The LONGEST time - Numberphile

Рет қаралды 1,454,743

12 жыл бұрын

A paper by Don Page claimed to use the longest finite time ever calculated by a physicist - it's the time it will take the Universe to reset itself!?!
More links & stuff in full description below ↓↓↓
Video featuring Tony Padilla from the University of Nottingham.
Read the paper at arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9411193
NUMBERPHILE
Website: www.numberphile.com/
Numberphile on Facebook: / numberphile
Numberphile tweets: / numberphile
Subscribe: bit.ly/Numberphile_Sub
Videos by Brady Haran
Patreon: / numberphile
Brady's videos subreddit: / bradyharan
Brady's latest videos across all channels: www.bradyharanblog.com/
Sign up for (occasional) emails: eepurl.com/YdjL9
Numberphile T-Shirts: teespring.com/stores/numberphile
Other merchandise: store.dftba.com/collections/n...

Пікірлер: 3 200

@munt5010 10 жыл бұрын

love the fact that the guy just said "or whatever" in his scientifically paper :p

@tony58300 6 жыл бұрын

dude as a physicist i can tell you that at least half of physics is "or whatever"

@alansmithee419 5 жыл бұрын

@@tony58300 but isn't accuracy integral to physics? Or is this only needed in specific circumstances?

@tony58300 5 жыл бұрын

alan smithee it depends on the context. If you are measuring a universal constant you need as much precision as you can but in general, while researching on particle physics and in cosmology, a couple of orders of magnitude are not a big deal It is a different story in applied physics and engineering

@alansmithee419 5 жыл бұрын

@@tony58300 "a couple of orders of magnitude" I was expecting maybe 2, possibly even 1 significant figure. But 2 orders of magnitude? Imagine if architects did that. We'd have no buildings at all. I'm planning to go into physics so I'm sure I'll slowly get used to it.

@bautibunge737 5 жыл бұрын

@@alansmithee419 yes, I'm a physics student and it surprised me how physics is like the science of approximations. It bothered me at first, but I not only get used to it, but also got me in a lot of epistemological thinking.

@adamgray9212 5 жыл бұрын

Us plebs: e~3 Don Page, an intellectual: e~10

@mastershooter64 4 жыл бұрын

it might not be the "e" that we know of, physicists use a lot of different notations

@VivekYadav-ds8oz 3 жыл бұрын

@@mastershooter64 No it's the _e_ we know, Euler's constant. He really is being sloppy.

@purrplaysLE 3 жыл бұрын

@@VivekYadav-ds8oz To be fair, that’s basically a difference of 10^10^10^10^119.6 to 10^10^10^10^120.2

@151bar151 2 жыл бұрын

@@VivekYadav-ds8oz no, in the video Tony says the e is exponential, not Euler's number

@alienbsg 2 жыл бұрын

8:37

@jonathanbohn4805 8 жыл бұрын

"10^10^10^10^2.08 Planck times, millenia [sic], or whatever" = Strangest units I have ever seen in a paper.

@Bronek0990 7 жыл бұрын

Excuse me? Scientists use metric whatevers all the time.

@clownphabetstrongwoman7305 7 жыл бұрын

Doesn't 10^10^10^10^2.08 mean 10^2080 ? Why is it written in that weird way?

@Bronek0990 7 жыл бұрын

Alphabet Man No it doesn't. It means 10^(10^(10^(10^2,08))). That's how you're supposed to order 'nested' exponents. 10^2,08 exuals roughly 10^2, which is 100. The number would then be roughly equal to 10^(10^(10^100))=10^(10^googol) = 10^googolplex. A googolplex is roughly a lot lot more than you could fit atoms in the observable universe. And it's in the exponent. Simply put, gigantic beyond comprehension and beyond any physical use (aside from this paper). Edit: the googolplex has more digits than we estimate there are atoms in the observale universe, to put things into perspective.

@Bronek0990 7 жыл бұрын

***** I was addressing Jonathan as a joke. Sorry for the ambiguity!

@kdflsjgkfljgldf 7 жыл бұрын

clearly "whatever" is an extremely important unit. if you're not aware of its existence just get out. it solved the 4th millenial problem by binding the atoms on the carbohydrate level and injecting (insert constant here) atoms of uranium-235 into a blender.

@anitagofradump5195 5 жыл бұрын

engineers get ridiculed for e=pi=3 e=10 is next level i love it!

@iniquity7 4 жыл бұрын

I thought e=mc2 / phone can't do little 2 :(

@spaceangelmewtwo9074 4 жыл бұрын

Well, when you're an engineer, precision matters because the thing you are building will probably break if it's not built well. But if you're a theoretical physicist trying to calculate the longest finite time and the length of time is bigger than a googolplex no matter what, it really doesn't matter. With a number that big, the units don't even matter. Our minds cannot conceive of a number that big. It's not like having a precise number or even proper units is going to help put that into physical perspective, so might as well simplify a bit.

@Wyattporter 4 жыл бұрын

Super Mecha Death Christ no, E = mc2, not e = mc2

@iniquity7 4 жыл бұрын

@@Wyattporter oh ok I always thought e = mc2 but I was wrong. So it's e = mc2

@Wyattporter 4 жыл бұрын

Super Mecha Death Christ capitalization matters

@JarrettWilliams99 8 жыл бұрын

damn i wish all math was as forgiving as cosmological math.

@cyclingcycles7953 5 жыл бұрын

≈

@Spartacus547 5 жыл бұрын

{∆~Π√r2(23^e)*W×m - V*r = e*r ÷ M^2 } = Xn * W ? Did i guess right

@bryansuh1985 5 жыл бұрын

Ikr! Whats 30872764 times 491628494? 3 ofc. Its close enough

@alansmithee419 4 жыл бұрын

@@bryansuh1985 yeah, we only need to be accurate to 5o orders of magnitude! (o=10^100)

@nickjohnson8495 4 жыл бұрын

Those two numbers are so massive that rounding e up to 10 makes no difference to us human beings

@mauricioubillusmarchena6660 4 жыл бұрын

Mathematicians: "I'm not interested in approximations" Physicists: "e=10" Edit: Thanks for the likes ❤ Edit 2: the first quote is taken from the video: Trascendental Numbers from Numberphile

@adriannanad4675 4 жыл бұрын

Mathematicians: "I'm not interested in approximations" Also mathematicians: "Least square regressions"

@wizard1117 4 жыл бұрын

e^e=15.15 10^10=10,000,000,000 Its even more wrong in its application

@theseeker7194 4 жыл бұрын

It's maybe the stupidest video on any educational channel so far!

