If I listen to this 10 times, I might have a 1/100th of the knowledge it takes to understand the topic. Hoping it subliminally soaks in(since I watch during my lunchtime nap).
f-sub-l from the Drake equation can at least be considered. Biologists seem to believe that the first self-replicating molecule was probably RNA. We can look at the shortest known sequence of RNA in the most primitive bacteria. We can estimate the density of amino acids in the oceans of early universe (and amino acids are rather common in the universe) - we can estimate the reaction rate at which amino acids randomly collide with each other and estimate the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule just happening to appear by chance in a liter of water over a second. If we multiply our best estimate for the amount of water in the oceans of an earthlike planet by the best estimate for the number of such planets and multiply by the amount of time since the oceans formed on a typical planet appeared, we can get a VERY rough estimate of f-sub-l. I have tried doing that - using the best numbers I can find - and the result is that life is EXCEEDINGLY unlikely to have appeared anywhere in the universe by pure random collisions of amino acids. So unless we can find a MUCH simpler self-replicating molecule - or some means of stacking the odds in favor of a self-replicator, then f-sub-l is far, far too small - and we are alone in the universe. (In detail - the length of that minimal self-replicator as a specific string of N amino acids is critical because there are 26 amino acids - so probability of a random sequence of amino acid collisions making that exact chain is 26 to the power N...so the longer the chain has to be - the VASTLY less likely it is to have happened). The simplest sequence known to exist in nature is a bacterium called Carsonella Ruddii, with just 160,000 base pairs. But 26 to the power 160,000 is a crazy large number! Even if we imagine some reason why the four standard base pairs might dominate the oceans - 4 to the power 160,000 is still far too big - given the size of the visible universe. So to my mind - the most critical piece of knowledge we need to answer the "Are we alone?" question - is a matter for the BioChemistry people to answer: "What is the shortest sequence of amino acids that will self-replicate?" But if the entire universe is infinite - then no matter how long the odds, life is certain - and there is (for sure) alien life somewhere - and now the only question is what are the odds that it exists within the observable universe?
We used to use Paul Davis’ videos about quantum physics back in the 90s in our linguistics master courses to teach students laterality . Great teacher ❤
The very best explanation of modern cosmology that I have ever heard. Professor Davis wins the award for clearest explanation and analogy of science. Bravo RI.
Dr. Paul Davies and Sir Roger Penrose have almost the same PUBLIC SPEAKING VOICE 💯... I was listening to this lecture at 2 a.m., waiting to fall asleep, so I wasn't watching. I was just listening, and I kept thinking it was Sir Roger Penrose lecturing Cosmology! It is always a pleasure to listen to lectures in Physics, Mathematics, and Cosmology. I spend all my free time Pondering our origins, consciousness, and time... Cheers 🙏
Paul Davies is a great cosmologist and an excellent teacher of science. My problem with this lecture and many more put out by RI is that they go through the same 99% of material that should be known by undergraduate students. I clicked on this lecture hoping there would be more than 2-3 minutes explanation of "what is eating the universe". This lecture didn't even show that anything is eating the universe, only showed a slide with some bullet points of things that may do that. This formula for cosmology content may be raising the general level of knowledge, I don't know. I do know I'm tired of seeing 99% the same lecture.
Yep. Everything at a level where it is 'intellectually* inclusive'. Cos explaining hard stuff excludes those people who haven't studied the material or have the brainpower to understand the explanation. What used to be called 'dumbed down'. [* god forbid using the word intellectual.....]
@@danguee1 I get that. I really do. Then I ask myself, exactly how many of those people would click on this lecture? How many of those people would dress up, drive to the university and attend this lecture? Looking at the comments, it seems I'm wrong. Still, I would have liked to see an actual lecture on what is eating the universe.
I think the RI should have different levels of lecture. Sort of beginner/foundation, intermediate and advanced. Because it's a bit sad if more advanced viewers are forced to watch repeated simple stuff because they're too 'boffin'. It's nice they want to communicate to the less knowledgeable. But don't ignore the bright kids in the class!
