The Fabric of the Cosmos

The Fabric of the Cosmos

2011, Science  -   207 Comments
Ratings: 8.73/10 from 164 users.

The Fabric of the Cosmos, a four-hour series based on the book by renowned physicist and author Brian Greene, takes us to the frontiers of physics to see how scientists are piecing together the most complete picture yet of space, time, and the universe.

With each step, audiences will discover that just beneath the surface of our everyday experience lies a world we'd hardly recognize - a startling world far stranger and more wondrous than anyone expected.

Brian Greene is going to let you in on a secret: We've all been deceived. Our perceptions of time and space have led us astray.

Much of what we thought we knew about our universe - that the past has already happened and the future is yet to be, that space is just an empty void, that our universe is the only universe that exists - just might be wrong.

Interweaving provocative theories, experiments, and stories with crystal-clear explanations and imaginative metaphors like those that defined the groundbreaking and highly acclaimed series The Elegant Universe, The Fabric of the Cosmos aims to be the most compelling, visual, and comprehensive picture of modern physics ever seen on television.

More great documentaries

207 Comments / User Reviews

  1. So it's not Crimplene or Lycra then.

    "Amazin'!" — Brian Cox

  2. Lucky to be here.

  3. Compressing the infinitesimal... Yeah... That's great, is this made possible by the same equation that brought us the period in history where time didn't exist? OK. That's how the world is flat these days.

  4. This is the dumbed down version of the cosmos. Some of this stuff is interesting but for me it's far too American. I understand that the point is to appeal to as many people as possible but this may as well be a children's program on theoretical physics at times.

    1. I've read the book and have now watched the video documentaries.
      The two physics Brians Cox and Greene have motivated enthusiasm in curious youngsters and reawakened science thrills in old scientists like me.
      What has become obvious to me is that Physics teachers who taught me were unaware of Einstein,Dirac,Bohr, Feynman etc.
      The fabric of the cosmos should be preached from church pulpits instead of the usual boring bulls*it!

  5. "Life/Reality we know it may just be a projection of all the information/data residing on the event horizon...." mind-boggling!

  6. I agree with Bruce. About 20 mins of interesting content padded out into an hour and dramatized for an impatient dumb audience.

  7. Remember it is just for TV entertainment for the masses. We expect extreme interesting everything, So they try to provide it. Complete factual science may seem slow and boring to many. If you want nothing but facts science you may not have as much fun with it yourself. I love all the ideas, even if I think some are crap. "The only dumb question...."

  8. Pretty far fetched theories. Some that seem almost equal to supernatural in stature.
    So this may be the right place to ask: Does the universe exist with no observer? Does the observer give it dimension?

  9. This video quickly got off the topic concerning the actual nature
    of space. Instead of talking about the factual fabric of the cosmos, it talked about Alice-in-Wonderland fantasies that have nothing to do with the real nature of space. However, the video is correct in one aspect, modern physicists and cosmologists have deceived us all. Brian Greene and his associates are fable salesmen; trying to convince people that the three-dimensional world we live in is really a two-dimensional holographic projection on the surface of a black hole. All the irrational scientists in this video also show up in many other videos spieling curved space-time conceptualizations and quantum mechanical notions as facts. They are like blind men looking at a photo of an elephant, then declaring themselves as experts on the subject. Society should be very skeptical of their elusive postulations. Frankly, their imaginations have gotten way out of hand.

    So, what is the real nature of space... space is physical volume. We
    see physical volume everywhere we look out, and everywhere we look in. Physical volume is the most abundant aspect composing the nature of the universe. We can factually prove that physical volume exists because we can see it, touch it, move through it, and measure it. Physical volume is an undisputable fact.

    The nature of physical volume has three obvious spatial dimensions, height, width, and length; thus, volume is a spatial measurement. In all physical applications on Earth, physical volume is a geometric measurement deriving the quantity of a solid, liquid, or gas. In other words, volume is a product of substance, a measurement of something tangible, defined by shape and amount.

    To put the nature of physical volume in a pure perspective, if we remove all matter and energy from the cosmos, then there is only pure physical volume remaining. The question becomes, what is the physical causation of this remaining volume. In order for physical volume to exist, it must have four fundamental components, three of spatial dimensions, and one of substantive causation. Obviously, physical volume has to exist first, for matter and energy to exist within and move through. Therefore, we can look at this remaining space as a proto-state, representing the fabric composing the cosmos, and call this state of ambient physical volume "Protospace."

    So, what do we know for fact; we know that volume is a product of physical substance. We know that physical volume has four components that compose its existence. We know that physical volume is a homogeneous continuum, continuously existing between particles, planets, stars, and beyond galaxies. And, we know that physical volume had to exist before matter or energy could come into existence. Functionally, physical volume is the most elemental aspect of nature. The fact that physical volume exists, gives us enough information to decipher the totality of its nature. Where it comes from, how old it is, what it is made of, and how it formulates into the material universe we see today. The clue here is that substance causes volume, volume does not cause substance. Physical volume is the Rosetta stone of both the origin and formation composing the universe.

    Unfortunately, orthodox physics and cosmology are not dealing with factual based science; they postulate irrational notions such as the big bang, curved space-time, elusive quantum constituencies, multiverse, and holographic conceptualizations. These concepts have no actual facts to support them. They are an abyss of fantasies, only supported by elaborate equations. Theorists forget that mathematics is only symbolic representation of values in an event that can apply to any concept whether it is real or not. Two angels plus two angels equals four angels; the math works, but does
    not, and cannot, prove or predict angels exist. Science based on subjective equations is a fool's journey.

    To understand what the fabric of space is really made of, you only need look at what you can factually see and measure. The answers are all there... they are hiding in plain sight waiting to be recognized.

    1. This may be the first time am saying this, but what are your qualifications? and from what sources are you deriving this info? the only physical volume that I know of is what is derived from hard disc space or other such device.

      To be physical as in your physical volume, is to have mass/matter and mass means to made up from atoms, but atoms have only .0999999% matter.

      Do not really know what you are talking about, or did you just make all this up?

    2. I use the term "physical volume" to mean that the phenomenon of space has a substantive causation.
      Anything that physically exists, regardless of its form, must be made of something tangible to exist, if it was not, that would be magic. Since space obviously exists, then it must be made of something physical in order to exist. Physical volume is a case of substantive cause and effect.

      If you think about it, substance and volume are inseparable. If there were no substance, there would be no amount of volume. Likewise, if there were no volume, there would be no amount of substance. Each is a function of the other, where one exists so must the other.

      Mass is anything substantive that can be quantified. Particles (finite units) are one type of mass, space (homogeneous continuum) is a different type of mass. Both are made of the same substance, just in different states. Mass represents the amount of substance something is made of. A particle has finite mass, while space has infinite mass.

      Particles exist within a greater context of space. If space did not exist first, there would be no place for particles to exist within or move around. Obviously, space has to exist before particles. The mass of space generates the mass composing particles. In other words, particles are a byproduct of space; there is nowhere else for the mass of particles to come from.

    3. What if C A T really spelled DOG?

    4. Our universe did not exist until one Planck sec 10^34 after the BB, an expansion, not an explosion, and all space, plasma, matter, time came into being from that singularity, not just space first where you say all derived from.

    5. The big bang is a fairy tale. There are absolutely no facts on any level to support the notion. Hearsay as evidence is not a fact, nor is consensus.

      A singularity is also a fairy tale. To say that the material universe is derived from a singularity, a point so small that it cannot be quantified, is
      ridiculous. It too has no facts, and relies on hearsay and consensus as its only support.

      Physical volume (space) is a fact.

    6. I will not be your tutor, crack open some science books.

    7. Many books and videos, (including this one,) assume that parallel universes, relativity, the big bang, holographic existence, or quantum mechanics are based on facts; they are not, these are all unsubstantiated theories. There is not one shred of tangible facts to prove any of these notions. Theoretical physicists and cosmologists, use elaborate subjective equations as a simulation of facts. They have no real facts to base their theories on. To test this, you only need ask them for a single proving fact for any one of their conjectures; you will find that they cannot provide even one. Theoretical scientists have engaged in a
      conspiracy of fantastic fantasies and elusive equations to explain the composition of the material universe. They use simulated facts because they cannot recognize the real facts.

      The physical volume that composes space is a tangible fact to work with. In deciphering "the fabric of the cosmos," the physical volume composing space is an elemental and logical place to start. The theoretical singularity of the big bang assumes that space does not exist until it is created by inflation. The theory ignores that there has to be something there to expand into, before it can expand into it. It is not possible to expand into something that is not there; that would be magic.

    8. Ya, pretty extreme theories, hard and may be forever impossible to prove. Science can only guess. This may sound philosophical (as most science was at one time), may still be? Does the universe exist with no observer?

    9. The universe is not dependent on human existence. An ant does not cause the Earth to exist, nor does a human cause the universe to exist. The universe is an absolute physical construct in every way, shape, and form. There is no part of the universe that is supernatural, magical, or a just because thing.

      Writing it in books, or produced in entertainment movies and cartoons, or documentary video's does not make it true; after all, fairy tales are also distributed through all these mediums. What differentiates reality from fantasies are facts. When reviewing conceptualizations, one only needs to look for the facts. If facts do not exist, then it is fantasy. Critical thinking is your strongest ally in deciphering what is real and what is not.

    10. I have been an scientific observer for over 50 years. I agree the scientific method is the only practical way to prove. And proof is all we have to call truth. In order to prove you must first question. Many discoveries thought of as proof are proven wrong and many theories thought to be quack are eventually proven fact. The question is more than half the answer.
      You say to look at the facts to see what is "real", but how did these facts come to be? Many facts were once thought of as lunacy...One may see things as fact, reality and proof but is it a fact, a strong belief or opinion? Sometimes it is hard to see through the false sciences. (and arrogance) How do we know? We form opinions based on what we observe.
      We are easily fooled. (all of us) Most BIG science is eventually proven wrong, I'm waiting for Einsteins version of space and time to be put to the test.
      Most modern quantum dimensional theories seem extreme but so did much of what we believe now.
      If there were never ever any observer,,,
      (humans and ants or Gods included) from the start of "time" there would be no time and no dimension. Without measurement...No science. You answered this yourself.
      Right or not science is mostly all cool,.
      I love science, it is very stimulating entertainment.