@Walczyk 4 жыл бұрын

@@wizard1117 an approximation thats useful sometimes is g=pi^2, its faster for rotational problems versus using g=10.

@mastershooter64 4 жыл бұрын

lol no dude an accurate thing would be mathematicians and physicists: we don't like approximations engineers : e=pi=3 , 3^3i = -1 lol

@purenostalgia7401 3 жыл бұрын

I have watched this an infinite number of times now and it never gets old.

@wademichalski768 Жыл бұрын

well.. is the theory correct?

@BigFatWedge Жыл бұрын

@@wademichalski768 As far as we can tell, it is. Have you found new data that procludes it?

@CanYouPeeInYourAss 10 ай бұрын

The video gets old tho...

@AgglomeratiProduzioni 8 жыл бұрын

Love how sometimes he has to be enough precise to write 2.08 instead of 2.1 (or just 2), and then he can approximate e to be 10.

@ultimateman1234 7 жыл бұрын

Yeah...it's almost like the published theoretical physicist knew what he was talking about.

@stulora3172 5 жыл бұрын

@@ultimateman1234 as far as I understand, @Zoey said exactly that: the author is right to approximate e with 10 _and_ write the highest exponent to some digits after the comma, because the effect of the latter is much bigger. To put it in numbers: approximating e with 10 leads to a factor of approx. log(e) ≈ 0.434 in the second exponent. So replacing only one e (the more significant one of them) 10^(e^(10^(10^2.08))) ≈ 10^(10^(0.43*10^(10^2.08))). This is what Zoey gets from only their first equation. replacing 2.08 with 2 yields a factor of 10^-20 at that position.

@skylardeslypere9909 4 жыл бұрын

e^e is about 15.2 or something 10^10 = 10,000,000,000

@mohammadazad8350 4 жыл бұрын

@@skylardeslypere9909 you should really know the difference between . and ,

@skylardeslypere9909 4 жыл бұрын

@@mohammadazad8350 yeah my bad, I'm in Europe so , is for decimals for us, I'll edit it

@theaveragegamer801 9 жыл бұрын

it is incredibly cool to see how passionate these people are about their study

@BrownHairL 9 жыл бұрын

7:23 it looks like a very satisfied pac-man.

@arthurthekyogre9155 4 жыл бұрын

^_)

@davidinmossy 8 жыл бұрын

So it's possible I've watched this video an infinite number of times ?

@egormatuk3786 8 жыл бұрын

yup

@NoobLord98 8 жыл бұрын

+Егор Матук Mind is now broken.

@Consul99 8 жыл бұрын

+Daves Reality No. You have watched the video possibly multiple times but not an infinite amount of times.

@jphillips4700 8 жыл бұрын

+Daves Reality well, not an "infinite" number of times because in 10^10^10^10^2.08 years you will watch it again so you would have added 1 more time therefore it wouldn't be an "infinite" number of times......wait....actually the 10^10^10^10^2.08 number is aprox. when we will repeat this universe exactly.......so you might watch it several times before that because the universe doesn't have to repeat itself EXACTLY for you just to exist and watch this video a re-occurrence might occur where the only difference is that on Sept. 4 1998 you put splenda in your coffee instead of real sugar and that was the only difference in your existence compared to the one now......but wait....that might actually set in motion a chain of events prohibiting you from watching this.....dude STFU your breaking my brain.....

@MrTFG 8 жыл бұрын

Theoretically, if the universe and everything outside the universe lasts forever, then we would watch it an infinite number of times, just as we would do anything else an infinite number of times, even things we haven't done before we would do an infinite number of times. But seeing as how we can't remember anything before our birth or foresee anything after our deaths, we could never prove it.

@epicface94 9 жыл бұрын

This is great stuff! A wierd thought comes to my mind, as you die, your consciousness is erased, that means you no longer observe the universe in any sense because you simply no longer exist in it. Like a sort of extreme sleep, maybe... And if what this video's about is real then, as your vision fades from you dying, you'd instantly be back at the point where it all started, your birth. because this vast amount of time that will pass between you #1 dying and you #2 being born will be skipped like you skip about 8 hours every night...

@LetsPlayStarBound 9 жыл бұрын

***** Except about 98% of the atoms in our bodies get replaced every year, but you still "have the same perception", so that is not really a valid argument.

@vdizhoor 9 жыл бұрын

***** Well, the _exact_ information (if there is such a thing) may be lost, but there is a lot of redundancy in the system. even if you omit a few atoms from each neuron, or misplace them by a minuscule amount, the neuron is functionally the same. or if you miss a few atoms from the soles of my feet - also not a problem. Given how much we recycle our components on a daily basis, the reorganization of matter does not change us from being who we are. Our memories and personalities are still continuous.

@EyMeng 9 жыл бұрын

***** i wonder if this number takes consciousness and its effect on randomness into account.

@EyMeng 9 жыл бұрын

then it would seem that nothing is random. yet I still think that consciousness is not simply the product of chemical combinations, that a thought can't be so easily reduced, and i am not sure that this number takes that into account. i think that this number assumes that conscious decisions are based on specific orientations of matter

@TaiFerret 9 жыл бұрын

After you die, you'll come back as a Boltzmann brain.

@CaptainPicardDay 9 жыл бұрын

The coolest thing about this topic is being able to fully understand what it means not only in terms of math but it's effects towards the rest of reality. It's brilliant.

@rachit1168 7 жыл бұрын

5:48 i see what you did there

@marttielvisto3519 7 жыл бұрын

@geomochi4904 5 жыл бұрын

@dt9327 4 жыл бұрын

This reply has been typed approximately 10^10^10^10^2.08 years ago.

@norwegianviking69 8 жыл бұрын

Great! I missed an episode of Mythbusters. Now I know that another version of me can catch up in 10^10^10^10^2,08 years-1 week. Swell!

