Michio Kaku: can universes form from "nothing" ?
That was not a very good explanation. In fact, if you did not have a basic understanding of quantum mechanics, you would probably think this guy is talking a load of crap.
I won't try to explain his bubbles and multiverses for the moment. Another day, perhaps.
I felt listening to it, I could explain it better, even though this guy probably knows way more than I do.
I will give it a brief go. Quantum mechanics predicts that completely empty space is unstable and via statistics and probability, lumps of energy and mass will coagulate within that space. As a result of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, that will result in more space and time, which will in turn result in more matter and energy. This is the mis-named "big bang" which is really just a big expansion.
What I like is that in this respect, quantum mechanics is such a complete answer to the first 3 of Thomas Aquinas's "proof" of the existence of God (or Jehovah).
Shep - i think "this guy" MICHIO KAKU may know a bit more than you do:)
As part of the research program in 1975 and 1977 at the department of physics at The City College of The City University of New York, Kaku worked on research on quantum mechanics. was a Visitor and Member (1973 and 1990) at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and New York University. He currently holds the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York.
Kaku has had more than 70 articles published in physics journals such as Physical Review, covering topics such as superstring theory, supergravity, supersymmetry, and hadronicphysics. In 1974, Kaku and Prof. Keiji Kikkawa of Osaka University co-authored the first papers describing string theory in a field form.
Kaku is the author of several textbooks on string theory and quantum field theory.
I always enjoy Michio Kaku when I come across anything he's done on various TV shows and such, but I agree that this was sorta poorly done. I suspect, though, that this has more to do with how it was cut together than it was a problem of his being unable to explain things clearly (though he did seem a little rushed as well when talking about string theory and dark matter).
I could explain it better, even though this guy probably knows way more than I do.
Well, perhaps :-)
Quantum mechanics predicts that completely empty space is unstable and via statistics and probability, lumps of energy and mass will coagulate within that space. As a result of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, that will result in more space and time, which will in turn result in more matter and energy. This is the mis-named "big bang" which is really just a big expansion.
Ipad version: I dont quite recognise this explanation. If we accept inflation, an account for the origin of our universe must account for the origin of the inflationary state (field) which is thought to be different than coagulated matter (i am not sure what the coagulation refers to). Right now there are two main contenders. one is quantum gravity where space itself is quantized and thus quantum fluctuations will ( very simplified) correspond to the origin of new space in some accounts in an inflationary state.
the second main account is guth-lindes theory of Chaotic inflation where the inflationary field undergo local quantum fluctuations and thus keeps creating universets with different properties (laws)
Both accounts reflect many different variants (past eternal or not etc) and none are known to be true.
I think it came across confused bc of the editing and bc he had to explain something very difficult which must encompass several mutally contradictory theories.
I think he did a good job with the time frame he had and the simplifications for the intended audience.
Just last night I came to page 276 of "Before the Big Bang" by B Clegg. "--the cosmological multiverses theory could be impossible to prove or disprove. As with many beliefs, this ends up with something other than science it is in effect theology, and has no place in cosmological sciences.
shepherless:"-- completely empty space is unstable and via statistics and probability, lumps of energy and mass will coagulate within that space.--"
The problem with these theories is,that they assume the existence of this latent energy in the pre-space nothingness, or empty space, and the nothingness is the "frontier" with space that is empty, still for anything to coagulate, even virtually, it has to have time, time even to the second power. so, I am not versed in multiverses.
Prologos: this is only true for a generic theory (there is a multiverse) however a true theory with many implications can be verified
bohm, implications would be predictions, when observed, by necessity indirectly, it would not prove a specific proposed theory but put it within range of the competing ones. --The emerging additional energy during the accelerated expansion raise the question of the definition of emptiness:-- is that inside or outside the 3D space of the universe; for me, the 4st dimension is a given. It is the movement through time that starts with or prior these coagulations. imho