    11. I agree with much of what you have stated. In regards to your first post: a question never asked is worth nothing; an answer never given is worth even less. We do have profound facts to work with, physical volume is a pointblank fact; from it we can derive even more questions and answers than we can from science fiction. Science is supposed to deal with facts only, not science fiction; "philosophy" is the proper place for science fiction. Mixing science fiction (philosophy) with real science facts confuses the issue. Real, factually based science, is the only thing that will provide humanity with the tools it needs to manage the future.

      Teaching young minds science fiction as science facts is not properly preparing civilization for tomorrow. Stimulating young minds is one thing, misdirecting young minds is quite another. When facts are mixed with fiction, young minds become confused. How much harder is it to learn the alphabet when mixed with letters that do not really exist? Science fiction does the same thing to science facts. If these videos were clearly marked as "for entertainment and philosophical purposes only," then maybe they would not be so damaging to young minds. Science fiction notions such as curved space-time or the big bang theories are so pervasive - that they are taught to college level students as science fact. In physics and cosmology, we should be teaching our children critical thinking skills, not bandwagon science fiction as a simulation of facts.

      Stimulating imagination is a great tool; corrupting imagination is harmful to us all...

    12. I rarely see any of this stuff stated as fact. You rant about them stating things such as
      "two dimensions" etc, as a stated fact? I never see it that way. It to me seems *at most* stated as a theory. Besides, proof is rarely a fact first., they usually start out as theory. (like this stuff)
      You to me seem to have a hate on for it.
      I promise one thing, closing your mind will blind you. You seem to believe all genius's past and pres are all wrong about eveything?
      Do you believe in the speed of light?

    13. Quote: "Science is supposed to deal with facts only"
      Proof NEVER starts out as fact. It must go through a scientific process. "Corruption"...? Hard core accusation. I think most modern science is stimulating. Even if a theory is dead wrong it still stimulates productive thought....
      If you let it....

    14. Facts? I thought of all the extreme stuff as conjecture and brain storming, Math is main tool they have to try to gather evidence of any of the stuff you mentioned.
      I never thought of it as claimed facts, just TV for the general audience, to capture interest. Interest is the first step.
      Sagan said knowledge is the only way to keep ourselves safe from ourselves.,,,,, Interest is good:)

    15. present us some "real" facts

    16. So on acid the Physical volumes that come talk to me are real in your mind, but not the idea of a singularity ?

    17. Could you please tell me what is right and not concocted sensationalist nonsense aimed at attracting viewers?

  10. I'l' tell you what space is. It's just that - space! A.k.a. "room" :-)

    I think I'll have whatever hallusinogen it is those holographic nutters are having..

    1. There is a lot of room in your head!

    2. U bet there is - you can fit an entire Universe in here ;-)

  11. I've searched high and low for a reasonable explanation of the holographic principle but the literature is to stupid to explain it to me. This is all wrong. According to the comments below the only true source of modern science is the Quran. Therefore I'm gonna go look for a Quran. F**k you science.

    1. Have you watched "What is reality?" on here? - If that's just fluff to you now after all your searching for holographic universe info, I've posted a link to a video on quantum loop gravity which is very, very head scratching (in the comments).

    2. Oops. I posted on the other doc before I saw your comment here. Yeah "What is reality?" is very very good, probably one of the better ones I've watched in years. I'm still lost on this holographic principle though. I wish I had enough math to grasp it but I don't. I don't think my imagination is fit for it either, there's just too many bizarre notions it throws up. If we are living in/on a projection which mirrors the event horizon of a black hole then we are more than likely in a black hole and whatever is outside our blackhole world has no understanding of how the laws in their Universe breaks down in our world ... no? So what's going on inside blackholes in "our" Universe? But Susskin's string theory contradicts this with branes ... what am I missing here?

      Leonard Susskind needs to be burned at the stake.

    3. Uhm...well, something's not quite right there because that would suggest infinite dimensions as you burrow deeper into each universe's black holes (if indeed one leads somehow to the other type deal). Strings only gives us 11... or so... to work with. I'll think about it, but right now I'm a zombie staring at a screen. I'll also try and find that quantum loop gravity has to be seen to be believed! (and is right in with all this).

    4. loop quantum cosmology


    5. "LQG predicts that not just matter, but also space itself has an atomic structure".

      That a lot of this new theory can only be fully understood through Mathematics is troubling to me. The further down the rabbit hole I go, the less common place analogies there are to hang an understanding on and the more things seem based on Mathematical abstractions. It hurts my tiny little mind :-/

    6. The dimensions would exist separate of this infinite loop, as they do in the current model where parallel universes are allowed. Wouldn't all those parallel universes most likely have the same laws of physics and the same amount of dimensions? This is my own take on the whole thing so I'm sure it's seriously flawed.

    7. I haven't looked at Achems' links yet (many thanks), but my guess is that they would not necessarily share the same laws at all. Planks Constant could be different in different universes for example, changing much of the outcomes. This is hardly scientific of me, just philosophical conjecture, but if you look at the conditions needed for life on earth, each step of the way seems to be 'rare' (I use the term loosely) as in the distance from the sun, our solar system's place in the galaxy to name but a couple... It's sometimes referred to as the goldilocks scenario (everything being just right). So if things were to follow that trend then it would be suggestive that our entire universe has laws and physics that are just right... rare even, loosely conjecturing of course. ;-)

  12. This show is a load of hypothetical nonsense. It is not experimental, can never be verified. It is a way of fooling people into giving these cosmologists job security. They have never given any real benefit to humanity except wishful thinking. These programs should be banned!!

  13. I would suggests another source of science, which came to us much earlier than what has been explained here about the expansion of the universe and basically the whole content. The Qur'an explains all this facts close to 1500 years ago, thus much earlier than Kepler, Einstein or any one else even had the idea to think about the nature of the space and black holes.

    1. Could you tell me where in the Qur'an it explains all this?

    2. Even if it did get some things right, you'd expect them to firstly, and secondly, why refer to old, outdated materiel when we have learned so much more since.....

    3. One thing I will never ever ever understand in your perspective that says Quran is outdated, I bet you paid any attention to reciting it closely and seriously.

      What is so called "The Big Bang" for an example is just a fact got itself to be mentioned, from the complex worlds of various kinds of knowledge within this layers of this book still unmentioned, rather observed than mentioned by those who look, wonder, question, reason and understand.

      I invite you to have a study of how come mentioned facts like these do actually exist 1400+ years ago, that would amaze me for good -personally speaking-.

    4. G'day Arrayat. Welcome to TDF mate.

      To your first question about why I think the Quran (and Bible etc) are outdated, is because of how long ago it/they were written. As you say 1400+ in this case. I also consider science text books from 20 years ago outdated, as we've learned more since then. (We know things now they never taught when I went to school)

      I'm not 100% sure I completely understand your 2nd paragraph, I think because of our language differences, but I think you mean that the Big Bang is an example of knowledge that's contained within the Quran, that we eventually 're-discovered', and the Quran also has many more 'layers' of knowledge that science is yet to discover. You'll have to correct me if I've misunderstood you.

      I agree with your last part about thinking it would be interesting if that knowledge was known back then, I've quite an interest in some history and what was known by earlier peoples also. I've been lucky enough to see much of Egypt and have always been interested in our ancient past. I think some civilisations like Egypt clearly had a quite advanced knowledge of our sky, probably more then they're given credit for now.

      I'd be very interested to read the passages that you say talk about the Big Bang or any other science that is relevant to the topic that is contained in the Quran. Could you please tell me which ones to look at, or quote them here?

      To be honest with you, I must say I have trouble taking the word of a book about science matters when it also talks of a winged horse taking the prophet to cut the moon in half with a sword. When did that happen? Is there any evidence that the moon has ever been cut/cleaved in half in the time frame indicated? You'll have to point out the passages that make that make sense too please.

    5. docoman..i am posting simply in the interest of knowledge of early peoples look into info on the ancient ionians.. it is amazing what these people understood at the time.. about the 6th and 5th century BCE.. they were away that matter is made up of atoms and it is from them the word originates..they believed the earth was once entirely covered with water and from that life arose and evolved.They knew the earth was round as well as that the earth orbits the sun. They were the first true scientists. Another great source of information concerning the ionians can be found in the 7th and 8th episodes of Carl Sagans "Cosmos" it also explains how why this knowledge was lost and shall we say re-discovered as late as the 16th and 17th century. I can hardly imagine what life would be like today had those early scientists been allowed to flourish. And then consider europe's dark ages before the renissance, we must thank the east and the muslims for saving the knowledge of the including science and medicine.

    6. G'day kicknbak60, thanks for your interesting and informative post mate, and welcome to TDF too.

      Thanks for pointing out the Iinians, I don't know much about them at all and will follow up your suggestions. The little I just read I find very interesting.
      I agree with you, the world does owe the muslim world the acknowledgement and a thanks for keeping science alive. I also agree that we (homo sapiens) have discovered knowledge and lost it, to rediscover later. (it'd be interesting to be able to know how advanced we've been, what have we forgotten and how much do we still forget) I'm convinced the Great Pyramid builders knew much more about maths then they're given credit for now, and the Sphinx is older then the Egyptologists say. And other things in Africa, like the Dogon people and what it seems they remembered from earlier times I also find very interesting and suggestive of knowledge we had that we've forgotten.

      But I'll also stand by my feelings that even though some scriptures may contain some interesting things that may be accurate (historic events or even hints of science knowledge we've not given them credit for knowing), other wrongs in their story make it impossible for me to swallow their dogma. At best they're an interesting read to put into context with their era, not some 'word of God'.

    7. You have a healthy disposition balancing curiosity with scepticism, allowing potentially great discoveries. I for one will be all ears.

    8. Weep for the Museum of Alexandria.

    9. Museum, or Library? I've heard of the burning of the Library of Alexandria, was it also called a Museum?
      One of the greatest crimes/pities for our species I think losing that. Some of those scrolls would have been so interesting, and as kicknbak said, how far could we have been now if we'd not been 'interrupted'.
      I also wonder how much the ice ages that we have gone through have shaped our 'memory' over the longer term as well. We've been through at least one, most likely multiple. Climate change like that, as we're seeing in more recent discussions, must have a big impact on what we're doing.