@MABfan11 4 жыл бұрын

or you could just watch it on the internet

@RonMadYTP 8 жыл бұрын

A better example of this amount of time is how long before Half-Life 3 comes out

@insomnia20422 8 жыл бұрын

+Ron Mad there will be in fact even a Half Life 4 before there will be a HL 3, thats proven by the video above

@Fabelaz 7 жыл бұрын

I'd say, that's the time before next game in the Half Life series comes out, whatever the name of it would be. (probably just Half Life)

@QuarioQuario54321 7 жыл бұрын

It's coming in 2018 in 5 parts, each released@45-day intervals starting on January 1, &the final final boss will B in Half Life 4 released on Thanksgiving of that year. The real end of the story'll B in 3.5, some time in 2019. So U'll've 2 wait 3 years.

@arnoldinho.mp4 7 жыл бұрын

Fabelaz Nyan just give up. It will NEVER happen.

@tablechums4627 7 жыл бұрын

Hello, Pooper

@wildgeier 2 жыл бұрын

He is so precise about the 2.08 because changing the the 2.08 in the exponent to 2.07 changes the number a lot more than changing the lower base or second base from e to 10. The exponent just eats up the factor: 10^10^10 = (e^2.3)^10^10 = e^(2.3 x 10^10) = e^10^10.36

@MiccaPhone Жыл бұрын

yes, and that's also why the time unit (millennia, planck times or whatever) is so insignificant.

@CoreGamerPlus 9 жыл бұрын

Just had a weird realization that sometime ... years from now or ... years ago I was sitting in this exact chair, typing this exact comment, thinking about my past or future self. The universe truly is an amazing place. :)

@FallofDarkness55-Resurrected 9 жыл бұрын

Eternal recurrence!

@sidewaysfcs0718 9 жыл бұрын

***** not actually implied at all in this video, all the video says is that 1 state can be repeated, it does NOT say that several states will always be repeated in the same order a state is just the exact position of every single particle in this moment in time, this "could" repeat itself, but then a second later a completely different state might happen, that is different from what will happen a second from now.

@joemuis23 9 жыл бұрын

sidewaysfcs0718 but after a really long time wouldn't a universe exactly like this one repeat?

@FallofDarkness55-Resurrected 9 жыл бұрын

BlackJoe23 yes sir it would. it's bizarre to think nothing happened before the universe and that there will be nothing after the universe. There has to be an infinitely recurring universe after an infinite amount of time.

@joemuis23 9 жыл бұрын

***** its kind of hard for me to think the universe just "exists"

@caleborg5688 4 жыл бұрын

I love how Numberphile video titles at first glance seem to be clickbaity, but are 100% of the time, totally legit and not clickbaity at all.

@HarhaMedia 9 жыл бұрын

So eventually after I've died I'll just respawn and live exactly same life as I'm living now and post this very same message right here at this time? Well that's convenient to know in some weird way, I guess...

@Psychentist 9 жыл бұрын

But between now and then, there are an unimaginably large number of variations. So before you live the same life, you have to live billions of different lives, first. So, not really convenient. But it gives a special light to deja vu, doesn't it?

@Ambidexgame 9 жыл бұрын

Psychentist I'm worried about those variations. It would mean that we will reach unimaginable heights in our next lives but also die painful deaths in many others before reliving our present lives.

@leftylizardoflogic3951 9 жыл бұрын

Psychentist So wait does that prove reincarnation is true?

@Crazylom 4 жыл бұрын

With infinite space containing matter , it's basically a multiverse

@murdererbros 2 жыл бұрын

Nietzsche came with the idea firstly 👀

@TheMilwaukeeProtocol 9 жыл бұрын

10:34-10:39 "There's no device, no observer, or anything that could survive this length of time..." And that's why we apply maths, yeah? :-D -signed, an English major P.S. I love his enthusiasm. In fact, I love the upbeat attitudes of many astrophysicists. So many people get morose when they talk about the universe, and I don't see why this field of study calls for bad attitudes. I think all of space and all of these things we don't know that we don't know is fantastic. They're an invitation to do perpetually more.

@hansarvidnaustheller2077 9 жыл бұрын

Billy Joel brought me here.

@numberphile 9 жыл бұрын

Hans Arvid Naustheller that was more than we hoped for!

@andrewxc1335 8 жыл бұрын

+Hans Arvid Naustheller How? Did he mention it in a concert...?

@slayersdragon6129 8 жыл бұрын

+andrewxc1335 I think so............

@secularmonk5176 8 жыл бұрын

+andrewxc1335 Google "Billy Joel longest time"

@andrewxc1335 8 жыл бұрын

Len Arends Booooo. :)

@RedsBoneStuff 9 жыл бұрын

I don't think a specific volume of the universe can ever return to its original state! The universe is not like just any volume - it is expanding. You can't return to the same *state*, because you can't return to the same *size*. You could apply the theory to small systems, like our solar system. But the expansion of the universe is accelerating, eventually it will be fast enough to pull the solar system apart, then pull the Moon away from the Earth, and finally it will be strong enough to pull electrons away from the atoms they belong to.

@anitatromp6295 7 жыл бұрын

Yes but through quantum fluctuations it could start again, just in a different l;location.

@tangerian319 7 жыл бұрын

I was going to say something allong those lines, but what governs the EXPANSION of space? what if the paper states that even the expansion of space will reset?

@gpt-jcommentbot4759 3 жыл бұрын

What hes saying is that due to quantum fluctuations randomly appearing, or how electrons can "quantum tunnel", in theory, this could be true after a very long amount of time.

@ffggddss 7 жыл бұрын

For a more level comparison of those two vastly huge numbers, they can both be written with the same "nesting order" as: 10^(10^(10^(10^2.08))) and 10^(10^(10^(10^12.589))) because 10¹·¹ ≈ 12.589 Or, 10^(10^(10^120)) and 10^(10^(10^3,884,000,000,000))

@pianoss4376 4 жыл бұрын

10^1.1=12.58925411794167210423954106395800606093617409466931069107923019526647615782502024121050966275946170388690602325144909383663361386688577362221605929121253766329865785786669766592263268143684956690543809568407485907313428057721650276349659138969652018411069690309268037392021958262623549989801429652723948576490203031153755165484463487403816229910418138451204765434440635127890332673395303083518616798660923435095205612111962976028980370547730402869231190398406496933287777720054801135127728791015971251381652394390．．．

@anishkrishnan9698 3 жыл бұрын

Vastly different numbers, but both still unimaginably long periods of time

@ffggddss 3 жыл бұрын

@@anishkrishnan9698 Let's just say that either one is longer than anyone has ever had to wait in line at the DMV. As is their difference. Fred

@MathHacker42 9 жыл бұрын

I think the care for precision in the final exponent but not in the lower ones is entirely justified, because the lower ones have practically no effect on that final exponent. Let's just look at the top e for the one with a final exponent of 1.1: e^(10^(10^1.1))=10^(0.43*10^(13))=10^(10^(13-0.37))=10^(10^(12.64))=10^(10^(10^1.1) Changing the other e's will have an even less appreciable effect.

