Many aspects of quantum mechanics are observational evidence (not proof) of somewhere outside our observable "universe". I gave an example. Matter springing out of nothing, and returning to nowhere are indicators of "somewhere" else....conservation of mass demands it.

Yes, that's one definition of the word, (edit: The Universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. There may be more than spacetime, or something that's not matter or energy, or something outside the limits of our expanding but finite "universe" .) ...that doesn't make the concept correct anymore than saying "God is omniscient" makes it true or proves God's existence.

If there is a universe, it contains all. That statement doesn't prove there is one, neither does our inability to prove it one way or the other....yet. "Universe" might turn out to be a narcissistic concept born of ignorance...we just don't know. Your opinion/best guess/assumption stated as unassailable fact shows me you aren't (being) particularly scientifically minded. You may be correct, but there's no way to know with our current understanding of physics.

Your video, Kurzgesagt: Wormholes Explained – Breaking Spacetime, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Nope, you have some kind of misunderstanding. Jesus is at least 1/2 human, born of Mary, so totally guilty like the rest of us.
No, immortals, even demigods, do not somehow warp spacetime so they experience the entirety of infinity in every moment repeatedly. That's just silly mental gymnastics to make sense of the senseless and excuse the impossibility and contradictions of the fable.
Infinite space is not infinite time....and neither exists. More mental gymnastics, but this time for what? The infinite room fallacy just means hell won't overbook, not that someone can endure infinity in a weekend, no matter how magic pops is.
Leave the reviews of hell to those you relegate to it. You have no idea what kind of parties we're into. ;-)

To be fair, you were taught this in school if you were taught wave particle duality and the double slit experiment. Look at this. Now imagine a particle bouncing along in very small steps (quantum leaps if you will), and the direction it goes depends on the strength and orientation of the wave where it lands. You may never have been told to think about it like that, but that's what makes physics so amazing that sometimes all it takes is for someone to think about it slightly differently. The information was there all along, but who would imagine the 'particle' bit of an electron interacting with the 'wave' bit - the electron interacts with itself?

I absolutely love it, it's amazing, and simple and beautiful. It may provide insights into new ways we can model quantum behaviour, it might open up new questions to ask.

There's things I'd like to know. First, if the standing waves generated at each step in the droplet's progression interact with each other, the droplet is reacting according to waves it made in the past - what implications does that have for the notion of real particles in a spacetime continuum? For the double slits experiment to work in that model - in the ball on a rubber sheet sense - the sheet would have to stay warped to some extent after the ball had passed. In the quantum sense of the real double slits experiment, we would say it IS a wave, passes through both slits and appears according to statistical probability (the diffraction pattern).

Presumably several droplets released along the same path would go on to take a different route through the slits, to create a diffraction pattern as it must. Perhaps because of fluctuations in the temperature or density of the water at different locations? Is that a limitation of the model or an indicator about the nature of the fabric of spacetime? Perhaps even due to quantum fluctuations in the water particles - the water is never the same twice even if its perfectly still each time - which would potentially mean we're cyclically using quantum mechanics to explain quantum mechanics and we actually haven't explained very much.

The philosophy bit: But this reaches to the heart of the issue with quantum mechanics and perhaps science in general. How accurately can we model reality? The reality is beyond our ability to see, so we can only recreate simpler versions that are always wrong in some way... our idea of what happens - our models - can never be 100% because only a particle in spacetime can perfectly represent a particle in spacetime.

Scientific results and definitions are always defined with limits - "it works like this, within these confines, under these conditions, with these assumptions." There are always error margins. We are always only ever communicating an idea between different consciousnesses, and that idea will never be as true to life as life itself.

Sorry for the wall of text, it's a great and provocative experiment.

It almost sounds like he is suggesting to keep an open mind and learn about other cultures, religions & mythology in order to understand those perspectives; and overall to be humble to the mystery: that we do not know.