I think some of the comments here are as interesting as the lecture itself. Alex Scott's comment is quite telling, but if I may add my own two bits worth here, we are in the realm of sheer conjectures and hypotheses. What matters in the end is that in the process of defining what we are up against vis a vis the Universe and Cosmology etc, we do hone the knives of our intellect, thereby arriving at the limits of our own capabilities. Theories and hypotheses will continue to fall by the wayside as we proceed, but the trick is to take in all of it with an aha of toleration. This journey of to-ing and fro-ing with ideas never did any harm to human civilizations in the past, only jolted us forward to where we are now at present. I love the idea of a platform where people discuss and share cutting-edge thinking in this way. Absent from Abrahamic religions, especially Islam, is any intellectual platform for free debate and exploration. That is my own lament, coming as I do, from a traditional Muslim background. But just to cap it up, I am using poetry (in Urdu) to air some of these issues and aspects myself. Can't say any more here except to say that you cannot chain thinking and ideas. You can't box in water as it has a way of finding its own way out.
Sigge Dr. Saltensø :Thank you Paul : I've been following You now for the majority of 77 year. Time is a Point. And there I stand, so help me, God, and watch You aproaching me.
My first physics book was a Paul Davies book I received as a 18th b'day present and I knew nothing of physics and thought it was the most boring present ever until I got bored one night and OMG I transformed into a new dimensional being 😂 My mind was blown 💥 because I don't know math but Paul Davies made me understand the most technical stuff that I never ever imagined I would be able to understand without knowing math.. Thank you Paul 👊💥😁
The "Anthropic Principal" has always troubled me. To say that an observer is needed to witness and measure a quantum event, means that the Universe did not exist before human consciousness. That is a recent event. The Buddhist claim a Universal Consciousness existed before humans. I prefer logic rather than mysticism. Is the gap between atoms expanding? Or is it just the space between galaxies? What mete would we use to judge?
Thank you Paul. I followed physics as a theoretical physicist since 40 years. We all assume that the physics laws and constants apply to the whole universe and do not change with time. There is also a not very much developed theory stating that the universe is a plane. Maybe there is another type of mathematics which descibes our universe. For me the most interesting point you made was about photon emission by an atom. It is emitted spontaneously out of the atom. There can be no photon inside the atom and it comes so to say from nothing. Good health to you and heartful wishes from Lima, Peru.
Regarding your comment about another type of mathematics describing the universe, there's an interesting (although probably not true) theory about an algorithmic description of the universe, postulated by Stephen Wolfram. You can google him up or go to the older videos in this very channel and find the talk Dr. Wolfram gave some months ago, which is a very good summary of his ideas
I have my own thoughts on the shape of the Universe, Hans'. If you take a straight line, it is a 1D universe but it has boundaries. However if you deform it in the second dimension to form a circle it creates a 1D universe without any boundary. Similarly, if you take a 2D surface and deform it around a 3D sphere you get a 2D surface without boundaries. The surface of the Earth, for example. By extrapolation, taking a 3D space and deforming around a 4D sphere the result will be a 3D space without boundaries. I therefore conclude that the actual shape of the Universe is a 4D spheroid. Spheroid, because it is probably rotating, as is everything else within it. I wish I had the maths to see if it's a viable hypothesis. Or not! Best regards from UK.
@@hans-rudigerdrzimmermann Oh, sure, he can be right and I hope he is because his "theory of everything" is the most elegant one I've encountered so far, but I'll remain a skeptic until we have further evidence of its validity. So far it's just a beautiful idea
Suggesting it began with a quantum fluctuation presumes something was there to fluctuate. Same with multiverses-they all had to begin somewhere at sometime. That we exist, think, and are self-aware is a miracle. That we know so much and can look back so far is a miracle’s miracle; a blessing of Father Physics and Mother Nature.
"they all had to begin somewhere at sometime." is an assumption, it may well be that we are unable to exist in the dimension universes are born let alone understand the local physics that apply. Maybe there is no multiverse just an on switch for a school kids quantum computer the universe exists in that he will have to turn off before bedtime.
"they all had to begin somewhere".....no they didn't. You have to have time for "begin" to make sense and you need space for "somewhere" to make sense.