@BlueCosmology 11 жыл бұрын

The reason he's precise about the 2.08 is because in a 'power chain' the power at the top of the chain has a much much larger effect on it than anything else. 10^10^10^2.08 is almost identical to even around 1000^1000^10^2.08, but it's very very different to 10^10^10^2.09

@lammy3055 7 жыл бұрын

I love when a math or physics problem uses such exciting numbers that e and 10 might as well be the same thing.

@VolkovKomm 7 жыл бұрын

2:20 I believe "[INAUDIBLE] space" was actually "phase space"

@MrOlly218 11 жыл бұрын

Brady haran has single handedly improved my studying through the channels he has made, a true legend

@derLeon16 10 жыл бұрын

the longest time is waiting for a woman in the bathroom

@TykoBrian7 7 жыл бұрын

@whatisthis2809 4 жыл бұрын

or on the phone

@mikikiki 8 жыл бұрын

Aaaaaah. This is where deja vu comes from.

@Guy-vq3qj 8 жыл бұрын

this is my favorite comment

@adulthumanfemale8666 7 жыл бұрын

Brilliant!

@joshjeggs 7 жыл бұрын

Not really because it is a full representation of what happened before e.g you slipped up and dropped in a pile of sh**. after that time the same thing will happen including what is in your brain so you won't think it's deja vu. Its complete nonsense but that is the inference of the theorem

@tinpot1978 7 жыл бұрын

+Josh Jeggs Gosh, I bet you're fun at parties!

@General12th 7 жыл бұрын

+Josh Jeggs The joke. Your head.

@vinodkumar-wm3oq 5 жыл бұрын

The number of particles, the amount of energy, the available space and the time given initially defines how complex the universe can get.

@sovietsandvich8443 8 жыл бұрын

This was an awesome video, nice job!

@psbbianforlife 5 жыл бұрын

*watches video* Entropy: AM I A JOKE TO YOU?

@wurttmapper2200 4 жыл бұрын

Over large scales of time, entropy can decrease because SLT can be violated if enough time passes

@sapiensesciencecerveau2523 3 жыл бұрын

The answer is given at ~2mn mark. Even in the highest entropy state, so long as there is random motion happening in the system, there will always be local fluctuations of entropy, and at ridiculously large time scale, a low entropy state could emerge from this randomness.

@ineednochannelyoutube5384 3 жыл бұрын

@@sapiensesciencecerveau2523 That is a baseless assumption I would say. At the lowest possible entropy state no gradient of any kind exists, therefore nothing remains to drive change. Time stops so to speak, if you accept that time is representative of the rate of change in the system. And obviously with time stood still, you will never actually arrive at that low probability state. Now I am not familiar enough with quantum physics to know if they can still induce change in a totally homogenous infinite closed system, and if the rate of such ex nihilo entalpy would be sufficient to overcome the spontaneous growth of entropy.

@sapiensesciencecerveau2523 3 жыл бұрын

@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 Heisenberg's uncertainty principle prevents quantum fluctuations to stop, making 0K never ever achievable. I'm not a physicist and my quantum mechanics courses are far behind me, but last time I checked this principle is nowhere near to be proven wrong. My assumption was based on pure theory and virtually impossible to ever be observed by our kind... But yet as long as time flows and quantum fields fluctuates through an infinite time, entropy should fluctuate to any possible level at any scale and location at some point in time. As far as I know, nothing in the current laws of physics prevents something as big as the spawning of a new universe out of randomness.

@ineednochannelyoutube5384 3 жыл бұрын

@@sapiensesciencecerveau2523 The question then I suppose is weather time is indeed intrinsically linked to entropy, and rate of change within a system, or it os merely an artefact of it by which we measure. I would like to add, that a system need not be at 0 internal energy, 0K as you put it, in order for it to be at maximum entropy, but as I understand that would result in quantum physics more or less making anything possible on a long enough timeline?

@Lord_Skeptic 4 жыл бұрын

If you want to save time those numbers can be written as E2.08#4 E1.1#5

@smallw1991 4 ай бұрын

Engineers: We should round pi to 3.1 to save time! Physicists: e basically means 10, or something.

@optimusimperat 8 жыл бұрын

entropy is always mentioned. how do they calculate the entropy of something? more specifically, for example, in the T-s diagram of water, how do they determine experimentally/calculate the values of S at a specific state of water? can you make a video of that?

@andrewsauer2729 10 жыл бұрын

All this is under the assumption that space is finite.

@angelmendez-rivera351 5 жыл бұрын

andrew sauer The observable universe is finite indeed. This is not an assumption. This is a fact.

@Chivista54 11 жыл бұрын

This video, like all of the videos on Numberphile, is very well done, terribly interesting and informative, and just simply awesome. That being said, I am not above admitting that since I saw the title, I've had an almost irresistible urge to sing the Billy Joel song. I can't believe they didn't have it playing at some point.

@Dirtyswrath 5 жыл бұрын

From my hometown edmonton! awesome work coming out of the university of alberta

@themrmustazz 7 жыл бұрын

The closest Nietzsche can ever get to the Eternal return

@eskimoprime09 11 жыл бұрын

I imagine some person (theoretical) watching this universe change, and it gets REALLY close to fully repeating itself, except one kid somewhere tripped down the stairs, and the observer is like IT WAS SO CLOSE!!! >.

@stussymishka 6 жыл бұрын

this is my all time favorite numberphile vid

@TheOriginalMaxGForce 2 жыл бұрын

There is no period of time longer than waiting for an elevator when you're in urgent need of a bathroom.

@MiccaPhone Жыл бұрын

The context matters.

@CorruptPianist 3 жыл бұрын

The longest time was actually first calculated by physicist William Joel, and was described as the length of time since which he had last experienced love.