In my opinion some of his opinions were a little contradictory - he doesn't believe in any sort of god or gods, but it seems that a wiser statement would be that he doesn't know, which would correspond with the "I don't believe in atheists" theme.

Furthermore, I honestly don't think that those who (in Hedges' words), "do not explore the religious impulse" are inhuman. Even if someone never explores it in their lifetime. In my opinion - the late bloomers who have disconnected themselves from all inclination of organized religion or spirituality, to find it on their own later in life might have a few more advantages than those that did not disconnect themselves from it at some point.

My personal preference is that I do believe in god because I want to believe in god. Whether it's a metaphor, completely abstract energy, a point in spacetime, a massive intelligent energy field that existed long before the big-bang, a life-force found only on Earth or the Milky Way or a fucking super mega alien technological consciousness program experiment or even a microscopic white dude flying on a microscopic magic carpet or all of the above and none of the above. I just believe even though my version of whatever creation/god is, is completely unidentifiable, it's everything and it's nothing.

This is an excellent explanation for someone of his age and his skill with video editing obviously helps a lot. It held my interest, the world needs more entertaining and educating videos like these.

My only criticism - and some youtubers have already pointed this out - is that the explanation of time dilation "..the same bodily change that happens on earth takes much longer to occur when you are moving so fast.." is wrong.

Signals sent within the body can be analogous to a clock - any fixed duration measured between two ~lightspeed reference frames will be different, including seconds measured by an atomic clock - but time dilation specifically has nothing to do with the mechanics behind how you measure the time or the time it takes a signal to travel. It's a property of the nature of spacetime. Time itself actually slows down. There's no 'trick' to understanding how or why, it's just a property that it has. We can forgive him because he'd already demonstrated that physics is the same in any inertial reference frame and there is no "preferential" reference frame; therefore the motion of the reference frame can't be responsible for the observed difference, so he obviously already really knew all this.

There's no shame in getting that wrong, because he'll be taught more and better about it as he progresses through school. Generally the arbitrary subjects are the hardest to live with because you just have to accept them as they are rather than 'understand'. Quantum mechanics is the same - you just have to accept the rules and apply the maths. Everyone struggles with it, even Feynman said "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

Your video, Official Trailer from Comic-Con | COSMOS A Spacetime Odyssey, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 9 Badge!

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by critical_d.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Official-Trailer-from-Comic-Con-COSMOS-A-Spacetime-Odyssey

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Official-Trailer-from-Comic-Con-COSMOS-A-Spacetime-Odyssey

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Official-Trailer-from-Comic-Con-COSMOS-A-Spacetime-Odyssey

http://videosift.com/video/Official-Trailer-from-Comic-Con-COSMOS-A-Spacetime-Odyssey

"The Universe from nothing - logical absurdity"-@shinyblurry

Since I only nitpick and I don't plan to really read a response or comment again I'll say just this:

Look up something called the "quantum foam" or "quantum spacetime". Virtual particles, zipping in and out of reality annihilating each other with extreme amounts of energy that we can barely even notice, yet there it is--literally nothing. The math side of things yells, nay, screams at us that it's there. But, they've barely yet scratched the surface of this frontier, until...

About four or five months ago (if you look on my blog I had a post about it) they literally pulled a photon from nothing! You may wish to slightly rephrase your terminology or concede that "virtual" and nothing (in this Universe anyway) are not somehow perhaps connected. Thus negating your statement as they did indeed pull a photon from essentially nothing. It could also be that the terminology of "nothing" is not an exact definition in nature, it being purely an idealogical one.

It may be, not saying it is, but just something interesting to look at and think about. BUT, I know you... ...'This does not mean this so that can not mean that so thus the Bible is correct'... Keep working it that way, it has worked so well for you on here so far. Don't try another path!

Frame dragging. The speed of light doesn't increase within the spacetime being dragged, but it would appear to increase to an observer outside the frame.