't read that article, but I've listened to you talk about freewill on podcasts) is that we don't know enough to apply the laws of physics to human behavior in order to produce accurate predictions. Are the electrons we don't understand not in the same situation? Freewill is one of those areas of philosophy were everyone (that makes any sense) seems to be talking past one another. It's useful to think about people making choices and imagining that a person could have done otherwise, but whether we live in a determinist universe or a stochastic there's no way to rewind and do something different. If random probabilities is what decides whether you do X or Y, then you're no more free than if the casual forces of the universe set off by the Big Bang or whatever proceeded that are what's driving you. I know you like to think about consciousness and freewill as emergent phenomenon, but you don't choose how it emerges (I can't even really imagine how one could have the sort of freewill that would make a person the author of their own thoughts. It seems like Sam Harris says, that the illusion of freewill is itself an illusion. That said, whether you're a compatibilist or you're Sam Harris etc. you still believe that people exist, people have thoughts and take actions and that the actions are susceptible to influence via discourse or actions taken that affect the person. Moving forward in the world as if people could have chosen to do otherwise is still the best approach for people that don't believe that free will exists because telling someone "next time don't do X" might actually have an effect on that person's brain, and that's not because free will exists, but because we're all influenced by the forces of nature around us. If someone misunderstand this and falls into nihilism and as a result acts inhumanely to other people saying that he's not responsible for his actions, we might take some actions to keep that person away from society or convince that person that it's still in their best interests to act morally, but now we're entering a whole other topic about the philosophy of morality that is yet another area where everyone who makes any sense at all is just talking past their opponents for the most part.

You have to watch out for those Trisolarians.

54:43 That's definitely profound.

I think Time dont really exist, its only a representation or interpretation we make because we are creatures that wont live long and we have consciouness so we see our life with a begening than we see us grow and we anticipate the end in the futur but that concept have nothing to do with the universe and i dont think the concept of past present and future are a notion that is part of the universe either. its only Another missrepresentation we make .. Great video by the way. i discover you with joe rogan and i really like that subject even if im a noob! Also Thanks for taking time to explain those difficult concept!

Will you ever go on the Portal with Eric Weinstein?

Why do we need dark matter to explain the speed of rotation of the outer galaxy? Why don’t we just write equations that match the observations and say that is the law of nature. IE the law of gravity changes under certain conditions IE At certain galactic masses and distances the force of gravity can actually go up with distance. If this is what we observe, why not just find an equation that fits the observation like Newton, Maxwell and Einstein did among others, and accept our first gravity equation F=G m x m/ r2 doesn’t apply at this scale. Also, Perhaps G is negative at extra galactic scales and this is what explains dark energy. It’s not missing matter or energy, II’s just the wrong equation for the conditions. If newton had written F=M+A would we be looking for invisible matter to make that equation work? No we would just say the equation was wrong because observations match F=M x A. Why are we not doing the same for dark matter and energy?

@nightjarflying

4 жыл бұрын

We still need dark matter. There is no "modified gravity" equation [MOND] that fits the rotation curves of ALL galaxies nor the behaviour of galaxy clusters - it makes more sense to work on the assumption that dark matter is real since “modified gravity” does not provide an explanation for the complete set of astronomical observations the way that dark matter does. There's around half a dozen types of observations that dark matter fits, but MOND does not. HERE ARE SOME OF THE MAJOR ONES: [1] Gravitational lensing observations [2] CMB observations [3] astronomical observations of the observable universe's current structure [4] formation & evolution of galaxies [5] mass location during galactic collisions [6] motion of galaxies within galaxy clusters.

@gilbertanderson3456

3 жыл бұрын

It's true that MOND has had difficulty making contact with GR, but there is no question of it's ability to fit galactic rotation curves. see arxive 2006.08148 Conservative MOND from first principles (sorry, typo corrected) I think there is a real danger of dark matter proponents refusing to acknowledge the very real possibility that much of the "dark matter" they have spent years and $$$$$$$$ searching for may be largely a geometric effect. There is still room for undiscovered sources of matter, but to assume the full 27% they ascribe to "dark matter" does not contain nonunderstood geometric effects is hubris and pride.