@rebusd 2 жыл бұрын

It took me a few seconds to get it lol

@CorruptPianist 2 жыл бұрын

@@rebusd Ngl man, a year later it took me a second to remember the joke too 😅

@Fightclub1995 9 жыл бұрын

just approximate the tens as twenties, like he does with e, and voila you have calculated a bigger time.

@YtubeUserr 8 жыл бұрын

+Fightclub1995 You have calculated a bigger number but not a bigger time units

@ineednochannelyoutube5384 3 жыл бұрын

The whole model is so inaccurate that such an approximation ultimately doesnt matter regarding the accuracy of the result.

@mixnewton5157 2 жыл бұрын

@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 actually, the number is so vast that such approximation won't largely affect the "representation" of the number

@ball730178 11 жыл бұрын

I had a massive déjà vu while watching this video. Not even the repeated scene. I'm so spooked.

@wallywutsizface6346 3 жыл бұрын

The whole thing about heat death not actually being the end of the universe is kind of comforting to me

@Deedlit11 10 жыл бұрын

It's actually much bigger than what you got. The number has more than 10^10^10^12.5 digits, and if you divide it by the number of letters that will fit in the universe (about 10^29) that winds up having basically zero effect on an exponential tower of length 4 or more, so you will need more than 10^10^10^12.5 universes to write out 10^10^10^10^10^1.1

@mattchrets 8 жыл бұрын

So does this mean that everything has already happened an infinite amount of times and will happen again an infinite amount of times over basically an infinite amount of time?

@vladbogachov0201 8 жыл бұрын

+Matthieu Chretien If our Universe is part of an infinitely repeating cycle model then yes.

@swagmonee5699 8 жыл бұрын

Well there can't be a negative universe I don't think, so there is a finite number of universes before ours but it's possibly a huge number or this might be the first one. But there is an infinite amount of times it will restart.

@bautibunge737 5 жыл бұрын

I think the author of the paper taked loots of liberties in writing this paper. Im not a phd, but I don't think you could apply the theory taking in count the accelerating expansion of the universe, or the fact that the observable universe is not a system in equilibrium (nor a closed one, as the cosmological horizon is shrinking I think)

@KaizokuKevin 7 жыл бұрын

Cant wait to tell my professor "Dont worry i just approximated, in the grand scheme of things its virtually the same thing"

@nevenification 9 жыл бұрын

Omg what a great idea! THANK YOU!!!

@sjg4388 8 жыл бұрын

So Buddha was right. I should go to temple now.

@cheesebombjalapeno 7 жыл бұрын

미친놈 ㅋㅋㅋ

@joshjeggs 7 жыл бұрын

Technically Buddha wasn't right because the atoms just arranged themselves for you to think Buddha was right. lol its complete nonsense but that is the inference of the presupposition

@ultimateman1234 7 жыл бұрын

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

@SweetHyunho 6 жыл бұрын

They said its history is limited by the amount of entropy, but not that history must go in cycles.

@alexwang982 6 жыл бұрын

pjohnston Or more than 2 Times a day, if you count plank times

@realeques 10 жыл бұрын

So...If its true what they say, there will also be a state where ill marry jessica alba ? seems legit.

7 жыл бұрын

how high are u?

@sciblastofficial9833 7 жыл бұрын

João Victor Pacífico 155 cm

@ambertheunderwearknight8370 6 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the vid numberphile! Ill be exploring this topic for my IB math IA seems extremely interesting and I look forward to delving deep and researching more into it!

@stephenlaw8451 5 жыл бұрын

So is this poincare conjecture also imply that, if we dissolved a cube of sugar in a cup of coffee, and stirred that cup for liquid for 10^n years, where n=10^10^10^10^on and on, we'd eventually get back our cube of sugar?

@borhom1999 9 жыл бұрын

Does that mean that pi will eventually repeat itself?

@critical6798 5 жыл бұрын

No. It has infinite free space

@angelmendez-rivera351 5 жыл бұрын

No, it does not. Numbers are not objects of the universe.

@thehiddenninja3428 5 жыл бұрын

It will repeat the first googolplex digits, a googolplex number of times, however. But I don't know if it will ever repeat the first n digits, starting from the nth place

@RodelIturalde 4 жыл бұрын

@C R repeating usually means that there is a pattern which comes back with some cycles. Having the combination 123456789 come back over and over again in pi, but without any recognizable pattern doesn't mean the number repeat itself.

@mixnewton5157 2 жыл бұрын

@@thehiddenninja3428 i think it will repeat first googolplex number 10^10^10^10^2.08 times

@ElCastinho 9 жыл бұрын

Well shit. Now I'm interested in the Gramham's number. I'll never get off this vicious cycle!

@smoorej 2 жыл бұрын

The fact that he starts with “let’s just write it down” means it may be big, but it’s definitely not in Graham, tree(3) or Rayo territory.

@matzehero3371 9 жыл бұрын

I dont quite unterstand this, help me please. I get that Theres an (arguably) finite amount of positions everything can have but its not like the atoms are moving randomly, is it? There are physical laws that say how the particles have to go so it doesnt have to be the way it is right now in that big amount of time, does it? The odds would be high if everything was real random but thats not the case in our universe. Please correct me if im wrong and/or tell me what im missing out

@zerocalvin 8 жыл бұрын

so basically that paper explain time is circular.... now i wonder, how many times the universe has restarted it self...

@andrewrodriguez8007 8 жыл бұрын

That's a question no one will ever know

@andrewrodriguez8007 8 жыл бұрын

The answer to

@McNibbler 8 жыл бұрын

maybe there just never was a beginning

@EmilioKolomenski 8 жыл бұрын

+Calvin Zero Sorry to burst the bubble but the paper assumes that time is cyclic, then estimates a recurrence time. In the video it's explained that some quantum effects will totally make that cycle more wibbly wobbly.

@samwoodfield7332 6 жыл бұрын

Calvin Zero The answer to your question is how many corners does a circle have

@jpmmm333 10 жыл бұрын

see you again in 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 2.08 years.

