The way I look at it, just because light hasn't reached it yet, does not mean that the "Space" isn't there, even though I guess that makes it sort of irrelevant if it's just completely empty, the math would end up being zero..

@l3dcobra120

3 ай бұрын

This may have some strange implications if the vectors describing electromagnetism and gravity all equal zero in that region

Idk if the universe is infinite, or if the multiverse exists (I believe it does), but I do know we need to get cleaner energy, so here’s to the Folse reactor I hope you design one day. Keep up the fight.

@tfolsenuclear

3 ай бұрын

Thank you so much!! I truly appreciate it!

@DavidMuri-lm5vy

3 ай бұрын

​@@tfolsenuclear At 2:54 there actually could be an edge outside of all there is and the SpongeBob episode called SB-129 shows us this, and it's called the paranorma dimension which is the completely blank white void between universes in the multiverse, So technically speaking they're actually could be an edge outside of all there is! 😅😅😂😂😂😂

@DavidMuri-lm5vy

3 ай бұрын

​@@tfolsenuclear well if our universe was countably infinite and there was a 1 in 10^10^29 power chance that there is an exact atom to atom copy this universe out there if our universe is infinite then every single possible scenario that could happen in the level 3 multiverse also known as the many worlds theory is already happening almost countably infinite just almost 10^10^29th power just one more amount of times over meaning everything that we consider fiction is already happening in many many other realities beyond your own in our infinite universe already and has been doing so for God knows how long, and will never know how to visit all those worlds because they're so incredibly distant, So they should really put things into perspective on how will we grasp the very concept of Infinity at all! 😁😁😅😅😂😂

@sickmit3481

3 ай бұрын

​@@tfolsenuclearimagine if one day some country starts up a folse fusion reactor

@Dr._Atom

Ай бұрын

​​@@DavidMuri-lm5vy the 10^10^29 figure is for atom-to-atom copy of Earth, just Earth, not the universe. Watch the video again

5:40 According to the theory of cosmic inflation, the universe should be 150 sextillion times larger than the observable universe, so the hypersphere is actually likely

Watched this video yesterday. I absolutely love it!

@walgav7

3 ай бұрын

Ive watched this video a day from now. I broke causality. I am so sorry.

You’re always insightful.

I've got one you might want to check out... MrGreen's "I Tested the Limits of a Microwave" which is basically a styropyro-style video but Australian. Has all sorts of stuff about non-ionizing radiation and interesting cob-job engineering.

brightening my day as always

Man, thank you, your material is great and i really enjoy your subtle humor of a nuclear engineering

Tyler, I’m a high schooler who is very interested in becoming a nuclear engineer some day, and I would love if you made a video sometime about how you became one and how someone might prepare for that path in high school and college

I love your videos :)

Doughnut universe suggests the existence of a coffee universe

I am amazed by many things of this video, but mainly, I thought humans have found quadrillions of galaxies each of which include trillions of stars.

I'd love to see you react to a video with actual hard science and mathematics (try PBS Spacetime, hosted by an actual professor). I love Kurzgesagt for their ability to explain complicated topics to the masses.. but I want to see you reacting to actual hard numbers and data (you seemed so surprised that Kurzgesagt 'actually' performed a calculation..). Something tells me it won't be so easy for you to edit down lol. You can pick on Kurzgesagt all you want for their (self-admitted) "lying" and simplification (they always have their sources in the description..), but I want to see you reacting to something closer to an academic level.

@Curiomerc

27 күн бұрын

PBS Spacetime falls into a really awkward category when it comes to covering scientific topics. Not imaginative enough to foster scientific interest while clearly playing to the algorithm. Not thorough enough to be academically interesting. I see that channel more so as the middle ground between Kurzgesagt and other scientific channels on youtube. There are channels that focus on writing and present bigger pictures that often delve into the more philosophical theoretical side. This video is a small taste of that, a channel like "the history of the universe" covers stuff like that mostly and it's importance is really just in fostering scientific curiosity. Then you have channels that journal and report on scientific papers like Anton Petrov for an example. Teaching is a skill at the end of the day and there are channels that are really good at giving introductory videos into understanding theories. ScienceClic is a great example here, they're excellent at teaching. If you compare their videos on quantum field theory to PBS spacetime's videos on it then you'll see a stark difference in teaching ability. You also have the stark scientific critic channels on youtube of course, i don't really care to mention a name here. While i personally feel that the cynicism here often fails to grasp the larger points it's still a valuable part of the ecosystem. Though if that's all the content you consume it's of course potentially problematic.