Liu Cixin has answered the Fermi Paradox pretty profoundly in his "three body problem" series. Highly recommended reading. In essence, the universe is somewhat like central park at night: Your best chance of survival is finding a cop but you cannot try to call out for a cop. You would want to find a friend, but the last thing you'd do is actually signaling your location and your second last thing you'd do is answering someone else who is signaling his location. Every one is a potential hazard. So you keep hidden where you are until day break or until a cop appears nearby. The difference between the universe and central park? A. There is no cop. and B. The night never ends.
But we've been emitting a huge mass of signals already, and will continue to do so for probably a very long time. I don't really understand how any civilization could remain "hidden" s such. Even if we somehow magically manage to stop emitting signals into space, it would be too late anyway, weäve been doing it for a long time.
THANK YOU DR.PAUL DAVIS...!!! SCIENCE AND MATH...!!! AND THE BEAUTY OF SERENE AND ENERGIZING COSMIC MUSIC & DANCE...OUR UNIVERSE...!!! THE BEAUTY ... BALANCE ... AND PURITY ( NOT RELIGIOUS PIETY ) ... OF THE EQUILIBRIUM OF THE PRAPANCHAM( THE INFINITY )...!!!
As I am geared more towards engineering rather than science; I really cannot help but wonder why in the topic of universal expansion the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not seem to be considered. Is it because the idea that we and our measuring tools are atomically getting smaller, due to fields slowly losing their strength, is inconceivable? It just seems better to attribute, or at least look into the effects of something we see to something we think we understand than to something we know we don't understand.
It is...but only to a certain extent. Because quantum particles don't currently play nicely with it. As we learn more about quantum particles, and how they interact with things, there will be a specialist who will revisit it to try to make it fit into the, then, current theories.
This started me thinking about the 'natural' and 'supernatural'. By one definition, 'supernatural' is simply the 'natural' that we don't yet understand. When you start talking about other universes though, 'supernatural' could then be things we can never know, test, understand or even imagine.
Just to let you know, the photo at about 3 minutes in is actually of the Kitt Peak National Observatory in southern Arizona, NOT the Lowell Observatory. Not a big deal of course, I'm just a stickler for accuracy. GREAT lecture otherwise!
I was thinking it wasn't Lowell. He even pronounced it correctly, then incorrectly. Hard to believe he's from the country where English was established. He's murdering it.
não ver que TRUMP tá inventando isso eu te digo porque ele daria um GOP em um Americano em seu País .em se fosse a Sim ele não existiria mais.ele deu o seu GOP em um Estrangeiro de outro País.😊#
I was there, too, in those halcyon days. As I recall, Telstar was our (the USA's) technology demonstrator; our assurety that we could out-Sputnik Sputnik. The following Echo series (Echo 1, 2, et al) represented our ongoing, more practical, attempt to bounce signals across the pond dependably.
The best lecture of making CLEAR the ideas of TRUTH & WITHOUT All the Need to show or include the Math-….. which often times Begins to ‘loose’ the general person trying to understand these theories! 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽So… Thank You 🙏🏽!! Fantastic Lecture and Spot On !!
Astrophysics and interstellar mechanics are almost entirely explained in advanced mathematical equations. It's an unfortunate reality for those of us not as acquainted or capable in that department.
"thank you for uploading these videos. Even if I'm having a hard night, I just put a relaxing astronomy video on and listen. It always makes my nights go much easier. Thank you!!!"
@7.42 the New York Times article written about "Hubbell" makes no mention of expansion. It simply states that the use of higher power telescopes to observe distant spiral nebulae or island universes has resolved the images to collections of individual stars, such as Andromeda, and explains that they were able to use those stars to calculate distance to the structures and thence the size of the structures. There is no mention in this article about velocity, redshift, nor expansion.
Just to join all those saying what a wonderful thing it is that we still have lectures like this and the Royal Institution itself. And, thank you Paul Davies
@@henrythegreatamerican8136 TDR is eating your brain,its been 2 years get a grip! And Henry son there are no great Americans,well other than THE DONald Trump...🤣🤣 LETS GO BRANDON 🤡
Halton Arp said that redshift was also linkedto the intrinsic youth of an object and Hubble towards the end of his life was convinced of Arp's findings. Arp got sumarily dismissed from his position due to an editor of a periodical arbitrarily deciding that it 'exceeded his imagination'.