@mtg_4606 3 жыл бұрын

idk why i am saying this to a 7 year old comment but please use ^

@jpmmm333 3 жыл бұрын

@@mtg_4606 it's the same thing

@shiptastic 4 жыл бұрын

I understand the finite argument that eventually everything will happen in a finite amount of time even exact repititions. I would like to know that using the argument that finite change can happen at any time, isnt there an equal chance that it won't. IE picture that moment at the right before the universal Royal flush there is an equal chance you dont get a royal flush. Thank you

@alexwansss 6 жыл бұрын

If you said goodbye to me tonight There would still be numbers left to write What else could I do I'm so inspired by you That hasn't happened for the longest time

@cyanidegaming2599 8 жыл бұрын

Which is equivalent to 10 double arrow 4 in knuth notation to the power of 1.1.

@colw321gaming2 8 жыл бұрын

@ChrisBandyJazz 8 жыл бұрын

No because there are FIVE 10s in the power tower, not four. But because of the 1.1, we can't use Knuth notation. The 1.1 is not the exponent of the tower of 10s-it's the exponent of only the HIGHEST 10. In other words, you have to solve this from the top to the bottom.

@tupactheory3739 7 жыл бұрын

"power tower" is just about the best name I've ever heard for something like that. I don't care if it's the official name for something like that or not, I'm using it.

@Plancksized 8 жыл бұрын

what about heat death though? like there has to be a point in the universe's lifetime at which all existing energy is evenly distributed, thereby halting all motion for the rest of time (according to the second law of thermodynamics)... right? so I guess basically what I'm trying to ask (assuming that the universe will follow the cycle of morphing in and out of empty, black hole ridden space) is whether or not there will be an end to this process at some point? sorry for the crappy sentence structure lol

@gyrofield9963 8 жыл бұрын

But sure that's a lot of time needed for that to happen.

@secularmonk5176 8 жыл бұрын

+Andrew Gulbransen But remember that a quantum fluctuation can start the whole process of inflation and creation over again. Just to be clear, a single repeated creation event wouldn't be enough to achieve recurrence of our circumstances, since the laws of physics can be scrambled each time there is a fluctuation. But since there are a finite number of states for the laws of physics, after a ludicrous amount of time, our universe recurs. The number in the paper is just ballparking it.

@Plancksized 8 жыл бұрын

+2sheol theoretically, those universes already exist in the multiverse. so if you don't mind Im gonna one-up you a little. if there are infinite universes in the multiverse each with varying degrees of differentiating physical laws, assuming enough time has passed, (a pretty big assumption to be honest) isn't it more than likely that one universe has found a way to explore other universes? and if one universe has achieved trans-universal exploration, that probably means an infinite amount of different universes must have done the same. by slightly stretching that same logic, our universe must have some trans universal aliens hiding out somewhere in the cosmos. basically, we are left with at least 3 possibilities: a) under no circumstances will trans universal exploration ever be possible b) the multiverse as previously described simply doesn't exist c) there are trans universal aliens living among us feel free to correct any flaws in my logic it's just something to think about :)

@barrianic4 4 ай бұрын

the reason that they aproximate e with 10 is because power towers don't need very much precision as it grows so fast

@dude157 9 жыл бұрын

While it's unimaginable how long this time scale is. It's incomprehensible and unfathomable how tiny this number is compared to Graham's number. And when I say incomprehensible and unfathomable, I literally cannot begin to fathom any way of giving you an intuitive feeling of how small it is in comparison. I myself can't conceive of how much smaller it is. A size comparison between the plank length and the observable universe is less than negligible to the difference between this time scale and Graham's number.

@musicmixxer9815 9 жыл бұрын

Wouldn't a poincare recurrence reduce violate the second law of thermodynamics? If something went back to a state that it was in before, it would decrease max entropy. Clarification please?

@MrJixies 9 жыл бұрын

The second law of thermodynamics is one of statistics it is not an absolute law.

@musicmixxer9815 9 жыл бұрын

MrJixies Oh ok. Thank you!

@radiantsewerrat1987 6 жыл бұрын

Well from my understanding, it would be like there would be no observers to see this happen. And if you can't observer the law being violated, then the law isn't violated. Everything is still consistent with observations, it's just that by the time you get to the point of a being making observations, the universe is already increasing entropy again.

@cyperium 5 жыл бұрын

Perhaps given enough time any law can be bypassed, just by being a perverse amount of time.

@angelmendez-rivera351 5 жыл бұрын

The second law of thermodynamics, contrary to popular belief, does not quite hold once you begin to consider relativistic quantum field theory at either very cold temperatures, or very large speeds, or dramatic size scales, big or small. The law of thermodynamics is an artifact of classical thermodynamics. And in reality, there is no proof that entropy cannot increase. It's just that we haven't really observed situations in which it decreases. But there is nothing problematic about violating it.

@samuelcheng135 9 жыл бұрын

did anyone notice the repeat at 5:46? The one who edited this vid definitely did that on purpose LOL. I lost my shit after that.

@LetsPlayStarBound 9 жыл бұрын

No, I certainly did not notice any sort of a repeat. You must be imagining things. */s*

@klungusxyz 9 жыл бұрын

He said "You and I are gonna film this again twice."

@awsomebot1 9 жыл бұрын

Angel Knight /s is for sarcasm

@yan-qu5zm 7 жыл бұрын

Arseboth lol kappa

@dogf421 10 ай бұрын

imagine dying and you see "respawning in [that number]"

@wileecoyote4116 8 жыл бұрын

still do not understand why Planck/millennia doesnt matter? is the number so huge that it would be the same exact number whether you measure it with seconds/years/millions of years? Im trying to visualize it and im having a rough time understanding how something as radical as a unit of planck time vs a millennium could ever run together. Would I be accurate in thinking of it this way: assume there was a unit of measurement that was 11.999 inches, if this unit represents planck time and 1ft equals a millennium and I were trying to measure a mile, the outcome would be so close the difference is negligible? Is this the best way to try and understand?

@ahicantsee 8 жыл бұрын

The Poincare recurrence time only applies to systems of particles that don't change over time. Using the gas bouncing around in a box demonstration, imagine that you set fire to the gas as it was bouncing around. Those gas particles would be forever changed; even after these truly enormous time periods, those gas particles would never revert to their pre-burned state - to say that they eventually would is to disregard one of the most important consequences of thermodynamics. Like the burning gas in the box, our universe is slowly changing over time, and cannot revert back to its initial state. No, we have never been here before, and we certainly won't be returning here ever again. After the universe has run out of Gibbs energy, and is at that bleak, boring, maximum entropy point the gentleman in the video makes reference to - only then can we use the Poincare recurrence time, because all of the particles in the universe will persist unchanged from that point onwards.