    10. The Library was run by the "Popular People's Front of Judea", the Museum was run by the "People's Popular Front of Judea" (and had a marvellous little gift shop annex) bad. I knew as I was writing it I'd made a nagging blunder, but thought of this Python post as a recompense and left it as is. lol.

      Search Youtube for "Monty Python - Life of Brian - PFJ Splitters" (some swearing involved)

    11. lols!! Gotta love Python. Cheers mate. :)

    12. At Alexandria there was known to be a library which was due to the collection of written scrolls (perhaps 1,000,000+). There was also a museum although not defined properly by the modern definition of a museum. This was a place to meet and muse over the concepts presented by the books (scrolls) and current thnking -- a forum!!!

    13. The ancient Mahatbharata talks about atomic explosions. And when they went and excavated the city where this happened the skeletons where on a par with victims of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, with radiation levels.

    14. G'day Bruce,
      very interesting mate. Do you know where those excavations were? Or a good documentary or website talking about it, I'd like to read/watch more.

    15. Mohenjo-daro and Harappa
      Substantiating the Pakistan/India texts that apparently describe atomic attacks is an amazing find found in the prehistoric Indian cities of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa. [Pakistan's Indus Valley] On the street level were discovered skeletons, appearing to be fleeing, but death came too quick. They were found to be highly radioactive, on a level comparable to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet there are absolutely no indications of volcanic activity, and it appears that both cities were destroyed at virtually the same time.

      Further, "At Rajasthan in India, radioactive ash covers three square miles not far from Jodhpur. This is an area of high rates of cancer and birth defects and it was cordoned off by the Indian government when radiation readings soared astonishingly high. An ancient city was unearthed which, the evidence indicates, was destroyed by an atomic explosion some 8,000 to 12,000 years ago. It has been estimated that half a million people could have died in the blast and it was at least the size of those that devastated Japan in 1945. Archeologist Francis Taylor stated that etchings in some nearby temples he translated suggested that they prayed to be spared from the great light that was coming to lay ruin to the city."[1]

    16. um im thinking via something like vauge statements and your confirmation bias

    17. Glad to answer that, It is in 21:30 where it talk about the so recently called "The Big Bang"

    18. Sorry Mate, but your interpretation of 21:30 is way biased...

    19. "Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?" - 21:30

      What century are you teleporting your thoughts from? Just so I know which one to avoid when I travel back in time in my deLorean.

  14. great

  15. YO THIS WEBSITE IS F**KING GREAT. if you like this documentary you should check out WHAT THE BLEEP DO YOU KNOW, and reat the book THE POWER OF NOW BY ECHKART TOLLE. before watching this i knew the fundamentals of what space is but still really good film! Reality is not real, and no one sees it the same. we have five sensory organ which cant even percieve most of the stuff that is going on metaphysically. This movie just reaffirms my beleife in a creator. because time is all relative and our creator is outside of time. Some of these principles apply to god. But everyones defintion of god is different. Still great documentary

  16. in my opinion, if this world is how we perceive as reality, then it is our reality. there's nothing too bothering to me.

  17. this is so mind boggling. i can't quite wrap my mind around this, being able to be in the past present and future.

  18. The hologram thing bothers me. So if we aren't the real deal here then why even bother? Sounds like something a child would wonder like "is this all just a dream"? Otherwise interesting material.

    1. I love the smell of nihilism in the morning

    2. The problem, the "scientist" are all ways dealing with matter, stuff one can hold in ones hands, so to speak. They take it to a sub atomic level and at that point there all running into no walls; Like rubbing out the chemical trail of ants.......................

  19. Idk if any of you have seen Leonard Susskind's youtube cosmology lectures, but every time I hear the man talk now, I expect him to stop for a couple seconds and take a bite of cookie.

  20. i would love to be able to watch this but simply cannot due to brian greens annoying, condescending voice. is it just me?? maybe i should try his books instead

    1. It's just you:)

  21. i would love to be able to watch this but simply cannot due to the overly loud, constant and totally unnecessary background music..Why is it there????

    1. Its being called background music, you should listen to the documentary itself instead of listening what's behind it....

  22. It would be closer, the nearest Galaxy is Andromeda and it is heading for a collision course with the Milky Way. Although the Universe is expanding overall, the force of Gravity still pulls nearby glaxies together.

  23. can any body tell me if we see starlight from millions of years ago today. were are they know like the nearest galaxy we see the light from it is 2 million light year away is the galaxy still there or has it moved

    1. Well you would just have to wait another 2 million years to be sure of what's going on with it today... But predicting it, and since the Universe is expanding and all, it will most probably be a lot farther way by now, and it has most Likely changed has well.

  24. Enjoyed every minute...furr sure we'll have a Q computer, if we don't destroy our environment and ourselves (all living things) before then... then, 'maybe' we get the computing brain we need to help with some of the big questions - how do we feed 10 Billion people, make peace, manage a fair political system/industrial complex, etc. As well as better predict the weather & help us build teleport machines (okay maybe humans will be hesitant at first)- just imagine teleports as transportation for cargo however, now were talkin about something useful. p.s. I am beginning to understand, probability & entanglement (i am likely delusional), however, no matter how many ways, my brain will not deal with the multi-verse - as science fiction, sure, as science fact-I need my mommy.... Who needs spook films when we've got theoretical physics :)

  25. lol....Brian really likes bread loaf analogies, he explained M Theory's Branes as slices of bread as well in the "Elegant Universe" series

    1. he likes dough too...$$

  26. this moment never ends! There is only one moment! This one

  27. Perhaps someone could explain the following to me.

    Newton's idea of the "attraction" of objects to one another has been proven wrong and replaced by Einstein' s idea of warped space. In other words, the moon and earth are not attracted to one another; rather the moon travels in curved spaced around the earth.

    Why, then, as in this documentary, do astronomers keep talking about the attraction of gravity? In this case they talk about having to invent dark energy to explain the faster and faster expansion of the universe, as common sense tells us gravity's attraction should slow it down.

    Seems to me there might be no need for dark energy, because there is no gravitational force attracting objects to one another, just the curved space created around them.

    Apologize if this is a stupid question; however, I am very much a layman but have wondering about this for quite some time.

    1. You should address this to the one and only @Achems, he loves that kind of stuff and he is soooo patient with laymen and lay LOL
      or at least that's my impression.

    2. Only some can observe,
      the use of language and word,
      of which these are tools,
      to confound thoughts of fools,
      to set a trap out,
      that some will trip, no doubt.
      There are more ways then one,
      to quiet the ignorance of some.

      docoman 2012 :)

      I like the way your mind works :)

      The cryptic One. :) Edit- scratch that. The Poetic One. ;)

    3. "Tell me more my little drug'es tell me more"

      Little Alex from "Clockwork Orange"

    4. That nadsat's time has passed along with the droog it was about, Mr. Burgess.

    5. Neva,

      Newtons theory of gravity was not wrong, still being in use today, it was just further extrapolated on by Einstein.
      And then if it could be married with quantum gravity, which seems impossible right now, could be further extrapolated on.

      You do not have to be rotating around a body to feel the effects of gravity, we can feel the earths gravity because we are trying to go through the earth by the force of earths gravity, by the earth bending spacetime, and we would go right through the earth just like a knife through butter if it were not for the electromagnetic force which is way, way, way, stronger.

    6. Neva

      ... I see your point... but the expansion of the Universe it's not only not slowing down it´s in fact speeding up... so there should be a force causing the acceleration ... all galaxies are moving apart from one another faster and faster...

      Gravity even if not like Newton described... it still warps space... like a sheet being deformed by a heavy object... smaller thing tend to fall inwards... so has matter interacts... gravity should slow down the expansion put in motion by the big bang

      Picture it like this... if you throw a ball a long a plane surface, it will roll nice and easy for a long time... but if you imagine a irregular bumpy surface... it will slow down as it bumps and falls in the little holes and irregularities... In the cosmos matter creates the "bumps" in the fabric of space... thus it should slow it self down... but in fact it isn't...

      dark energy is a mere speculation... maybe it's only just a consequence of the geometry of the Universe and not a force at all... no one knows yet

    7. Well.. this universe is not run by "common sense". Quantum reality is way beyond our common sense, it is nearly impossible to fully understand or imagine it. We are simply not evolved to see or imagine forces or events smaller or bigger than our average space-time-scale.

      If we would like to understand our universe we have to chuck common sense and rely on facts, probabilities and imagination.

    8. This is 4 months after you asked it, but perhaps this will help. Newton's law of 'attraction' was coined because he didn't know what caused gravity, he could only mathematically describe it's appearance and strength. Einstein defined gravity as the warping of space due to massive objects. As explained in the documentary, Einstein created a 'cosmological constant' to prevent gravity from collapsing the universe. Today, dark energy, and dark matter are it's equivalent. With that said, if it is true that the movement of the universe is accelerating, it is far more likely that the universe is already collapsing in on itself under the force of gravity. Draw it out on a piece of paper, and everything would still appear to be moving apart, even if every galaxy is collapsing, or shrinking under it's own gravity. Since most physicists have 'chosen' to accept the idea of expansion, then dark energy and dark matter become a necessity, even if the idea is wrong. (which I believe it is) I guess, only time will tell! (excuse the pun) Live long and prosper Neva.

    9. You didn't answer my question.

    10. In a nutshell, the term 'attraction' is still used by physicists because of it's mathematical properties. (Newtons's law of attraction) As I stated in my previous blog, Einstein defined what Newton could not. For the layman, it is easier to understand what is visually obvious, as opposed to understanding the abstract concept of general relativity.
      Any questions? Take care Neva!

  28. Hi there I may be missing some point as im not a physisist or anything like that. Hendrick Kasimir's experiment with the 2 metal plates suggests to me more then what they let on. To have an effect on surfaces that small and to actually be mesureable. What happens when you scale that up to fit the empty space in between matter in space? Is that not a logical source for dark energy? He has the plates close enough to exclude some of the effect of empty space. So what he is showing is empty space's property of expansion. So i guess im just wondering why ive never heard of anyone making that connection?