Donut, String theory or cyclic universe somehow seems like the best idéas we have, at least for me. =)

I 'think' what they are saying is that there are some theories, but the only fact we know is the Universe is at least the size we have observed. Kind of profound artwork though. I downloaded a copy.

What are your thoughts on hinkly point c ? Sorry if youve covered this already

In an infinite universe (either in time or space or both) not everything that is possible (by imagination - like someone getting straight flush 10 times in one poker game) has to happen infinitely often. Some reasonably imaginable things might never happen. Even something that has already happened, might still happen only once, cause they might have happened once *despite* having zero probability. If you pick a random number from an infinite set (for example the natural or real numbers or even just a rational number between 0 and 1), each number has zero probability to be picked... yet the moment you pick one, it has happened. Even if you pick a number from 1 to 10 but repeat that infinitely many times... the numbers picked might be 1, 1, 1, 1, ... not very likely, but just as likely as any other infinite sequence... zero probability.

also if you think about how time works for light it kind of makes sense that the universe is infinite and that there is no edge because it's infinite. light has no time meaning the expansion of the universe has already happened and it's just infinite. no mather how hard you try to get to the edge you can't because geting to the edge means going light speed and light speed means it's instantly all just infinitly there. i don't think our human brains can understand it. no mather how you think of it like what if we teleported to the current edge just instantly during those 0,0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 sec where the universe is expanding what is on the other side of the edge? there is no edge there is just infinitly more space. so the universe is infinite because there is no actual point in time where there don't exist more universe beyond the edge.

11:00 the finite number thing is only true if the laws of physics are everywhere the same and if matter stays the same I guess. I mean I know where it is pointing too but yeah if that is true it has not to be like that

@sir_no_name1478

3 ай бұрын

Ouh I should have watched longer

Flat universe is infinitely more interesting than flat Earth because we definitely know the Earth isn't flat.

epic video

I was thinking about what you said in regards to an infinite universe meaning that uniqueness no longer exists and a few other of your suggested philosophical outcomes from about 8:30 int he video: Is that even true though? Could you not have an infinite universe where certain things are not repeated? I get the sense that this question is related to a really difficult application of cardinalities, and of course I have no idea, but it seems to me that you could have an infinite universe where there might even be no objects that are exactly the same. I don't know, hard questions obviously.

@Lyumia.

3 ай бұрын

Well infinite is not a range, it is in its definition a non-ending thing. So if there is a non-ending sequence and there is a non-0 chance of something occurring, it will have occurred in an infinite amount of time.

@Ristaak

3 ай бұрын

If the universe is truly infinite, and the laws of physics that allowed for our existence stay the same throughout it (or at least repeat in intervals an infinite amount of times) then yes, there will be infinite versions of you. However if the Universe is truly infinite, but the laws of physics change, and never repeat (not even sure how that would work but it might be possible) then you likely are the only you. In any case, I don't think it matters if we are unique or not, I'm living my life, and whoever is identical to me is living their lives.

@isaaccunningham2042

3 ай бұрын

But even if the universe is infinite, could there not just be infinite worlds with even any people on them? Admittedly this seems unlikely, but we don't even really know the odds of say, humans specifically, occurring. Also, if there is an infinite universe in the way described, then presumably there is also infinite matter there, with infinite ways of it being rearranged. What are the odds that any given arrangement has multiple of me in it? How could we even know whether or not that chance is high or not? Also, i dont really care very much if I am unique or not either, I'm just not totally convinced by the argument.@@Ristaak

@isaaccunningham2042

3 ай бұрын

If there is infinite universe though, then there is infinite matter, so the odds of any specific arrangement of the universe occurring is also nonexistent, like the chances of getting a real number value from sampling a distribution, so what is the proportion of possible infinite universal structures that contains multiple of, say, me? Or do you think this way of thinking about it is flawed? I don't really know, just interesting to ponder for me I guess.@@Lyumia.