@General12th 8 жыл бұрын

+Mark Richardson Except, the Universe will never exist in an unchanging state. It will always grow, particles will always decay, and events will always happen, no matter how far ahead you look. So it's equally valid to say that there will NEVER be a recurrence. Googals of years from now, thermodynamics will still hold, and energy will still flow downward. We simply can't reach that state in the Universe.

@FirstNameLastName-tc2ok 7 жыл бұрын

Mark Richardson thank you!!! This is exactley what I was thinking! What is all this nonsense of the universe being re birthed Bering stated as though it's a fact?

@avinashreji60 6 жыл бұрын

J.J. Shank what are you talking about? In a googol the universe will have reached maximum entropy

@garrettjohnson9700 6 жыл бұрын

Mark Richardson Actually, through quantum fluctuations, poincare recurrence can occur.

@ryry20002 10 жыл бұрын

So Sid from Toy Story became a physicist.

@LiamJamesFitch 7 жыл бұрын

Ryan Notyourbusiness well he seems like a very kind person. Not very nice of you to say that.

@TheNickBasso 7 жыл бұрын

Lol this is why I thought I had seen this guy before 😂😂😂

@Krom5072 5 ай бұрын

I'm still waiting on sequels for this video: "The FASTEST speed", "The LARGEST volume", "The HEAVIEST mass". I assume it takes 10^10^10^10^10^1.1 seconds (or whatever) to film those.

@PTNLemay 11 жыл бұрын

"All of this has happened before. And all this will happen again."

@sixthSigmaSnowball 10 жыл бұрын

Screw Godot; let's go home!

@hummanuhblubberrumma 10 жыл бұрын

Wouldn't the universe have to be contained for this to work?

@sicklymoonlight 5 жыл бұрын

The universe _is_ contained, and has a specific boundary. However we cannot reach this point because we would need a spaceship that warps fast enough or travels faster than light is.

@bautibunge737 5 жыл бұрын

@@sicklymoonlightbut if im right, something in the boundary of the observable universe can actually pass throw the cosmological horizon, so it would get out of our observable universe

@sicklymoonlight 5 жыл бұрын

@@bautibunge737 Yeah, and we won't be able to see it. also *through

@wurttmapper2200 4 жыл бұрын

He is talking about the observable universe, not the entire universe

@99hourvideos 9 жыл бұрын

Checking in from Edmonton's neighbor, Calgary Alberta here!!

@uuu12343 7 жыл бұрын

The whole thermalizing and being part of the recurrence sounds like a concept out of kamisama no inai nichiyoubi or indeed, the other way around

@Lucifers-Stepdad 9 жыл бұрын

No wonder we don't remember our last lives. It was fucking ages ago.

@handtomouth4690 9 жыл бұрын

BleedingLlama Is that also a reason that every now and then when people dream they see things that happen the next day? People dismiss this as "deja vu", but with this new info, it could possibly be your subconscious remembering what is going to happen. Interesting, same thing with fortune tellers, maybe they can tap in to previous lives to see what is going to happen?

@stashdsouza4602 7 жыл бұрын

How can things go back to a state of low entropy?

@TaiFerret 7 жыл бұрын

Through quantum fluctuations, I think.

@tupactheory3739 7 жыл бұрын

CAN'T YOU SEE THE JOY OF LIFE IS RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES? INFINITE BLISS, INFINITE LOVE TAKE A CHANCE, CLOSE YOUR EYES AND JUST DREAM Okay I'm sorry

@MrCheeze 7 жыл бұрын

The second law of thermodynamics is a statement about what is probable, not what is possible.

@andrewduck8306 5 жыл бұрын

Probability. It's much less likely to happen, but freak accidents still do happen.

@musicnice10 11 жыл бұрын

3:06 "What it is is is its an ensemble of average..." the fact that so many 'is's strung together while still making sense cracks me up.

@IsLikeThat 11 жыл бұрын

Search for this version of the video on youtube, it shows the key section and is only about 8 minutes long. "The illusion of time : past, present and future all exist together" When you realize the absolute fact that time is just a static field that we somehow move through, it logically means that certain implications must be true. Very interesting implications that involve consciousness and other big questions come to be apparent & obviously true.

@JustAGiraffe 6 жыл бұрын

♪ *_WHoooooaoaoaaAAAOoOOOOOhhh_* ♫ ♫ *_For the 10^10^10^10^10^1.1_* ♪

@MrZitrone77 10 жыл бұрын

"Graham's number is the daddy, right?" - Tony Padilla, 18.07.2012

@MABfan11 4 жыл бұрын

*Rayo's Number has entered the chat*

@redjr242 9 жыл бұрын

This helps you realize how incomprehensibly large Graham's Number is.

@natefellows5783 8 жыл бұрын

I've probably missed this at some point or I'm missing something else, but why the brown paper?

@shmurdy 9 жыл бұрын

so if this were true, than theoratically speaking, time travel IS possible. think about it, its proven that you can move forward in time, but not backwards. if you were to somehow move at the speed of light with enough energy to go 10^10^10^10^2.8 - 2000 years, then you can basically use your "futuristic" knowledge and take over the world or do whatever you want. the thing with time travel is people think its impossible to go back because time paradoxes, but this is basically a parallel universe because our universe doesn't exist anymore. that way in the new time line you can do what you want and screw with the time line as much as you want leading to even more messed up time lines. many people say that if time travel backwards is possible, than where are the tourists from the future? the answer is 10^10^10^10^2.8 years in the future observing our universe repeat itself. for all we know me might not even be the first universe, the illuminati could be a secret organization from the past with insane technology that came to our timeline for ultimate world domination... then again this theory could just be bullshit...

@deathab0ve 9 жыл бұрын

Not exactly. For the repeat all matter must reach a state of equilibrium and if you are doing anything or you exist then the repeat can't begin.

@shmurdy 9 жыл бұрын

Mike Sico oh true point lol. i was sorta kidding with the concept but ya i guess you sorta proved a flaw in my explanation.