    1. That's a good point. I suspect that no ones linked the math together. I've played with the derivation of Casimir (yeah it's spelled with a 'C', made the same mistake myself once) Effect solving Schrödinger equation with the assumption of an empty box. From there I saw nothing to indicate the behavior they attribute to dark energy, that is, I found the Casimir effect to be attractive, not repulsive... though I do see what you mean. Maybe different boundary conditions (another shape other than a box) is in order.

    2. well what I got out "Casimir's : )" experiment was that the effect was akin to something like the way atmospheric pressure will compress a sealed container with a vacuum inside. The expansive force was concentrated on the outside of the plates forcing them together because some of the force was excluded between due to the small gap And really any expansive force that we can measure at our small scale should have huge implications whan applyed to the vast emptyness of intersteller and intergalactic space

  29. Can anyone explain to me what they mean by disorder? I can't see how all things go from order to disorder, and the examples in the documentary with books and wine glasses are very naive. The pages are in order from OUR perspective, since numbers have meaning to us and they become scattered. Particles doesn't think that way. Think about the formation of crystals, the rise of synchronicity in nature, in ecosystems, self assembling materials, life, architecture. These are all examples of nature making orderly structures. Atoms can't know what they look like in our scale, they just react with their environment. Tell me how entropy works on the atomic scale, on the sub atomic scale - then I will listen. Any thoughts?

    1. Entropy is an thermodynamic measure... although it can be associated with the term "disorder" that we usually use in common sense... you got to be careful, cuz it´s not the same thing...

      According to the second law of thermodinamics, kinetic energy can be completely converted into thermic energy, but thermic energy can´t be completely converted into kinetic energy... with entropy you try to measure the part of the energy in a system that no longer can be converted into kinetic energy in thermodynamic transformations.

      this only apply´s in closed systems... without influence from the out side... so in fact the only real closed system is the Universe it self

      If you take the Earth for instance it´s not a closed system... you have the sun (with low entropy) giving energy all the time, so in fact the sun lowers earth´s entropy constantly. So thermodynamic transformation never run out, and equilibrium is never found, (eventually though it will)

      think of a car... with a full tank... you burn the fuel to get movement, but when you run out of fuel you can´t get the movement to turn into fuel again.... so entropy is maximum in that system... and the only way to get that car running again, is to put more fuel in the tank... so you are influencing the system from the outside... if that car was the entire Universe it would stop for ever... so eventually the Universe will run out of fuel an entropy is maximum and nothing will happen... you´ll get total equilibrium in thermodynamic transformations

      Why is this related to "disorder"?

      According to statistical physics the disorder of a system can be associated with (not directly but through a logarithm function) the number of accessible microstates the system can take once fulfilled the restrictions imposed by the same. Practical constraints common to thermodynamic systems usually connect to the value of the internal energy U and volume V available to the system. So increase disorder of a system means increasing the number of microstates (configurations) available to the particles of the system.

      so think of an ice cube... it has a solid configuration and the particles are arranged in that structure... so to maintain that structure you have to maintain the temperature in the environment or it will fall apart (maintain the internal restrictions)... if you let it be... temperature will fluctuate and dissipate from hot areas to cold areas so you´re breaking those restrictions.... trying to find equilibrium... if temperature increases so does the movement of particles thus increasing the way those particles can be arranged in... with a total melt down of that ice cube you have maximum entropy to that system... So the state of an isolated system is always the state of maximum entropy when you maintain the internal restrictions... if you break those restrictions it will only increase entropy or eventually maintain it... never lower it...

      So entropy as discussed only applys to the entire Universe... cuz every other system if part of it... influencing each other... so entropy varies from area to area.... but the overall entropy of the Universe will always increase

      Hope that counted for something :)


  30. Thanks Kliment,one more. If our bodies could somehow withstand traveling the speed of light, would we be able to age slower than the population?

    1. That´s not how it works... you would age the same... but if you went on a voyage at the speed of light for a few days... years would have passed on the earth... so even though you would look the same, every one else would have aged several decades... but for you only a few days would have passed non the less... time is just slown down to the perspective of someone not travelling at the speed of light...

  31. Dumb question. If the Earth moved faster, would we live longer?

    1. No! For us the time would pass the same. But if somebody is moving slower than us from his perspective we would live longer but slower.

  32. good series .. fun to watch

    I have a question... sorry it´s off topic but since this is one of the most recent docs I might get an answer from one of the brains :) ...
    (Imagine this... just bare with me...)
    Imagine you have a really large road, with a really large vehicle... and you accelerate it to a certain amount... then inside that vehicle you have another one and you accelerate it to the same amount has the previous one... so in fact the second vehicle has the double the amount of speed for an observer out side the system... right?! now imagine you repeat this process over and over... giving exactly the same amount of energy to accelerate the new vehicle that is always inside the previous one... wouldn't that take us to the speed of light without gaining infinite mass? since it's always a different vehicle with the same amount of energy relative to the previous vehicle... the sum of all velocities at some point should add up to the speed of light to someone sitting out side the system... theoretically of curse... I'm probably saying something stupid... but it puzzled me ... if anyone could give me an answer ... that would be awesome

    1. @Ricardo Rodrigues:

      No matter how many times you try to jump-start the speed, like using another planets gravity to gain speed etc: you have to take time dilation into account from the observers relative perspective, and no resting mass can attain the speed of light, otherwise it would be an infinite singularity, will be static. Light will always travel at 186,000 miles a second no matter at what source and sum of velocities speed it is originating from.

    2. thanks Razor... but let me just point out this.. I'm talking of different objects being accelerated, not adding speed to the same object like the gravity pull of another planet like you said... it's a vehicle inside a vehicle inside a vehicle inside a vehicle ... get my point?... think of it has a system of wheels... you accelerate a wheel to a certain amount... and inside there is another wheel... rotating along with the first one, but since it´s inside the previous one it´s stationary to the perspective of an observer inside the first wheel (like a person standing on the earth, it seems still but it is rotating with the earth) ... then you move the second wheel with the same amount of energy... then inside you have another wheel and you do the same... and so on... so every time you move a wheel it is stationary to the perspective of that environment... sorry I can't explain myself very well... it's hard to make a serious point in English :) ... hope I got the message right this time


    3. It is good question. I had fun trying to figure it out :). This is what I think, although, of course, I might be wrong.

      As Einstein's equations prove mathematically, you can not reach speed of light by mechanical acceleration because that would require infinite energy. You can not go round this theoretical obstacle by having multiple vehicles inside one another because every accelerating vehicle has to expend energy to accelerate, and that energy is then imparted onto the vehicle that it is in/on (think an accelerating car for example- the wheels transfer energy to the ground or whatever the car is sitting on). Therefore you could say that the energy of the last vehicle in such a system would equal the sum of the energies of all the vehicles. There is no way to reach an infinite amount of energy, no matter how many times and in what way you add up any real amounts of it. Some member of the system must have infinite energy so that the sum of all energies could be infinite. You can not solve this problem by any mechanical means whatsoever.

    4. Thank you Dangis

      so if I'm walking on a train wagon... the energy I spend for walking is imparted to the train... ? and that influences the entire system...?

      Just want to make something clear here... I'm not saying that the first vehicle should jump start the second one and so on... I'm saying that the first one is accelerated and stays whit that speed constantly with all the others inside... that' s why I talked of wheels... so they all accelerate independently but still attached to the previous one ... I don't no if I'm explaining myself properly... but your answer made sense anyway :)

      one other view... what would happen if you had a planet or star rotating at 299,792,000 metres per second, and I accelerated a car to 500 meters per second on it's surface...? (dispite all the obvious impossibilities) could I do that...? and if so ... what would be the overall speed of that car ...? observing from the earth

      and thinking back to a system of vehicles inside vehicles... even if you reduce the mass of every new vehicle eventually one had to have no mass... so it doesn't work has well right?


  33. The idea of a two dimensional reality at the surface of our universal sphere is incredibly significant. Pondering wave-particle duality and the infinite relevance of Pi, you begin to realize that anything (and everything) is possible.

  34. The simplest comparison between Newton and quantum physics is in understanding that Newton reality assumes that if you have enough information about a particular event, (i.e. a baseball leaving a bat, the speed, the trajectory), you can predict the out come of that event, (i.e. point of impact).

    Therefore, theoretically, if you had enough information of all events occurring in the Universe at any given moment, you should be able to predict the outcome of all events simultaneously, and in essence predict the future.

    In a Newtonian world, all reality is therefore predestined, unfolding in a predictable manner, suggesting all of our fates are therefore predetermined regardless of how we behave.

    The refreshing aspect of quantum theory is that by simply observing subatomic particles, we can alter their behavior. Heisenberg discovered that you can only detect the position or momentum of a subatomic particle, not both. Once you recognized one aspect, the other was lost through observation.

    On the sub-atomic level, nothing is predetermined, eternal randomness leaves everything to chance. We aren't locked into a Newton blueprint of destiny after all.

    Rather we are governed by alternative outcomes in every choice we make and therefore are truly the rulers of our own fate.

    I don't believe that this was mentioned in the "Fabric of the Cosmos" series, but to me is one of the most relevant aspects of Quantum vs Newtonian theory.

    1. ok, the main philosophical difference is that quantum physics gives us the chance for world that is not predetermined and not govern by destiny. But that applies only for microscopic world, everything bigger then that, the world around us we interact with, the actions we make can be predicted.. microscopic world is world of possibilities, it is uncertain if some subatomic action will appear here or there, but in the bigger picture it has no effect on macroscopic world. Example: if u decide to go and get a cup of tea, on your way to do that actually will happen many quantum physics events with all uncertainties and possibilities in your body, in the cup of tea, in the environment u going through, but that will not affect the result at all.. that you gonna get and drink that cup of tea. thus we still have no free will.. It's just the destiny:) (until we find a place for "soul" in ourselfs :D

    2. No one is really sure how the macroscopic and the microscopic worlds really interact and no one reached a theory of everything. I believe that there is a theory of everything that we haven't realised yet. We might very well be off the right track but I hope one day, possibly during my lifetime, there will be a breakthrough in relation to how quantum physics and astrophysics interact... Before that happens, we will all be here expressing our mere opinions, guessing...