I was just thinking about Dr John Hartnett's talk about Halton Arp when I read your comment. I gather Davies doesn't mention quantised red shifts then. I might just go watch Dr Hartnett's video then. Thanks.
@@hwd7 I find it hard to believe they don't know about Arp, but it's like an inconvenience they just choose to ignore. How many more times must the standard model fail and for us to repeatedly be told they need to 'go back to the drawing board', yet they never do.
This is a great presentation, making incomprehensible ideas less incomprehensible. I don't understand about the function of pressure, however, and would love to have Dr Davies explain that at greater length.
Always had a real problem with the presumption of Hubble's law. I'm not saying the answer for redshift can't be doppler shift. But it is also entirely conceivable that the observation of redshift vs. distance could be caused by the medium (which is spacetime) slowly sapping the energy of the light, and that this is only noticeable over large enough distances.
@@danguee1 again, you complain about the level... The RI themselves say "...Our purpose at the Royal Institution is to connect as many people as possible with science...". if you don't like it, don't watch... or, make your own video explaining more complex topics to people, nothing is stopping you, except yourself.
@@danguee1 Oh cry me a river. It's not dumbed down, it's clear and interesting and exactly what those of us sadly not so educated as you would love to have more of. So there ;-)
This begs the question of whether or not we are travelling very close/ at the edge of the event horizon of a super very massive black hole where our known universe is spiralling around
@@Safetytrousers maybe a simulation is not a far fetched theory after all. But personally, I have taken comfort in thinking of intelligent life, in this case human, as the universe trying to make sense of itself. It is similar to how human is trying to make sense of the consciousness and the soul. Now we do not know where our consciousness comes from, but surely it helps us make sense of our universe, just as the universe is trying to make sense of itself. Or perhaps there were no origin to begin with since time in a higher dimension happens differently. And the origin (to us) is actually happening, simultaneously.
Davies is one of several people with very broad and extensive multi-disciplinary knowledge. But he is almost unique in being able to communicate that knowledge to the layperson.
Good summary of cosmology....but the last 2 minutes are specially golden. I had to pause to absorb the quotes....should have been given 10 or so extra minutes for them.
our universe is like a cartoon I've seen of Homer Simpson, when he stood beside a green hedge, then he slowly backed into it, disappearing into the hedge.
In his book The Last Three Minutes: Conjectures About The Ultimate Fate Of The Universe, he talks in detail about the universe dying from quantum vacuum decay. He says that the decay bubble would expand at slightly less than the speed of light (c). Assuming that the decay bubble would expand at v = 0.99c, we can calculate how long the time would be between the bubble's discovery and our doom (t). That interval would depend on how far away from us the bubble first formed (d). If d = 10,000,000,000 light-years, then t = 1,010,101,010 years. If d = 1,000 light-years, then t = 1,010 years. If d = 1 light-year, then t = 369 days If d = 0.1 light-year, then t = 37 days If d = 0.01 light-year, then t = 4 days If d = 0.001 light-year, then t = 9 hours
Ok, but if the decay bubble will start outside our cosmic ( deSitter) horizon, it will never reach us. "We"' 'll have to wait for another bubble, that'll start at some place less than 16 billion light years away from our galaxy ( approximately).
The Earths surface is a 2D surface with no centre and no boundaries. However, it constantly has similar 2D surfaces colliding with it. So, Yes! I think that comparable events in the third dimension would be entirely consistent.
With there being no center, That would help with my question. We sometimes wonder where we (Mankind) came from. What if... Like the universe is expanding and if it has no center... What if... We just always were. Like Infinity. Impossible to wrap your mind around, but it just always was and always will be. With short (Million year) Semi extinction periods where we have to start pushing the rock up the mountain yet again. Oh... AND... What if... The planet is set on a timer and the polar icecaps are the fuse. If we have not reached world peace and mastered space travel by then... then we won't. Time to shake the etch-a-sketch and start over again. When the ice caps thaw, bacteria escapes that combine (from the north and South Pole) and create the thing that shuts down all but a few thousand humans, scattered around the planet. I wonder if I have time to turn that into a book? But it seems like most everything else is wrapped in some sort of "What If".
