- #1
HomesliceMMA
- 60
- 13
Does it make sense to anyone? He says our universe is just one in a long line of prior universes. But the big bang was not so much starting from a very small area, but instead results out of a prior universe that had gotten so old that essentially it has no matter, and when there is no matter time essentially stops, and it is out of this that essentially our universe was borne, with that state at the end of the prior universe making it look like there was inflation. I'm not saying it as eloquently as he is, but something like that.
This really makes no sense to me. First of all, he says matter is at its core waves, so once there is no matter (or essentially no matter, he seems to hem on this point a bit), and waves are used to keep time. Once there is no matter, there are no waves, nothing to keep time, so there is no time. Again, something like that. But that piece of it makes no sense to me - because as wavelike as matter is, photons are at least as wavelike. Why on earth would time stop if there are still photons that act as waves? Seems very silly to me.
Then I don't get his point about the end of the prior universe looking like the beginning our our universe (complete with what looks like inflation). I mean, if his point is that our universe sprang out of prior one, I would understand that - but then theoretically many universes could have sprang from the prior universe given that our (obervable) universe seems to have started very small, presumably many other very small universes would or could have sprang out if an insanely large prior one. But he seems to be saying no, our universe is somehow a continuation of that prior one. So single universe before, single one now. But how? I just don't get the picture he is trying to describe.
Anyone follow him better than I or have thoughts?
Thanks!
This really makes no sense to me. First of all, he says matter is at its core waves, so once there is no matter (or essentially no matter, he seems to hem on this point a bit), and waves are used to keep time. Once there is no matter, there are no waves, nothing to keep time, so there is no time. Again, something like that. But that piece of it makes no sense to me - because as wavelike as matter is, photons are at least as wavelike. Why on earth would time stop if there are still photons that act as waves? Seems very silly to me.
Then I don't get his point about the end of the prior universe looking like the beginning our our universe (complete with what looks like inflation). I mean, if his point is that our universe sprang out of prior one, I would understand that - but then theoretically many universes could have sprang from the prior universe given that our (obervable) universe seems to have started very small, presumably many other very small universes would or could have sprang out if an insanely large prior one. But he seems to be saying no, our universe is somehow a continuation of that prior one. So single universe before, single one now. But how? I just don't get the picture he is trying to describe.
Anyone follow him better than I or have thoughts?
Thanks!