  35. I like the first episode, talking about the non-emptimess of space: fascinating stuff that I haven't seen in documentaries before. Almost as good as Jim Al-Khalili's stuff!

  36. Happy New Year Az, Iz, Razor, Epic, Vlatko, Biblelover, and Pysmythe! They're already setting off fireworks here! Gotta go ---- can't trade "real life" for this box all the time. Charles B.

  37. If enough scientists of this world want multiverse, they will get multiverse and when they get that, they will still be looking for the container of it all. May be we live in a glass bowl, a sort of crystal ball filled with bubbling black champagne. It's encouraging to see that scientists are as crazy as they wish, can or allows us to do the same.
    Will 2012 be exciting, existing or exiting....we shall live to see!
    Happy New Year to all members of TDF and a special toast to Vlatko, Epicurus and Achems_Razor and to Brian Cox who is quite possibly the cutest of them all on a night with the stars.

    1. you too Az! I hope you cheer up. you seem to be a little down lately. hang in there and stiffen that upper lip. lol

    2. life's beating me... or is it the other way around.
      I am at the airport in Calgary, long wait for a flight...thanks to TDF, time will fly by.

    3. @AZ: Calgary, no way... you live here or just visiting ?

    4. I spent just a few hours at the airport on my way to Quebec.

    5. Az,

      Happy new year to you also! No booze for me though, booze makes me happy.

    6. That's one thing i always took in moderation with very very few exceptions. Now that i am off green leaves...


  38. and wow - thanks for the tip on the brian cox vid... fantastic.. look up symphonyofscience we are all connected.

  39. disregard dmxi - I found tons of info already - wikipedia has a nice article on multiverse. guess I was just disappointed that effect of multiverse gravity wasn't mentioned in this doc, unless I missed it... seems to me that over time it could have been a catalyst for the big bang. I should stick with what we know, but questions lead to more knowledge no matter how silly they seem.

    1. I have watched the 1st 2 parts of it and am also cant help but notice no mention of string theory, and where is Mr. Michio Kaku, not that he has made less documentaries :)

  40. @dmxi - pls post link - I've been wondering about this for quite some time.

  41. could dark energy simply be gravity from other universes (multiverse) pulling ours outwardly, rather than a force pushing from within ours?

    1. that theory is being considered & i loved that notion to be true but i do not dare of dreaming it's possibility!wish i could give a link but don't have one at hand at the moment.

  42. Only 2:00 (minutes) into this, but I suddenly wonder about the entire notion that everything rests inside Space; as if Space itself were like a box and Matter is something that is contained within it. What about the idea that the Matter is the Space? I guess i should finish the entire documentary first, but so far it's got me thinking.

  43. I think if no religion had ever spoiled the mind of people through wars and division, we would all be spiritual scientists searching for the meaning of life.

    1. dear az,that is where evolution will with out a doubt lead us .the climax of our journey will be mind over matter & this is not a religious belief nor statement but just the unavoidable transition of entropy into it's purest form.spiritiuality is a surrogate for perfectly vibrating with ones surrounding (consciousness not measurable )& misused terminology misdemeanors scientific scrutiny will be ensured!so long we survive ourselves,of course!

    2. Sounds a little bit like some of the latter parts of 'Childhood's End'.

    3. had to google 'childhood's end' & was surprised to have found an A.C.Clarke novel.i possess a couple of clarke's tv related books but as i found out ,this seems to be his own favourit work.must give it a go.thanks for the hint .

    4. It's a GREAT book, even though it's, what, 50 years old now? One of the very best sci-fi books ever, for sure.

    5. I am reading a book suggested by @Pysmythe, A Beautiful Mind (I have seen the movie and the documentary on Nash). I am at page 100 or so....i am amazed to read the intricacy of how the brightest mind of those days were mainly use for military advancement. The camarades came up with a game named "So long sucker_F*** your Buddy", somewhat appropriate for the environment they were creating in order to pay for the pursuit of their personal dream of accomplishment and recognition above one an other...It is without a question that science (or at least a large part of it) is still used to pay and to advance military power.
      The computer we write on are here because the military needed a better way to connect....and then the digital world expanded to expand their control over all of us.

    6. 100 pages already?! You don't mess around, do you?
      edit- In addition to changing ourselves, all those extremely competitive people had better get a lot more busy than they are figuring out how we can live within the planet's means, instead of figuring out how to destroy it, or all this great science is just going to be an echo in the cosmic void.
      edit-edit- I know you know this...but we DO need to keep preaching it as much as possible!

    7. yep...when i like something i immerse.
      Cosmic void taken as comic void by the ones holding the strings.

    8. Not sure if preaching works....but exemplifying does least to the one doing it.

    9. I like preaching! People say I do a good job at it (I just need to always fallow my own sometimes)! ;-)

      P.S. Az, I changed my avatar just for you so you can see my real face, as you mentioned once in one of your posts. Here I am with my litte buddy (age 2 at the time) . . . . and a butterfly of course! Gotta keep my icon of rebirth and new life in there! ;-)

    10. Preaching is talking to others about what we think they should think....when i talk (of my beliefs) i don't care if people agree or not, i just talk so i can hear myself and see if i still believe what i am saying.
      ....some times i don't and most times i do.
      I really like your new avatar....i wish i could make it bigger and see your eyes and see his eyes.


    11. Az, you do know you can hold down Ctrl and tap the + key to make it bigger, right? The image gets a bit fuzzy the larger it gets, but it might work well enough for you.
      (don't recall if I ever mentioned this before)

      edit- Just don't do it with mine, please, thank you very much!

    12. you don't know how good it feels to smile at your message right now! i was in need of diversion....

    13. think of religion as fertiliser then it all makes sense

  44. I can predict the weather for the next 10 years = artificially cloudy

  45. re: plates with an extremely narrow gap colliding... dark matter, the venturi effect
    re: acceleration of universal expansion... electromagnetism trumps gravitational attraction
    re: red shifts.... everything loses energy over time, one of our basic physical laws. light, however seems forbidden to decelerate. an object loses energy by decelerating, or by increasing period of vibration. a red shift is an increase in period of vibration in light
    re: time, perception, and the unbreaking of wine glasses: if, as proposed by the learned folks featured in this segment, time is an entropic motion, then the perception of past, now, future is immutable, and inviolable.. our future is in a less entropic state until we enter, and disturb it, thus decreasing its "orderliness"... our past, having been disturbed both by our entry and exit , has decayed to a more entropic state than our now, and our entering it can only disturb it again, thus increasing entropy rather than the decrease that would be required to re-perceive the moment
    re: string theory, the multiverse, and 10 to the 500th: the huge number of imperceptible potential variables of state for the 10 dimensional strings required by the theory can only be resolved by one of three conclusions. multiverse, got the concept, but the math is wayyy off, or, though there are 10 to the 500th potential variables, a far fewer number are actually viable particles(if a variant calls for one or more simultaneous opposite, or contadictory actions, then it probably could be potentially possible, but extremely unlikely, just as a single example). the only way to really find out i guess is to sift through a few millenia of equations, and see which set actually resolve themselves to our "reality", if any might be quicker to try and rework the initial variables, and find a theory that works within the framework of our 4 dimensional plane, which would pare down the list of potential variables quite markedly

    (note:editted thoughout viewing as i finished episodes to allow for my short term memory

  46. check out Prof Brian Cox: A Night With the Stars, bbc 2. very nice :)

  47. Episode 4 – The Origin of the Universe and everything in it.

    There used to be a fundamental believe that the universe was created in a Big Bang Event 14 billion years ago.

    The reasoning for the Big Bang Theory came up when it was observed that distant galaxies had an increasing red shift value.

    This observation was then interpreted as the galaxies moving apart at a faster and faster rate the farther away they were from Earth.

    The natural conclusion from this observation was that if the arrow of time was reversed that all of the galaxies must have started from a single point in Space-Time. The time estimate for this event was 14 billion years ago.

    The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

    The only problem with the Big Bang Theory is that the original galaxy red shift has been misinterpreted and misunderstood.

    Astronomical observations from nearby galaxies have shown that they may contain 2 or more Red Shift values. This information has been conveniently been ignored so that the Big Bang Theory and constantly expanding universe theory holds up.

    The problem is that the Big Bang Theory is incorrect and is NOT the origin of our universe.

    Problems with the Big Bang Theory.

    It has been suggested from the Red Shift evidence that the farther away a galaxy is from Earth the faster it is moving away in the expanding universe.

    This universal expansion will never end.

    So what happens when galaxy expansion reaches the speed of light?

    The expansion of the universe theory breaks down right here.

    The expansion of the universe theory however broke down as soon as multiple red shifts were found coming from the same galaxy. This meant that there was another explanation for the Red Shift.

    Our universe is filled with hydrogen gas and other dust particles. The longer that light from a distant galaxy is travelling through space the more likely that the smaller wave lengths of light will be reflected away. This is called the Red Shift Sunset Theory.

    Over a certain distance of interstellar space only the longer wavelengths of red light will be able to make it through without being reflected away. The more distant the galaxy the more red shifted the light. Meaning that only the longest wavelengths of red light can make it through.

    In the case of a galaxy showing multiple red shifts, this is an indicator of various levels of dust and gas that the light has had to travel through. The more red shifted the light the more dust and gas that the light has to travel through.

    The best example to see this in real life is to 1) View the sky on a sunny day at noon. It is blue. 2) View a sunny sky at sunset. The sun's rays are now shifted to the orange red because they have to pass through more atmosphere. The sky is NOT red due to the Earth accelerating away from the sun.

    Therefore the universe is not expanding with regards to a Big Bang explosion.

    Therefore our universe did not originate in a Big Bang explosion.

    So where did all the matter in the universe come from?

    The matter in our universe comes from the basic function of Space-Time.

    The function of Space-Time is to provide a location for the creation matter from pure energy.

    Space-Time is dynamically active EVERYWHERE with the creation and destruction of matter at the Quantum level. This is a proven fact of Quantum mechanics and Space-Time.

