There are numerous other theoretical physicists who are equally brilliant. Sean's strength that distinguishes him from his peers is his oratory skill. Other theoretical physicists, who may be equally brilliant, are better kept secluded from the public because they are weird.

wcropp1 - I agree that it is sometimes annoying when scientists dismiss philosophy without understanding that science is a branch of philosophy; it used to be called "natural philosophy" as I'm sure you know. As you say, the origins of the scientific method lie in philosophy. Have you read "What is this thing called science?" by Alan Chalmers? if not then I hope you get the opportunity/time to do so as it is a wonderful exploration of how the scientific method has evolved, and the issues/problems/limitations of each type of method.

George, I won't dispute your comment but he sits at Feyman's desk. For me this says something. ;-). Seriously: I agree there are definitely brilliant physicists who are not able to make these complex topics understandable for ordinary folks like myself.

think of the universe like a cup of coffee

I totally agree!

Check out Brian Greene.

@@jayfredrickson8632 I don’t dislike Brian Green but he doesn’t compare to Sean Carroll. He just doesn’t catch my attention in the same way. Not even close.

Funny thing,Sean started out stealing Richards sack lunch’s!!

I hadn't made the comparison before, but it works. Sean is so good at keeping it real.

“If you can’t explain it to a child you don’t know it well enough.” Not sure who said that but it’s true.

@@goobytron2888 "'If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself" -Einstein. See Sean explain dimensions at three levels of difficulty which is on KZfaq to illustrate, he understands!

Dizzy Djinn yea it’s almost like it’s his job to explain things to people. Weird

Very well said indeed. When ancient Indian mathematicians, Aryabhata, Madhava, etc., discovered infinite series that was just a thought. Thinking about it gave rise to calculus when the Indians could calculate sin and tan of very small angles. The Arabs caught on the thought and improvised upon the Indian's thinking (preserved in the library at Alhambra) that were translated by Europeans, enabling/enlightening Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Euler to frame the foundations of modern science, while we extend them into the realm of multiverse and strings, quantum fields etc., and John Hagelin extends them to show how dual nature of the physical world leads to the non-duality of universal consciousness. If Descartes were alive he would have taken all these time to answer Princess Elizabeth's mind body connection.

_and John Hagelin extends them to show how dual nature of the physical world leads to the non-duality of universal consciousness_ Only one problem - there is not even a hint of a _dual nature of the physical world._

Death Valley Dazed I

Death Valley - Sarcasm re: meta-thinking is a bit misplaced. In fact many of the innovations (gps for example) of the last 100 years began as ‘pure thought experiments’ before the practical engineering possibilities were applied. Various current AI projects are based on ‘thinking about thinking’.

I was not actually being sarcastic. Sorry about not being clear. I am in awe of clear thinking people like you.

Clone36 ......yes !

Yep, a couple times

Two or three times. I live on a boulevard near a hospital, a fire station, and a fairly high-crime area... :-\

smotpoker81 I thought the police was coming to my house or something. Had to take off my earphones twice lol

maybe we're both just really high. you have to be to appreciate this kind of stuff.

Glad it's not just me.

California.

smotpoker81 - I love watching this stuff high, which I am right now. Guess I'm not the only one, the real world is mindblowing!! Those who settle for "the secret" or "spirit science", don't understand how much deeper and rebellious reality can become.

John Morris lmao... I thought pretty much the same thing.. Was like, did he have a stroke??.. Lol

Same. Not the most flattering pic. Lol

robotaholic frolic 😂😂

Same. I wrote that in my comment before I read yours!

brigham2250 I love him for everything he is 🥵💦

You are an illiterate fuckwit.

Jeanette York Chaos theory, while mathematically robust, doesn't extend as well as originally hoped, and it has weaker predictive power over the physical universe than originally hoped.

"Chaos and Order Theory" Because those words are relative. Physics does deal with causation leading to complex coagulations (that you types call "order").

was it clockwise and anticlockwise hit.

“YOU ON CRACK” Richard Feynman to SHeldon Cooper

No, he would agree with you. Feynman is dead and gone; he is prestige and reputation, and he hated those things. Carroll is trying to fill big shoes with all the aptitude and enthusiasm that he can muster. He hasn't had Feynman's impact, but he might one day.

Feyman was Feynman, Carroll is Carroll and they have both done a very good job at that and physics. We are all just dwarves standing on the shoulders ...

Interesting thing is that Carroll inherited Feynman's work desk at CalTech.

Feynman would do no such thing. Feynman would be proud for the simple reason, that Carroll would NOT be where he is without Feynman-diagrams. As Einstein said : (freely interpreted, as I cannot remember the original) 'The reason I see this far is because I stand on the shoulders of giants'

Patience. Let him work his way in order from A-theory to N-theory before demanding more.