Multiverse theory is thought to be probably correct among Experts but untill its proven by Mathematics , it isnt something thats accepted .Having said that , lots of ideas cannot be proven but are considered to be correct. Black holes are mathematically described by Einstein in 1935 , as having a Bridge /wormhole which may be a link to somewhere other than our Universe .perhaps this is a clue as to the validity of the Multiverse idea.
According to brane theory that's a possibility, yes. Every universe can move freely in a higher dimensional "block". At the moment we don't really know, as there's no evidence for any universe, other than our own.
I discovered you with "God and the New Physics" and have read just about every book since then.... Happy to see you on Royal Society on TH-cam... thanks for all your writings you have prodded me into some deep thoughts.... 👍👍 10:28
I was thinking that too. That's the best kind of humour when you're lecturing. It gets kind of cringe when lectures try to make a joke, and make space for laughing.... best not to try so hard.
Just to be clear @ 12;33... Paul Davies says "I can well remember TELSTRA. The first communication satellite..." Telstra is an Australian telecommunications company. TELSTAR was the name of the satellite he can well remember. Thanks for sharing Ri
He said he lived through the "Golden Age" of cosmology but I think the golden age will be when they know what Dark energy and Dark matter is because we still don`t know what holds it all together.
@pyropulse Agreed. Its crossing the line from science to faith. Multiverses that can never be proven to exist. Ditto strings and what is it now 11 dimensions.
I'm at 24:00m not a hint of the title. Just checking on you. Time is elemental geometric progression from point to line - linearity defined by any two points, and perhaps (as is now common knowledge) vector functions.. You align events that manifest in any form (you know - bosons, photons, "Let there be light" and from it - matter.) and you have time. Collapse that in less energy and it goes away. It's very simple.
I greatly respect Davies and admire his ability to call B.S. on a lot of things other physicists say-that said, this talk contains B.S. of his own. He clarifies quite specifically that “nothing” means nothing. As in, not anything. Not empty space. Not ANYTHING. Then he proceeds to say that quantum fluctuations would allow a universe to be created “from nothing.” I’m sorry, Paul. But that’s not “nothing.” He gives the example of an atom decaying into a photon… An atom is not “nothing”, a photon is not “nothing”, the quantum vacuum in all its fluctuations are not “nothing.” By the very definition he himself gave. Quantum Mechanics has not even remotely begun to answer the question of how something comes from that which is truly “nothing.” To switch between a rigorous definition of “nothing” as literally “not any thing at all” and then use “nothing” as quantum fluctuations is either disingenuous or seriously air-headed on his part. Why is there a quantum vacuum? THAT is the question we want answered; explaining how the pre-existing quantum mechanisms create the universe doesn’t even touch the old question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
Well said! Obviously it's THAT big question and still it cannot be answered. Here, in this video, it still feels like Medieval skywatchers guessing what happened. The only difference in modern times is the use of the latest and fashionable scientific words lol.
You have thoroughly made the point IMO that this video is of absolutely no interest to me.I would have come across those points and been incensed at my wasted time. I could be watching horrifically bad special effects for that.
I'm 20 minutes into this and just happened to notice your comment. At first I started to laugh as I read it but you make perfect sense ! Paul is very educated, so how can he explain or not explain what he's explaining ?
Around 22.59 I an sorry but when discussing the origin of the universe any mention of any matter/energy is forbidden. Why? Because you are discussing the origin of matter. So any use of any matter implies the existence of what you are trying to explain the existence of. You can't mention any matter at all in any way. Either matter always existed or it did not. It could change -yes but it must exist in some form if the universe [ as we see it] had a beginning. There is only one logic. Something always has existed or it came into existence. If it came into existence something else has to exist to bring it into existence. So the only explanation is that either a substance independent of matter existed and created the universe or the universe has always existed.
Prof Robert Hazan on the great courses have two courses on life; “origins of life”, “the origin and evolution of earth”. They are detailed with the latest hypothesis on the subject. One of the most interesting explanations is that the first replicating molecules come from rock surfaces that template molecule formation. Essentially, it means all rock surfaces across the planet can act as catalysts.