    Matter is simply another form of bundled energy created at the quantum level.

    Albert Einstein's equation E = mcc gives us a clue.

    Where E = Energy, m = mass, c = speed of light.

    At any given time matter is being created and destroyed at the Quantum level in Space-Time.

    More matter is being created at the quantum level than is being destroyed at any given time.

    The proof of this is our planet in our solar system powered by our sun that is part of our galaxy that is part of our local group of galaxies.

    1. Matter is created out of empty space at the Quantum level of Space-Time. Particles are created that become electrons and neutrons that then combine to form hydrogen the basic element of the universe.

    2. Hydrogen atoms accumulate through electrostatic forces into hydrogen clouds.

    3. The mass of the hydrogen clouds then warp space, resulting in a hydrogen gas ball that under the extreme force of gravity or other compressive outside force then begins a process of nuclear fusion becoming a sun.

    4. The life of the sun then produces the other atoms of the periodic table.

    5. The universe can NEVER run out of hydrogen atoms to create hydrogen gas clouds to enable star creation, because the very nature of Space-Time is to create particles from pure energy at the Quantum level. Quantum energy particles with a mass dependent on the energy input at the quantum level.

    The process of particle creation is occurring everywhere in Space-Time.

    Electrostatic forces and gravitation determine the location of galaxies and galaxy groups throughout our universe.

    It is therefore not surprising that there is a web of interconnectedness between galaxies and galaxy groups throughout the universe.

    The very nature of Space-Time to create particles at the Quantum level from pure energy explains the existence of EVERYTHING we see in our universe without the need of a Big Bang Theory.

    1. @Arnie:

      Don't really want to look stuff up so will attempt to answer from the top of my head.

      The expansion from inflation is already exceeding the speed of light, it is the space itself that is expanding dragging the galaxies with it. Similar to blowing up a balloon.

      Space is very, very diffused with hydrogen gas, dust and others, still considered a vacuum almost devoid of particles.
      You cant class your sunlight scenario on earth as anything remotely similar with the red-shift from galaxies from space. We live in an atmosphere of 14.7 lbs. per inch in cross section atmosphere high, on our bodies. You don't have a clue as how red-shift is measured from the galaxies in space.

      "Matter is being created and destroyed at the quantum level all the time"?? tell us how this is happening? (references)!!

      The rest of what you are saying is something you better site some references for, or otherwise it is stuff you seem to be making up!

    2. All true. But the human mind thins in point source to point source. In other words... every explanation requires a point source as a beginning and a point source as an end. So, the idea that we came from a central point and will inevitably go back to a central point is the only explanation the mind can handle.

  48. Episode 2 - Critical comment on the concept that the world around us moves from an organized state to a more disorganized state. This is the law of thermodynamics and it is fundamentally wrong.

    The examples shown in the episode 2 are of pages of a book being scattered, an egg breaking and so forth.

    However the exact opposite is true in our universe. Our universe moves continuously from a disorganized state to a more organized state.

    How can I say this?

    Because life would not exist on the planet Earth, in our solar system, in our galaxy in our local group of galaxies if the law of thermodynamics was true. Meaning it would be impossible for life to exist on the planet Earth, orbiting our sun, within our solar system, within our galaxy within our local group of galaxies if the true fundamental law of the universe was not to move from a disorganized state to a more organized state.

    Real life observations of the universe moving from a disorganized state to a more organized state.

    1. Space-Time transforms energy into particles with mass.
    2. These particles become hydrogen atoms.
    3. Hydrogen atoms condense into hydrogen clouds.
    4. Hydrogen clouds become suns.
    5. The fusion process in a sun creates the other elements of the periodic tables.
    6. A sun goes super nova and in the process a new sun and planets are formed.
    7. The newly created elements allow for the creation of life on a planet.
    8. That life evolves to become more and more complicated.
    9. That life transforms the elements around it into more complex structure and tools.
    10. I am a human being the most advanced animal on the planet Earth, using a laptop computer to watch a program created by other human beings, stored on a hard drive and sent across the internet the most advanced communications network on the planet Earth.

    Conclusion: The fundamental law of the universe is to move from a disorganized state to a more organized state. One only has to look around and realize that this is the case.

    The universe DOES NOT as a fundamental rule move from a organized state to a disorganized state. If it did, hydrogen atoms would not be formed in Space-Time, hydrogen gas clouds would not be formed, suns would not be formed, other elements would not be formed, planets would not be formed, life could not exist and this program would NEVER have been created.

    Therefore based on the evidence that surrounds all of us in every day life the fundamental law of the universe is to move from a disorganized state to an organized state.

    1. Others better equipped to do so will be along shortly to explain how you've misapprehended the laws of thermodynamics. Me? I'm just one of the local boys, lol.

    2. while you have somewhat correctly elaborated the origin of life on earth, you fail to disprove the second law of thermodynamics. While we may move to a more philosophically "organized" state, the entropy of the universe has always been increasing. Entropy is not exactly order to disorder, but rather an orderly state expands from a tight mass to a gaseous, sparse plain. the examples used in the documentary are only metaphors.

    3. I think your confused.
      When things get more complicated, they do not get more orderly, rather more chaotic.

      Chaos however is not fundamentally bad, as it paves the way for new more complicated orders:
      as you explained in the formation of the Universe, our Sun, Earth, Evolution; All these these have changed throughout time to increasingly more complicated formations.

      However I do not see how any of this is progressing towards more perfect order?
      The opposite is probably more true, as the universe prior to the big bang in its simplicity was the order.

      however simplistic order that is unchanging is disadvantageous; disorder in contrasts, and the evolution of events creates the illusion of time as progressive...

      Therefore Disorder creates new order, which then through time becomes disorder for a new order.

      Hope that helps

    4. kind of like my sphere shaped multi universe idea that i created four hours ago, i liked your conclusion, i've never done any science classes before but i find the subject like an endless debate filled with unlimited questions a journey of thought!
      and i was wondering who would i send a copy of my book of 100 new inventions to when its finished im at 42 at the minute, from designs to unknown new inventions?

    5. i agree with you. I don't want to sound like Sherlock Holmes or anything, but this seems so obvious... it's elementary. lol

    6. How do you define "organised"?, or disorganised for that matter?
      Whether something is organised or not is simply a self-projected image of the mind. Without words and thought and human perception it's all just action; - it just "is"...

    7. No, the second law of thermodynamics is correct as per present understanding of physical laws.

      Secondly the universe moves from lower entropy to higher entropy. One of the key reasons why we can not create a perpetual motion machine or why we cant harness energy with exact conversion, and many other examples.

      The march towards higher entropy is also the reason for emergent properties.

      The examples of the hydrogen clouds to suns are accurate but a scientific treatment and understanding would tell you that, this and all the other examples you mentioned, really do support the march of the second law of increasing entropy.

      One of the major research questions still being investigated is that why did the universe start at a state of extremely low entropy as compared to what entropy we observe today. This is a valid question but in no way does it question the onward march of entropy.

      Also our perception biases us towards a more particle nature of our reality, but for a deeper understanding we must look at the field nature of the universe and reality.

  49. @Epicurus...will certainly put his mark here.
    Be back tomorrow.

    1. to be honest, when Waldo is around, im not needed. lol

    2. no one can replace you....but i agree Waldo is a master.

    3. No, no, no... No master, trust me. You guys are making me blush here, seriousely though I am just relayng what other men figured out, not me. The key to understanding it, I mean really developing a feel for it, is mathematics. I don't mean memorizing the equations or learning how to correctly calculate them, that is important of course but it doesn't explain what the equation means to the real world we live in. You have to study the mechanics of the equation, play with the variables and see what results you can get. Still, I have a long way to go, trust me.

    4. You are always needed Epi, everyone has there own unique way of explaining things, there own unique insight into the standard equations and laws that regulate our world. I am a far cry from an expert, I am just relaying what my professors have taught me really. Thanks for the compliment though, it means a lot coming from you.

  50. @waldo

    wow, that's a lot of detail on entropy & thanks, but that wasn't really what i was getting at. simply put, whether the bias entropy places on how things 'tend' to go is all there is to the matter of time directionality. nature [as we experience it] occurs forward, the processes only have a phenomenological coherence forward. the prospect of a ball lifting off the ground, flying into a bat i'm unswinging backward which then accelerates into the pitcher's hand is beyond merely 'improbable'. such a prospect only has relevance in our universe as the inverse of the prospect we know.


    you seem to be saying a new alternative universe is spinning off of every permutation not taken in the quantum space. which seems, if i understand the concept, a rather profligate use of universes. the past is not, as we experience it, perhaps as indefinite as the theory of quantum physics would imply, according to your remarks. if i have eggs for breakfast, that observation will be the same no matter who reliably observes the fact.

    at any rate, for a cosmos with so many potential careening alternatives, ours seems to be tolerably consistent and isolate, however seemingly arbitrary.

    1. @RileyRampant:

      Yes others can observe you having eggs now, but what of one year from now, unless you took a picture with the date on it, just by thinking back one year hence what did I have for breakfast, probabilities come into play for the (unobserved) past that effectively changes the past, and that changes the future, from Hawking "Grand Design" The past is not real, can a person grab a hold of it in his hands? no, only fleeting or not fleeting memories that by itself may not hold all the nuances of what you think happened in the past, things may be forgotten or even added.

      And not new universes forming in the present but from the unlimited probability field that forms new universes for you every Planck second from all the choices that are offered, should I do this or that, this direction or that direction etc: that you yourself taking into consideration other interactions that form your own reality. And keep in mind the choices you did not take that were offered are still just as real and viable, they exist in alternate realities, from your picture book of snapshots, Re; "Julian Barbour" and his "End of Time" theory.

    2. I see what you wrote....the only present that is part of that comment is in the spaces between the words.
      Made me think...there is a way to think that the past and the future are the only times to exist in the mind. The present may be like a higgs...we can never grasp is sandwiched between and pushed flat like by those two plates.
      I have felt the present but i can't explain it...all i can say is, it was while holes into black holes.
      Weird? Ok...i don't mind that.