I think it is being sucked outward by vacuum pressure from empty space beyond.

1) because if it were a byproduct of causality then it would be possible to reduce entropy within that system. 2) because there is no reason to assume otherwise. that would just be a wild guess. an assumption is not the same as a wild guess.

@@UnleashTheGreen "then it would be possible to reduce entropy within that system" the amount of energy stored in a system through action is always less than one, but the ratio of energy stored is individual in each action which is determined by the mechanics and physical form of the system. in comparison: we can measure how much energy we need to concentrate on an proton to breatk it's boundaries by knowing the strength of strong force - such value for enthropy doesn't exist. we shouldn't assume that there is a LAW that defines the general rule instead of just noting that certain things never happen. for example, we don't assume that there's a law which states that the arrow of time has to point forward - we just haven't found a way to alter it. it's the subtle approach that makes the least possible unnecessary assumptions that we usually take when we do science. "there is no reason to assume otherwise" not knowing something doesn't make it logical to assume the opposite. we should underline heavily that we still don't have a theory in which gravity works in quantum level, and yet we can be certain that in one way or another, the quantum world has to exist. this alone sets the 'fundamental' status of the fundamental forces questionable: we KNOW that the whole fundamental nature of the universe is unknown to us - from our point of view things just exist and happen and all we can do is to make measurements and make predictions of them. some things seem to be more fundamental than others, but even if some elements seem to stand behind everything else all that it really suggests is that they are _more fundamental_ than the others.

seems to me all you are saying is it is turtles all the way down, that is a position that can always be taken, after all how do we know we even really exist, we can be a dream in someone's head for all we really know. nothing can be "more fundamental" than something else, just like someone can't be more pregnant than someone else. it either is or isn't fundamental. unless there is something to suggest there is something else that is fundamental rather than the thing you are looking at, you cannot assume there is. you can guess there is but then if you guess that then you can guess any old thing. i assume you can read and have an internet connection, i can make that assumption because you are answering me, i can be wrong but there are things that suggest i am not. it could be that someone else is reading this and sending it to you by carrier pigeon, that is quite possible, but i cannot assume that, if i do i could just as easily assume god is relaying my words to you directly. we know enough to assume the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a law. that assumption may turn out to be wrong one day, but until there is something to suggest that it is not, we can't assume it is not. bottom line, we know things that make us think it is a law, we do not know things that make us think it is not. someone can show why it is a law, you cannot show why it is not, all you can say is "well it might not be". we assume based on knowledge, we guess based on ignorance.

@@UnleashTheGreen "seems that all that you are saying is turtles all the way down" seems that you think you live in a world where most of the nature is already understood. i don't mean this in the philosophical "you can never truly know" sense when i'm saying that we know barely anything about the world we live in. define me the matter, define me the energy, define me the universe, define me the reality beyond the universe, define me the existence itself. i assume that you can't. "nothing can be more fundamental" don't go cutting hairs with me please. you know that by "more fundamental" i simply ment that the existence of certain phenomenon relies on another phenomenon, which relies on another phenomenon, and so on. like you could say that quarks are more fundamental particles than atoms, and so on. but ironically you hit the bullseye there; something either is fundamental or isn't, meaning that the assumption that something is really the fundamental force of nature really cant be made simply on the argument that we don't know it to depend on anything deeper. by assuming something to be fundamental in nature, we make the assumption that it really is _fundamental;_ that there is nothing deeper than it. it's an extreme assumption made on simply the argument that we don't know of anything else. "we assume based on knowledge, we guess based on ignorance." this is just an empty aforism. the amount and quality of what we know determines how much we can reasonably assume, and that's what this is all about. "because if it were a byproduct of causality then it would be possible to reduce entropy within that system." i already showed you how this alone isn't enough for the assumption that the scientists generally make. if there's more in to this i'm all willing to listen and learn.

i gave you my thoughts, understand them as you will, i don't want to argue. if you are right there will be a nobel prize waiting for you.

Falsifiable does not mean unproven. There are many proofs for big bang. Not the origin of universe but the expansion of universe. You can go back mathematically to almost the beginning but not the actual beginning.

It seems to me that there is quite a bit wrong with the theory. Inflation theory seems like a fudge to make the data fit the observation. It is an excuses for faster that light expansion without any real evidence of logical deduction. Furthermore, the further we look into space we see the same structure. Fully formed galaxies with equal spacing to the local universe. This is not what we would expect to see if the universe were evolving.

In fact, the evidence seems to me to be more in agreement with Fred Hoyles Steady State Theory than with the big bang theory.

Not to make it any worse... but... it works with any two liquids. Or solids dissolving. Thinking about complexity and entropy is fun.

It's the other way around for me. I can't think about entropy without picturing coffee and cream mixing! :)

Life enhanced

I take it black