Especially early on, when oxygen was still bound in the rocks and water. Likely, the atmospheric pressure was substantially higher as well. Once we're well and truly away from STP, chemistry gets decidedly different than what we typically expect.
And it also means shifting the information problem to an area even less well known. It means the rock surface template assumed that particular arrangement randomly. To say randomness is equivalent to saying by magic. Because randomness is a completely unknown 'process'. Randomness follows no laws nor can it be modelled mathematically, therefore it is as good as no explanation at all or saying it happened by magic.
@@r00kiepilot no, randomness means a non-ordered state, notable for no process being present to generate it, as it is by nature random. Magic is getting something from nothing, which has yet to be observed in this universe. That the object has a random texture does not mean that the texture is magical, but that it is uneven and the surface unpredictable and potentially, disordered entirely. In the air, an airplane travels past random air molecules, as there is no magical system that ordains where the molecules flow past, above or below the wing, as an example. That does not suggest or imply in any way that airplanes fly by magic!
@@r00kiepilot such rubbish. A hypothesis is a possible explanation. And it's not as if rocks & minerals suddenly disappeared. Actually there are many more minerals and clays than the early earth. This process is active today too. I think you lack understanding when it comes to the term "random" in the context of physical processes. Your adaptive immune system is based on "random" - the second most complex system known to man. In engineering "random" processes are a fact of life.
An important clarification...space is expanding only on the cosmological (grandest/largest of) scale. But absolutely not locally. And local means any gravitationally bound areas such as large groups of galaxies that make up superclusters...including the Virgo Supercluster of which the Milky Way belongs to. So no expansion is taking place inside galaxies...let alone inside any star system (or spaces even smaller).
Wonderful lecture, encompassing just everything! Even if you don't swallow the Multiverse hypothesis, there is certainly enough to ponder for your little brain in the coming weeks ...
Water always finds it's Level . If Earth Moved at all we would never see the same sky , much less have exact alignment with a structure on the land . Earth is Flat and it does not Move . Take your Globe and Go Home We inhabit a motionless realm covered by an impenetrable dome. We use gas pressure to debunk space that directly represents the heliocentric model. Space is a direct violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Using science to disprove the heliocentric model is the best way to get people to learn the truth. If you believe in a globe earth, outer space travel, or virus transmission.... YOU ARE NOT AWAKE
I like the description given to me that some sort of catastrophic event happened in the pre-universe that created the bubble that essentially is what are universe is. That this event caused the expulsion of matter antimatter and the quantum level. That quantum annihilation and expansion happened therefore. He went on to say something about the complicated physics of the early universe in the first few seconds and expansion were different than today. That's why we can't just wind the clock backwards. I'm still stuck with the image that the proto universe was a sponge that was squeezed in the matter and antimatter fell out and annihilated each other
There is some thinking that the vacuum energy level may be at a metastable value, either above or below the average outside of the universe, which impacts the math in why there is a preponderance of mater, rather than an equal mixture of matter and antimatter. The earlier we go in age of the universe, the higher the energy level was, when speaking of the first instants. We can almost reach the edge of that energy level at a microscopic level with our largest colliders, but nowhere close to the first instants of the universe. When some worried about the LHC generating black holes, physicists promptly pointed out that we have far more energetic collisions in our atmosphere from cosmic rays than anything that we can generate in a lab, but the press ignored that over sensationalism.
I like the idea that our universe has a mirror universe in which all anti-matter wound up, with the arrow of time pointing in the opposite direction from ours.
I liked the talk up to the point when he starts talking about the dark matter and fairy tales of the sort. He might as well talk about the Avengers to make the "Multi-verse" sound interesting.
If the speed of light or time was slowly decreasing, that would explain red shift. There would be no need to have an expanding universe or even a big bang. BTW you could not prove this as you can't measure the speed of light or the passage of time without the other being constant. If they were both decaying through entropy they would appear constant.
Origin of life: The universe contains the law that life could develop in any point in space, just like particles appear and disappear into the void. The building blocks of life only remain where the laws equal the correct conditions allow them to remain, develop and grow, until they become complex enough to perceive of themselves - and by extension, the universe itself. This is why life is highly likely to exist across the universe.