  51. interesting that multiverses provide theoretical support to :

    constant inflation
    string theory dimensional contour 'random' appearance
    dark energy value 'random' appearance

    in the sense of showing, at least, that these 'arbitrary' values might be understood as instances distributed amongst other universes

    although i didnt catch the basis for asserting that such quantities WOULD distribute randomly, merely that the incidence of multiverses would provide an OPPORTUNITY under which such a variance might occur.

    the treatment of time directionality as a mere consequence of entropy seemed incomplete. there are causal relations linking before & after which this treatment seems to neglect, unless we consider that the entropy discussion is a short-hand or abstraction, for these relations.

    most of this stuff is over my head, too. the fabric of the cosmos is wilder & woolier than most would, could, or would perhaps even choose to imagine.

    1. @RileyRampant:

      Time directionality? there is no time directionality, that is, according to Einstein theory of special relativity, that requires that all of spacetime be present at once.

      And entropy, which entropy? which reality? which universe? the one that we are apparently in? the one that we are in is flipped every Planck second by our now's, new universe, our now's that are instantly transposed into our past giving us our flow of time, our past is not even real.

      "Quantum physics tells us that no matter how thorough our observation of the present, the (unobserved) past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities.
      The universe, according to quantum physics, has no single past, or history. The fact that the past takes no definite form means that observations you make on a system in the present affect its past." (Stephen Hawking)

      "Richard Feynman" in his "sum over histories" demonstrated that subatomic particles traverse infinite paths through spacetime, implicating infinite histories for any particle, which of course means many worlds, multiiverses.

      In Brian Greenes "Elegant Universe" book... there are quilted...inflationary...Brane...Cyclic...Landscape...Quantum...Holographic...Simulated...Ultimate. (Multiverses)

    2. I agree with the idea wholeheartedly that the past has a symmetry with the future as in there are multiple pasts and futures. It makes an interesting case in religion as well, as from the standpoint that most religions involve time travelling beings, all religions can simultaneously be right and wrong.

    3. You got it exactly, entropy is the essence of those causal relationships, unless humans intervene that is. You see I can push a uphill or nonspontaneous reaction to completion and actually reduce the amount of entropy instead of increasing it. Check out the gibbs free energy equation and you will see what I mean. The catch is that after that reaction occurrs the products will eventually spontaneously decay into the lowest energy configuration, or zero point energy. This decay from a higher to a lower energy configuration is entropy and causes us to see time as moving in one direction, it also is what drives spontaneous reactions that happen in nature. Methane igniting is a great example, all one need do is provide enough energy to reach whats called activation complex and the reaction will then take off. Methane combines with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water plus about 211 joules of energy per mole of methane. Now we have turned one compound, which stored a great amount of potential energy, into two that have simpler structures and store much less potential energy that can be easily accessed, we have increased the amount of entropy in the universe. This is why you never see water and co2 spontaneously reacting to become methane, this would break the second law of thermodynamics as the atoms would be moving to a more ordered, higher energy state. The same goes for why you never see a bunch of bricks spontaneously assemble into a wall, unless some energy or force intervenes like a brick layer.

      Now, what really freaks us out is that quantum mechanics doesn't seem to follow these rules. Instead it follows the rules of probability, it is improbable that the bricks will self assemble in any reasonable amount of time, but if we could wait for billions and billions of years, the probability works out that it could happen. Feynman gave us an equation to work out that probability and it makes excellent predictions. Due to the nature of the equation, last operation is to divide by Planck's constant, the larger the object and area you are dealing with the longer you have to wait for it to exhibit quantum characteristics. If it is small as say an electron it will continuously pop in and out of existence, here then way over there. If it is say the size of a basebell it takes billions and billions of years to do the seemingly impossible, this is why we never see it. I reccommended a lecture to Jack below, it explains all of this in great detail, you should check it out.

  52. smthing i dont get , if empty space causes the two square metal plate to touch each other how can it be the principal actor causing the expansion of the univers ? isnt supposed to contract instead? is there anthing im missing here?

    1. Its not the prime motivator of expansion, dark energy is. Vaccuum energy, which is the energy that exists in all empty space, is what pushes the plates together. These are two different things. Unfortunately they don't know much about dark energy other than it must exist or gravity would have stopped/slowed expansion by now. Instead expansion is speeding up, with no apparent cause.

  53. Brilliant documentary!

    1. OI wife where you been!?

    2. Been here all the time, but quiet :)

  54. documentry is partial with higgs-boson particle...not a single word about S.Bose who was also responsible for this particle...

  55. That's bad math, Jack.

  56. But how many smithereens make up a single Quark?

  57. Watched the first hour.
    Honestly?... If you've seen a number of these kinds of docs before, you could skip the first part of this as a rehash of background material you're already bound to be only too familiar with: Billiards...Space as a taut fabric with a feckless bowling ball rounding out an aesthetic butt cheek...Little satellites of cue ball paparazzi... Boring, right? Pretty much the same old illustrations and explanations seen and heard a hundred times, because there really isn't any better way to lay it all out for the People of the Word, which is the vast majority of us. But precisely at minute 25 it started to get mighty interesting. I'm glad I stuck with it, because from that point on, even though most of the material was more or less familiar to me, they actually managed to approach it in ways I don't, for the most part, ever remember seeing before. Clear and brief, too, which I really appreciated -not overly complicated with all those tangential metaphors, which is a real risk when programs like this get rolling. The explanation for the Higgs was the best I've ever seen, for example, and I realize now I had pretty much completely the wrong idea about how it must go about doing what it does. The info here at least gave me enough to take a better swipe at it, since it's impossible for me to get a grip on it. But most especially, the section on the possibilities with information stored on the "surfaces" of Black Holes, and the extension of that concept to the entire Universe, was mind-bending and inspiring. Obviously, I'm not a scientist, but I got the impression watching this that, somehow, these deeply mysterious objects may be the real key to everything, particularly insofar as the future is concerned, and not just because of the fact they will be the last things left in the Universe, quadrillions of years from now. I got the impression, to be blunt about it, that they may be involved ultimately in keeping things going in cycles, perhaps elsewhere for the time being, and perhaps "here" in the very far future. They save information, nothing of it is ever lost, the entire Universe will eventually be swallowed up by them, so where does this information end up? Is it possible it can be "assembled" somewhere as a new Big Bang? As more than one? Are they the Trashcans of the Gods, providing ways and materials for recyclable Cosmos, or just really long-lasting vacuum cleaners that the plug is finally, irrevocably gonna be pulled on one day?

    Anyway, whatever may be the case with all that, after the typical start, this one turns out remarkably focused and succinct, and didn't leave me feeling nearly as muddleheaded as docs of this sort are prone to.

    Moving on to the second hour.

    1. @P:

      The doc was good but the book of course is many times better, goes into much, much, more detail.

    2. I didn't think black holes would be the last thing in the universe, I saw a documentary that talked about all the stars burning out and leaving these balls of carbon that radiate left over heat until finally even that energy decays due to entropy and the universe goes to absolute zero, dead. Then I saw another one that said no it will all rip to pieces because of expansion driven by dark energy and, another that says no expansion will stop and gravity will win as the universe is crushed into a singularity only to expand in a big bang again. But, I missed the theory that blck holes would swallow it all eventually, not saying it doesn't exist just that I missed it. Could you lay out the logic in more detail or offer a link please, I am curiose.

      I know of at least one paper that would disagree with that theory, you can find it arxiv dot org, which is the Cornell University library online. The paper is titled Dark Matter Accretion into Supermassive Black Holes and is specifically at arXiv. org > astro-ph > arXiv: 0802. 2041v1 (no spaces of course). It explains that less than ten percent of the accretion disk of super massive black holes can exist of dark matter, in other words black holes would have a very hard time swallowing it all, remember there is more of it than regular matter by far. The way they work this out is by measuring the x-ray emmisions and comparing that to the amount of matter being consumed, the x-rays should account for ten percent of the mass crossing the event horizon, if it is all regular matter, and thats exactly what they find. Anyay, its a good paper I think you would enjoy reading, merry xmas by the way.

    3. I believe it's in one of the docs here that it says the last thing to be going on in the Universe before the absolute heat death will be black holes emitting Hawking Radiation over trillions of years (barring the Big Rip thing, of course). Can't remember the title, but the one where the narrator is literally walking up a flight of steps one at a time while he delineates the different stages in the life-cycle of the Universe. Long, long after all those dead, regular stars finally wink out for good will just be those gravity wells syphoning off HR for eon after eon, until finally they, too, are gone.

      Fact is, now that I think about it, I'm sure I misremembered about black holes swallowing up everything, and was actually thinking about the part in the cycle in which you wouldn't even be able to see other stars in the sky because of the distances separating them, and of the inability of new stars to form because of entropy. But this is really to say, when I think about everything in the outside Universe being finally dead and finally cold, there's a part of me that wants to, I suppose, anthropomorphize the nature of black holes, making them into collective gods who have, in some way as yet unforeseen, somehow saved enough of the contents and information of the Universe to allow the Story to begin again, here later, or someplace else now. Do you remember that part about the 2 dimensional information on the surface of the black hole being capable of being rendered 3 dimensionally inside of it? And of our Universe right now potentially being the same thing, writ (or projected) large? Man, what does that really mean? For all of this talk about their ability to suck up nearly everything, including light, doesn't there seem to be a strange Looking Glass quality about them? I just have this sense that there's a whole Universe on the other side of one, and that we may, in essence, be in one right now, but I guess it's just a fantasy born out of a desire to cheat death, which is probably the oldest human story there is, right?

      I'll read that paper, but I sure don't expect to understand very much of it, lol. A few months ago I went on a Mersini-Houghton kick (she is SO sexy!) and pulled up four of her papers online. Of the four, I was able to understand anything at all of precisely one of them. Of course, never having gotten any farther than algebra and geometry, I certainly didn't expect to, but it was fun to try it anyway. I was giggling the whole time... I suppose I just kept hoping a breast would pop out somewhere. Never did English sound so much like Latin! If I thought it would do any good, I would try and advance more in mathematics, even at my age. In fact, about ten years ago I did try it, but just confirmed that I'm simply not wired for that kind of thinking. If the same information could be compressed into some type of formal musical structure, I'd probably have a real shot at understanding it a lot better.