@NickCombs

3 ай бұрын

Putting aside my opinion that infinity never manifests outside of theory, the nature of an instance of infinity is dependent on the parameters that are expanding. The point that the video makes is that you can arbitrarily pick parameters of our universe to expand while others remain constant, and it will still by definition be an infinite universe.

If tachyons moving faster then light backwards in time, then universe should be infinite and without any of big bang beginning,right? Or towards what are tachyons moving?

Time is relative to space, so if space curved in on itself, then time would be freaking out. All of these “finite with no border” stuff would completely wreck the flow of time. I’m no expert, but I know you can’t bend space without time bending in the inverse.

my theory of what is likely based on what we can prove is that maybe the expansion of the universe is infinite and the expansion of time is infinite but everything contained inside the universe is finite. as some have theorised that we could potentially get into a position billions of years into the future where we can no longer see other objects in space are moving away from us faster then the light can be sent back to us. In these scenario tho, for humans to still exist we would probably have to have solved what the universe actually is and how to traverse it without regard to time and distance. My theory would put the universe not as literally infinite but that it might aswell be as if you attempted to "catch up" to the border you would never reach it as it travels faster then the speed of light. if U somehow reached it well we know nothing because anything laws outside our existence is unknown and will likely always be unknown

Have we "solved" truth (or optimized what's most likely true) and call it science?

Don't tempt them, arguing the flat universe is easier than the flat earth 😂

Is it just me or do Kurzgesagt's photons look like spermatozoa? Asking the real questions here. :P

If the universe really was finite, we'd detect reflections of background radiation from the perimeter of the universe.

Just because something can happen doesn't mean it happens. I think it's more aching to, in an infinite universe, it's extremely unlikely that everything that can happen happens. Since you'd more so then be looking at a completely random universe, with no structure.

I don't get why they talk about the edge of the observable universe as if it's a physical boundary. That's like calling the horizon the edge of the earth. We literally just can't see beyond it, not that there's a wall. Galaxies are drifting out of the observable universe constantly because they move away from us faster than the speed of light.

There are no parallel Universes. It is the time, which is infinite and therefore can be took out of the equation. So this results in everything is taking place at the same time and can be accessible thru superpositioning..

Not the masses bends the space-time. It's The other way around.

If the universe is infinite then everything that could happen would happen so a finite universe and an endless universe would both happen at the same time right how does that work

Could science industry just send Like random number of satelites and shoot them in same direction, interacting them with signal so they could see out of seenable universe.Ideas on this topic?

Turtles all the way down!!!!! Lets gooo!!!

My problem with an infinite universe is: With an infinite universe, there would effectively be infinite variations on physics, and with even just a low chance, there will eventually be an area of the universe that allows for wormholes which go any distance and direction you can choose, and if there's one area that allows for it, then there are infinite, and since any wall in physics could be breached after infinite possibilities, we would have inevitably been confronted by an infinite number of everything, falling out of an infinite number of White Holes, which doesn't happen, last I checked.

The chance of there being an exact copy of myself is almost zero but not actually zero. So we'll never meet. But two mes meeting each other will also happen in an infinite universe. Because it's infinite.

time travel is possible it's just going back in time that is the tricky part. going forward in time is very possible. the real question is what happens if you reach light speed? because att light speed time would stop. and light don't actually experiance time. it takes about 8minutes for sun light to hit you from your perspective but from the lights point of view it was instant. so would that mean that we would just instantly get to where we are going or does that mean we just instantly die without ever knowing it because after a billion years of flying att light speed in space we finnaly hit a planet and wipe out a bunch of dinosaurs. a billion years from earths perspective but instant from the ones in the space ship.

We do know the universe is expanding. A disappointing fact for space travel. We know we are looking at the past. And we have measured expansion of the universe. I remember Kyle Hill asking for a better demonstration of the bending of space time. The whole bending a paper and poking a hole through it - something better than that. So many topics covered in this. It reminds me of old Carl Sagan videos about dimensions. 4D space and such that we just cannot understand or view. One idea being like tesseracts and such. Really worth a watch if you haven't seen old Carl Sagan videos.