Yeah okay Just another royal liar Who's Hermann Fricke‽ Here's word of Michael Faraday Two hundred years ago, mate! At least Maxwell credited Faraday's work. Kelvin plagiarized Nikola Tesla. And who's Hermann Fricke? US Patent Office Clerk Carl Frederick Krafft can tell you, not this fraud.
Not one of Einstein's greatest sayings (if it's not in fact a modern myth). None of the 6 year olds I know even understand simple differential calculus. I'm hardly going to be able to explain QFT to them, am I?
@@danguee1 I don't think that what you are thinking was what Albert was thinking. It is true that he wrote it in a correspondence, but what he meant was if you cannot explain the Universe to a child you cannot explain it to an adult either.
I only wish there would be something new in astrophysics. Literally everything we do lectures today was discovered in the 1980s. We had some highlights, like Higgs particle, gravitational waves and pictures of black holes. But how about the Inflation Theory? What is this force? Why did it start, why did it ended? Was there even Inflation? About DM and DE we know as much was we knew in the 1980s. We discovered QM and expanding universe all in the early 20th century. It was one breakthrough after another. What are today's physicist are doing?
@@LarsRyeJeppesen hm really? I'm sure it was already assumed to be the case? I'm sure I just thought that every star have some planets around it since I was a kid.
31:34 - there are many examples of coincidence in the universe, the ability to view lunar and solar eclipses on Earth springs to mind, for instance BUT what are the chances (and I’m sure there must be A way to work this out) of the universe not being too “Banged” and spread out and not be so weak either that it’d fall in on itself and instead became “just right“ like it is now? Anyone any ideas, please?🤞
I guess one could conclude that purpose is established in its very fabric..else wise without stability we would not have our conscious place in this world of wonders...or anything else would for that matter...There is an immense glory here for those with honest and child like hearts!
Hawking used to argue that is just ONE possible outcome of many that could occur, by chance but its also the one that allows intelligent beings to ask that. So here you are!
@@stefcep So put another way, the universe may have tried all the other ways, and this is the first one to work long enough for your comment to be written (using a causality based definition of time progressing, rather than a measurable definition).
Sounds like a little bit like indoctrination to me ... a questioning mind that can think independently and rationally is a more laudable aim for an educator, surely?
@@michaellee9743 There are some basic observations every teacher has absolutely no excuse for being ignorant of: 1) The Earth revolves around the Sun 2) The Earth is a ball, and round. 3) Evolution IS biology, and biology is the study of evolution. 4) Stuff is made of atoms. Basic stuff that becomes complex stuff in groups. 5) The Universe is very big, and dynamic. This includes expanding. There is incontrovertible evidence for these basic tenets. Any "teacher" who doesn't know them isn't much of a student. And being a good student is surely a requirement before one attempts to teach others. If you don't even know the basics, how can you teach your students how to examine anything? Yes, questioning is good and right. But one needs to know the basic minimum before one can form intelligent questions about it, or anything.
![PASULOL รามเกียรติ์ ตอนที่ 4 นนทกพบรัก [Ramakien Ep.4: Nonthok in love]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tMUQgmZzf_A/mqdefault.jpg)
As always, Paul Davies is brilliant, communicative and charming in a highly informative lecture. Thank you.
Really? Gotta love the point to hear anyone talk about anything say we don't know the answer, but let me tell you, right around 17-18 minutes.
If I listen to this 10 times, I might have a 1/100th of the knowledge it takes to understand the topic. Hoping it subliminally soaks in(since I watch during my lunchtime nap).
i found it quite straight forward and clear 😌
@@gazzam3172 you're not alone
Yes, be at peace. The world needs good people to serve the food ❤
f-sub-l from the Drake equation can at least be considered. Biologists seem to believe that the first self-replicating molecule was probably RNA. We can look at the shortest known sequence of RNA in the most primitive bacteria. We can estimate the density of amino acids in the oceans of early universe (and amino acids are rather common in the universe) - we can estimate the reaction rate at which amino acids randomly collide with each other and estimate the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule just happening to appear by chance in a liter of water over a second. If we multiply our best estimate for the amount of water in the oceans of an earthlike planet by the best estimate for the number of such planets and multiply by the amount of time since the oceans formed on a typical planet appeared, we can get a VERY rough estimate of f-sub-l.