@nightjarflying

3 жыл бұрын

​@@gilbertanderson3456 You have a typo, it's arXiv:2006.08148. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Roscoe's MOND only deals with galaxy rotation curves as far as I can see & it depends on current universal distance scaling being wrong [due to dust mainly I think he thinks] - wrong in a way that's currently very difficult to check, he's invented a measuring stick in effect designed to suit his cosmology. Another problem is his MOND still requires some Dark Matter at scales larger than galaxies. All in all it's not simplifying the problem & I think he's been tweaking his model since around 2002. There's a lot of MOND models out there & I don't know of one that performs at all scales - they all have little bells & whistles added [such as dust] to account for the gap between their models & observation.

@gilbertanderson3456

3 жыл бұрын

I think you make my point. Roscoe's theory is only for galactic rotation curves and does use "grey dust" as an unknown extinction source. Don't you consider positing grey dust to be more reasonable than positing dark matter? It seems you think he's cooking his cosmology, but that is largely what dark matter theorists have been doing for the last 20 years. Of course they have found ways to confirm their biases, but what if the estimate of mass buried in quiescent black holes is several orders of magnitude higher than supposed, what if unknown geometric effects are skewing our data. What if dark matter is not one thing, but 12?

@nightjarflying

3 жыл бұрын

@@gilbertanderson3456 I don't make your point - let this be clear [1] his MOND does nothing to model structures larger than galaxies whereas DM does it nicely. [2] IF his model is correct it STILL requires DM too - his extra dust doesn't solve that [3] He isn't JUST positing dust! He's using a variation of MOND too that works at only one scale. [4] If BHs were much more massive than calculated we'd see it in supermassive black hole star orbitals & since the biggest BHs seem to be at the centre of galaxies, that would grossly effect galaxy rotations in the opposite direction to what Roscoe's model requires [and opposite to observation too]. And we've weighed galaxies & galaxy clusters via gravitational lensing & they're definitely more massive than can be accounted for by baryonic matter - there's a LOT of leptons about, but not nearly enough to close the huge gap. [5] Dark Matter is of course a catch-all phrase & most models don't break it down at the level of it being one thing or 12 - all that's accepted is that DM doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum at all & that's not a unique property to DM - so there's reason to posit weakly interacting DM since we know of weakly interacting particles already. Not so outlandish then given the weirdness of the neutrino & the Higgs. [6] I don't know what "unknown geometric effects" means to you, but it is not apparent in gravitational lensing which ties in well with DM & with the CMB too. There are very few relativistic MOND models & Roscoe's isn't one - we know lensing is real, but not accounted for in MOND [except for a couple of versions]. When the Bullet Cluster anomaly reared it's ugly head it was bad news for MOND theories - and yes MOND theorists had to tweak heavily to account for the Bullet [with not much success frankly]. [7] MOND has remained fringe [or become more fringe even], because the tweaks required to work at all scales are very complex & there's not much prediction going on - where's the one big observation [& prediction] we could make that puts MOND in the driving seat? There isn't one that I know of, whereas DM has gained ground sufficiently to make it experimentally fundable. I'll pay attention to MOND theories when the MOND theorists come up with something instrumental, observable & of a predictive nature.

Eighth

what is consciousness?

@replica1052

4 жыл бұрын

where consciosness is an echo of our senses, the ego is the smallest universe possible

@replica1052

4 жыл бұрын

tressure what makes sense is human rated (to believe in humanity)

@replica1052

4 жыл бұрын

eternal manifest as rockets / mars belongs to life in an infinite universe it makes sense to catch solar wind - pull cbles from pole to pole slightly offset for the dynamo effect (to master a solar system)

@rayzorrayzor9000

4 жыл бұрын

To be aware of oneself is probably the easiest interpretable answer .

@replica1052

4 жыл бұрын

@@rayzorrayzor9000 in our solar system, mars is our baby

Should you pet on a first date?

@rayzorrayzor9000

4 жыл бұрын

If you need to ask then probably NOT 😆

Some of these questions are stupid AF...