@Hypn0s2

3 ай бұрын

References: KZread - "Cosmos - Carl Sagan - 4th Dimension" KZread - Kyle Hill. I cannot immediately find the specific video about the challenge. He did get an answer for an alternative to the paper analogy. PBS's Space Time and Sabine Hossenfelder are both good KZread channels if you've been interested to read this far.

Couldn't the universe be infinite, and the big bang happen? Couldn't an ultra super massive black hit a mass limit and cause a big bang? I mean, we aren't sure if there is a mass limit to black holes but what if there is and when they hit that limit they just spew everything back out

The earth has depth to it, you can dig deeper into the earth, it is 3 dimensional. Space lacks a 3rd dimension, you cannot dig deeper into space or further out from space everything is stuck on this one surface layer, making space 2D and thus "flat"

6th comment on this video!!!

"We know the universe had a beginning" No, we don't. That's not what the big bang model is about. We have a really functional theory for why the universe is arranged the way it is. "If the universe is finite, you could fill it with ice cream" No, you couldn't. That would cause too much gravity. "Which is impossible for your brain to visualize" Where does he get off telling people what they can visualize? "New life forms stranger than you could ever imagine" Unless you're capable of imagining everything that the laws of physics can support.

The premise that information can't travel faster than light isn't true. Quantum entanglement proves that.

@supdude9000

3 ай бұрын

false.

@Elusis1

3 ай бұрын

@@supdude9000 true

@supdude9000

3 ай бұрын

​@@Elusis1 actually, false. quantum particles/systems that are entangled are treated as a single "object." their wavefunctions become "entangled" and combined to form a single wavefunction that describes the quantum state. so no information is being transferred faster than light, as these entangled pairs are treated as part of the same "object" (wavefunction)

@Elusis1

3 ай бұрын

@supdude9000 just because they are treated as such for simplicity sake belays the fact that they are still more than one thing. So it is not one thing talking to itself it is 2 things linked. So true. What your saying is if I called you on the phone, as soon as you pick up we are now the same person. When you can physically separate the two particles to either end of the universe and retain the connection, that is what is entangled. The connection.

@supdude9000

3 ай бұрын

@@Elusis1ignoring the fact that we are not quantum particles, this is a bad analogy. a better analogy would be that, after speaking on the phone, we exchanged information and now know everything about each other. note that quantum systems need to physically interact to become entangled, and this requires proximity. two particles on the opposite ends of the universe cannot magically become entangled. ik you're probably thinking of Einstein's "spooky action at a distance," but the particles have already interacted and become entangled (aka they know each others' information in the analogy) by the time we measure them in experiments and see these apparent physics-defying properties. I'm no physicist, and this is just my understanding as a nerd... but you'd be hard pressed to find serious physicists that believe information can travel faster than light. we have very good reasons from relativity to believe that it is impossible (time travel?), and even those behind the recent "quantum teleportation" experiments in the last decade still make it clear that information is not being transferred faster than light.

I'm so tired of seeing you react to people's videos the day after they come out. Show some respect for the people's content you're reacting to

@zaodedong9935

3 ай бұрын

You realize that's the main reason why they put the original video in the description right? Just in case you haven't seen the video and want to see it without commentary first. It absolutely is respectful to the creators.

@McLovinMods

3 ай бұрын

@@zaodedong9935 go fuck yourself it's respectful. How in any way is posting a reaction less than 24 hours after a video comes out respectful. Go ahead and explain that to me

@McLovinMods

3 ай бұрын

@@zaodedong9935 copying somebody's video the day after it came out is disrespectful. You can try to justify to yourself all you want but you're wrong

@zaodedong9935

3 ай бұрын

@@McLovinMods first of all, wrong in the moral sense that you're using it is subjective. Second of all, I am right because that's literally the reason why channels put the video they're reacting to in the description. You can hold the belief that it is morally wrong all you want. I just pointed out evidence to the contrary.

@zaodedong9935

3 ай бұрын

@@McLovinMods also, your use of the word "copying" infers a completely different accusation, one that is objectively wrong. Kurzgesagt does very well as a channel, and I'm absolutely sure they have no problem with this man reacting to their content.