@AdrianSanchezq 9 жыл бұрын

Minimu5e And technically, you wouldn't be traveling backwards, you would be going forward so far that everything is repeating. But yeah is true, while you exist, the repeat cant begin. Also the universe is expanding very fast, so this is unlikely to happen. The heat death universe would be first, and then there wouldn't be any free energy for everything to repear again.

@caughtexception611 9 жыл бұрын

They proved time goes in both directions (on a quantum level)

@ninjardisbest332 9 жыл бұрын

Adrian Sanchez didn't this happen on futurama once

@AbnormalBanana1234 9 жыл бұрын

So what your saying is that when i die, i will wait that number of years or whatever for that moment to happen again...but will it be my consiousness in that body? Reminds me of that episode of Futurama....

@TomGuimberteau 9 жыл бұрын

I was thinking of the exact same thing XD u know the one where they keep going forward in time reach the wnd of the universe and it restarts

@m3l3ca 9 жыл бұрын

SocraticWerewolf If consciousness is purely matter, yes, you will die, born again, die again.....as it was in the infinite past....But there are philosophers who defend that 'mind' its not just 'matter' (you have a eternal soul) Well... anyway, you will ''live'' forever...

@mixnewton5157 3 жыл бұрын

I think you still haven't any idea about how large is 10^10^10^10^2.08

@ckmishn3664 7 жыл бұрын

I've known since 6th or 7th grade the order of the operators (PEMDAS, i.e. parentheses, exponent, multiplication, division, addition and subtraction) but one thing they never taught (presumably because they rarely deal with numbers of sufficient size) was the order of the exponentiation. If you go bottom-up you usually get dramatically different results from if you go top-down (with the latter generating far larger results for the type of situations where people generally resort to nested exponents). Convention is, in fact, to go top-down btw.

@vidzanallthat 7 жыл бұрын

No offence, but why would you assume otherwise?

@ckmishn3664 7 жыл бұрын

Owen Bell I didn't assume otherwise, I just wasn't taught which it was and didn't think about it until I ran across a real-world case where it looked like the order actually mattered a lot. At one point, btw, I did try finding out under what circumstances the order of exponentiation mattered and I discovered that I could not construct a non-trivial set of exponents larger than 3 where the order didn't matter. That is for x^a^b^c^d I couldn't find any set of a, b, c and d (except for each equaling 1, the trivial case) where you got the same results regardless of what order you do a, b, c and d. It's a postulate of mine that such numbers don't exist (at least as reals, haven't looked at complex exponents) but I haven't come up with a proof yet so I could be wrong. I was able to construct values for just x^a^b^c where the order of a,b and c didn't matter but it's a lot longer than I'd want to put in a KZfaq video comment.

@vidzanallthat 7 жыл бұрын

Alright, it just seems intuitive to me that you would work from the top down if you know about the order of operations. I get now that you were testing the nature of the order rather than not understanding it, though.

@RolandHutchinson 7 жыл бұрын

Since (a^b)^c = a^(b*c), it's easier -- especially when setting type -- to just write it the second way rather than as a stack of exponents. I've always imagined that that's why the convention for grouping stacked exponents works the way that it does. (Also, imagine how messey it would be to write if you had to decorate the stack with ever-smaller parentheses to get the meaning of a^(b^(c^(d^.... )))). )

@Alex1891 4 жыл бұрын

Regarding the current subtitle gap after 2:15 ("[INAUDIBLE] space"), is it "phase space"?

@liamdienemann8937 8 жыл бұрын

"what it IS is, is it's an"

@xBlockBoyx 8 жыл бұрын

what?

@liamdienemann8937 8 жыл бұрын

+david block 3:05 XD

@xBlockBoyx 8 жыл бұрын

hahha

@TheSunOfMidnight 10 жыл бұрын

So perhaps i've already watched this :D

@jaggers7681 5 жыл бұрын

I've calculated the 10^10^10^10^10^1.1 It's over 1 followed by 315,027,680 zeroes

@rodrimelendez6911 5 жыл бұрын

I strongly recommend reading "The Last Question" from Isaac Asimov. It's a short story that talks about all this crazy entropy stuff. ...In the 50's. When you finish reading it, you end up with that strange sensation :)

@Scy 9 жыл бұрын

DeepSpaceNinja is a guy who doesn't like being proven wrong. So he disabled replies, leading to the deletion of 12 replies. Just saying. Also, the universe just has two states as far as we know. Learn2quark.

@BigFav524 9 жыл бұрын

Yea, there seemed to be a misunderstanding of the basic power series of a coin flipping probability which converges to 1 because the values/probabilities tend to 0 as we approach infinity. Also, the statement "You can flip a coin infinite times" is definitely malformed as we can only look at the limits of flipping a coin an infinite times, but if we did that the probability of getting tails shoots up to 1. www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum+1%2F2%5En%2C+n%3D1+to+infinity

@Scy 9 жыл бұрын

I was going to reply to him that the chance of getting 1 billion heads in a row is 1,000,000,000 / 2^1,000,000,000 Which is something like: 3 * 10^-10^8 So a probability of 0.0000..{insert 300 MILLION ZEROES}..00003.

@zoravursingh5617 10 жыл бұрын

But Thermodynamics...

@Quasar.Chaser 6 жыл бұрын

Zoravur Singh screw it who cares

@sicklymoonlight 5 жыл бұрын

The Second Law isn't violated because it is just of statistics and not absolute. Besides, if there were no observers around, the law technically wouldn't be violated.

@bautibunge737 5 жыл бұрын

it isn't soo easy to apply thermodynamics to the whole universe, becouse the universe isn't a system in equilibrium, so for example, it's not clear how you could even define its entropy. Also it's expanding in such way that it has a moveing event horizon (or cosmological horizon)

@angelmendez-rivera351 5 жыл бұрын

Bauti Bunge Actually, defining entropy for systems not in equilibrium is perfectly fine and doable. That is not a problem. The proper counterargument to consider is that the law of thermodynamics is a statistical statement, and that it also has been known to not hold under certain circumstances under relativistic quantum theory.

@jwjubee2893 11 жыл бұрын

Kinda tapered off at the end with all the math and approximations but I could listen to you discuss the idea all day!

@jacefairis1289 7 жыл бұрын

If you said goodbye to me tonight, there would still be music left to write; what else could I do? I'm so inspired by you! That hasn't happend for the longest time!