      Hope you had a good xmas, too, Wald0.

  58. This was awesome, if you have the time ;)

  59. The Higgs field. The field that allows sub atomic particles to gain mass. The Haydon collidor has been designed specifically to smash sub atomic particles together at near the speed of light in order to find a Higgs particle / Higgs field that produces gravity.

    To be honest I think these quantum physicists need to rethink their approach.

    If the Higgs field is responsible for sub atomic particles obtaining gravity, what on Earth makes them think that they can find the Higgs field by smashing sub atomic particles together.

    It comes across as being completely silly. I'm sorry.

    However the rest of the documentary looking at space as something tangible is really quite smart and explains the creation of our universe, without using the Big Bang Theory that is fundamentally wrong.

    What gives particles their mass?

    Einstein's equation E = mcc provides the answer m = E/cc

    It has to do with the energy imparted to a quantum particle in space that then determines its mass value. This is done at the quantum level.

    There is no Higg's field. There is no god particle. And their is no field that assigns mass to a particle.

    What there is at the quantum level is a certain amount of energy that is applied to quantum particles / bundles of quantum energy that then transforms them into sub atomic particles with a known mass.

    Smashing sub atomic particles together in the Haydon Collider can never reveal the Higgs field / Higgs particle because it does not exist.

    Quantum physicists need to rethink the whole process of quantum particle creation.

    When this concept is expanded out, it explains the fundamental creation of the entire universe from empty space without a Big Bang.

    Matter is created out of empty space. Electrons and neutrons are created that then combine to form hydrogen the basic element of the universe.

    Hydrogen atoms accumulate through electrostatic forces into hydrogen clouds.

    The mass of the hydrogen clouds then warps space, resulting in a hydrogen gas ball that then begins a process of nuclear fusion becoming a sun.

    The life of the sun then produces the other atoms of the periodic table.

    The universe can NEVER run out of hydrogen atoms to create hydrogen gas clouds to anable star creation, because the very nature of space is to create quantum energy and quantum energy particles. Quantum energy particles with a mass dependent on the energy input at the quantum level.

    1. Please site all your papers in the literature on all this amazing theory.

      ....that is what I thought.

      The internet is available to anyone with a keyboard and a connection.

      BTW, the sun does not produce 'the other' heavier atoms of the periodic table other than helium, Heavier atoms require supernovae.

    2. I agree with you on all counts. I'm not a scientist, or even an amateur scientist - I'm just a hardcore science enthusiast but I have come to the same conclusion myself. I think you put it better than I would though. I just wish I had gone down the science path in Uni instead of the arts. I didn't realise until it was too late what I was missing out on. Listen up kids! Become scientists or you'll regret it! The more you learn the cooler it gets!

    3. E=mcc is not Einstein's equation. It is E=mc2. A huge difference.

      Higg's particles interact with other particles. By smashing particles together they hope to create the Higg's particle, which would be detectable, which would in turn provide evidence of the Higg's field. Scientists believe they were close, at the very limits of its capabilities, before the collider at CERN was shut down in 2000 in order for expansion. There has been indirect evidence of the Higg's particle that has been encouraging. Also the theory explains all facets of the Standard Model which other theories lack. Evidence is there that these particles exist and science must go where the evidence leads them. It would be silly not to.

      People, like myself, have a deep interest in science. However, my knowledge is limited since I do not have the education in those fields. I must trust those who have worked on these projects for years...the ones who have devoted their entire lives to the study of and the experimentation in particle physics. It would seem unlikely that scientists of different nationalities, political systems and research institutions all seem to agree that the Higg's particle exists and it can be found by colliding sub-atomic particles. I would never assume to know better than these individuals unless I had unimpeachable sources that contradict them. I happen to notice that you do not have any such sources.

    4. Actually E=M(CC) would be the same thing as E=MC2, he just forgoot the parenthesis. Also they are not hoping to create the higgs particle but to knock it loose, so to speak. The physics says it is possible to dislodge a piece of the higgs field, think of firing a bullet into water, you may knock one molecule of water loose from the rest when the bullet hits it. All you have to do is apply a force in the right vector orientation and strong enough to over come the attractive forces that hold water molecules together. At least this is how it was explained to me by my physics professor, I don't mind admitting though that the work they are doing at the LHC is way over my head.

      I can hold my own when it comes to Newtonian or Relativistic physics, but I never got far enough to really delve into quantum mechanics with much detail. Being a chemist however I have studied extensively the quantum nature of atoms and the first level sub atomic critters, electrons, protons, neutrons (electrons mostly). It is the number of protons, nuetrons, and electrons each element has that gives it its own individual characteristics and places it in a family or group. It is how electrons interact with other electrons that decides how compounds form and what structure and charateristics they will have, well that and electrical charge in general. But, that stuff doesn't tell me much about things like the higgs field or quarks, the really tiny, odd stuff.

      There is a documentary out right now, well it isn't really a documentary it is Brian Cox doing a presentation on quantum mechanics at the Royal Society lecture hall, in London. He does such a fabulous job of explaining both the Pauli exclusion principle and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, along with the wave nature of electrons, probability, etc. Its got to be one of the best lectures I have seen. You should check it out, everyone should in fact, it is called, Professor Brian Cox: A Night With the Stars. Its not only educational it's halarious at some points, a lot of comedians and actors are there helping him with his demonstrations. Merry xmas, hope you enjoy it.

    5. Now that you mention it I believe that is how it was explained in the documentary, also. I had been reading in a Fermilab site and the word "created" was used in the explanation. I have been trying to get a handle on this stuff after watching the documentary about CERN that was posted recently on this site. It is still way above my head but it is slowly becoming a little clearer. These documentaries, which prompts me to investigate further through reading material, and the insights that I get from people like yourself has been a great help.

      I found the presentation by Brian Cox that you recommended and thoroughly enjoyed it. Thank you very much and a Happy Holiday Season to you too.

    6. jack, multiplication works no matter the order of multiplication... MCC is equal to M(CC), or C(MC), or C(CM)... try it with simple numbers and see... if C equals 5, and M equals 8 M(CC)= 200... C(MC) or C(CM) both also resolve to an answer of 200....thus, E=MCC is indeed a valid mode of scribing einsteins equation, even if not altogether "correct" from an accepted notation view (one might also note that because of the shortcomings of our english keyboards, the typed version of the equation so often seen (E=MC2) is absolutely INCORRECT, as the equation reads "ee equals em cee squared", and NOT "ee equals em cee doubled", which is what the "keyboard version" would imply).... i figured actually explaining why is a bit better than just "bad math, jack".... lol

    7. You're right. All I saw was the notation and automatically assumed it to be wrong.

    8. Thats called the commutative property of multiplication.The reason I still use the parenthesis, and why is consider correct notation, is because once you introduce negative and positive intergers it can get very confusing without them. That never happens in this particular equation, due to all factors being positive numbers, but it is a habit. It also serves to emphasize that you are squaring the constant which means you are working with a quadratic equation, which becomes important when graphing fission reactions. The reason I like to see it emphasized though is because when you are explaining to someone how much energy is contained in a very small amount of mass pointing out that the speed of light is squared gives them a good impression of the huge numbers you can potentially come up with.

    9. absolutely agree, waldo, that the "correct" notation is really essential once you wander out of the realm of simple multiplication of positive numbers, and the parenthises make it a bit clearer even with the simple stuff, but i can also understand not wanting to use the popular internet chat notation, which can just serve to muddy the waters for somebody just beginning to grasp relativity (and results in much less impressive potential

    10. though i do like your theory, your math to explain your point has a fundamental flaw... though potential total energy of an atom that exists in its "particle bonds" (for lack of a better term in my lexicon, lol) is expressed very well by einsteins equation, that is all energy stored far ABOVE the quantum level... the relativity equation (and the rest of einsteins work) is based on the "tiny 3" (electrons, neutrons, protons), but none of the "subcompact models" of the quantum world...thus, your equation is just the "proof step" of einstein's, and CANT prove the "cause" of mass, unless of course carried and proven down to those miniscule scales, step by step until one arrives at a point where there are no more particles to "break down"... i also have to point out that something has to impart said energy to "get the ball rolling"(cause the first level of particle to excite into existance) and begin the various energy transfers that would result in the formation of more complex, larger particles... to illustrate, let's suppose our atom is a spinning flywheel.. einsteins equation illustrates only the energy stored in the flywheel's motion, but has no way of quantifying the energy used to produce the flywheel when it was manufactured, and gives no clue as to how the bessemer furnace was ignited for smelting the ore...

    11. Thanks for your insights. I was under the same misapprehention as Arnie and I found your explanation very clear.

  60. to infinity and beyond

  61. I like that scientists are continually debunking current scientific theory. Therefore creating more bunk.

    1. It's still better than Dogma.

  62. Great series based on a great book.

  63. ok, so here's my theory; what im about to say is not backed by any science what so ever: before the big bang, on a scale unimaginably large compared to ours, they were trying to identify the smallest particules of their univers with their unimaginably large hydron collider and created what is to us the big-bang, only to find out there was a whole periodic table of new elemental smaller particules. we are living in the particules that appear for a trillionth of their second during their experiment, but on our scale it seems like trillions of years of expantion, during which we have all the time to develop ever bigger hydron colliders, to identify smaller and smaller particules... perhaps as we identify quarks and what makes up quarks, on a scale unimaginably small compared to ours, people are identifying the elusive smallest particule, at last! :{D

    1. that sounds freakin sweet! and also would mean that all these events, getting infinitely smaller and smaller and smaller would (or has) happened almost simultaneously to the most "unimaginably large" which really makes the buddhist belief that everything has already been achieved sound really appealing.

      monkeys with typewriters man! lovely thought

  64. Amazing, am half way through Brian Greene's book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" This is a much watch!

    1. I recently watched a movie. I think it was called "The watchmen"

      I imagine "Doctor Manhattan" would be your favourite ever super hero. (Mr Quantum)

    2. You betcha!

  65. I watched this under a different name a few days ago, great series.

    1. In your alto ego within another multiverse?

  66. Awesome series.
    Awesome, no need for more words.