I have tried doing that - using the best numbers I can find - and the result is that life is EXCEEDINGLY unlikely to have appeared anywhere in the universe by pure random collisions of amino acids. So unless we can find a MUCH simpler self-replicating molecule - or some means of stacking the odds in favor of a self-replicator, then f-sub-l is far, far too small - and we are alone in the universe.
(In detail - the length of that minimal self-replicator as a specific string of N amino acids is critical because there are 26 amino acids - so probability of a random sequence of amino acid collisions making that exact chain is 26 to the power N...so the longer the chain has to be - the VASTLY less likely it is to have happened).
The simplest sequence known to exist in nature is a bacterium called Carsonella Ruddii, with just 160,000 base pairs. But 26 to the power 160,000 is a crazy large number! Even if we imagine some reason why the four standard base pairs might dominate the oceans - 4 to the power 160,000 is still far too big - given the size of the visible universe.
So to my mind - the most critical piece of knowledge we need to answer the "Are we alone?" question - is a matter for the BioChemistry people to answer: "What is the shortest sequence of amino acids that will self-replicate?"
But if the entire universe is infinite - then no matter how long the odds, life is certain - and there is (for sure) alien life somewhere - and now the only question is what are the odds that it exists within the observable universe?
Check out John Michael Godier's latest video.
Hi Steve, You might not remember me yet, we met in July 2038 at Moon meet
Unless life forms live in another demension?
We exist so the answer is 100 percent bless your brain
A great presentation where he freely admits we haven't figured it all out, but this is what we think so far.
You will hardly hear a scientist say that "we have figured it all out". That's an impression you might get from bad school teachers.
@@karlschmied6218 Quite right....all knowledge is held tentatively and subject to revision upon new discovery.
Paul Davies' lectures are as wonderful as his books. My favorite thinker and explainer of big ideas in the Solar System.
Earth isn't what they tell us
@Ben Chuft True. But, although they can be annoying to listen to, I bet if you recorded yourself giving a lecture, you'd have some slipped in as well.
Such an excellent, understated delivery. I've watched this several times before bed, Paul certainly brings a dulcet tone to such a violent topic.
We used to use Paul Davis’ videos about quantum physics back in the 90s in our linguistics master courses to teach students laterality . Great teacher ❤
Dangerous to make such correlations, perhaps that's where "linguistics" went off the rails and produced so many deluded "woke" adherents.
@@nuqwestr Did I say I was linguistics ?
I first listened to Paul Davies' talk about the universe some twenty years ago. As enchanting to listen to as ever, Sir...
The very best explanation of modern cosmology that I have ever heard. Professor Davis wins the award for clearest explanation and analogy of science. Bravo RI.
Dr. Paul Davies and Sir Roger Penrose have almost the same PUBLIC SPEAKING VOICE 💯... I was listening to this lecture at 2 a.m., waiting to fall asleep, so I wasn't watching. I was just listening, and I kept thinking it was Sir Roger Penrose lecturing Cosmology!
It is always a pleasure to listen to lectures in Physics, Mathematics, and Cosmology. I spend all my free time Pondering our origins, consciousness, and time... Cheers 🙏
When I listen to lectures given by physicist Sean Carroll, I constantly think that I am hearing the voice of the fairly famous actor, Alan Alda.
Paul Davies is a great cosmologist and an excellent teacher of science. My problem with this lecture and many more put out by RI is that they go through the same 99% of material that should be known by undergraduate students. I clicked on this lecture hoping there would be more than 2-3 minutes explanation of "what is eating the universe". This lecture didn't even show that anything is eating the universe, only showed a slide with some bullet points of things that may do that.
This formula for cosmology content may be raising the general level of knowledge, I don't know. I do know I'm tired of seeing 99% the same lecture.
Yep. Everything at a level where it is 'intellectually* inclusive'. Cos explaining hard stuff excludes those people who haven't studied the material or have the brainpower to understand the explanation. What used to be called 'dumbed down'. [* god forbid using the word intellectual.....]
@@danguee1 I get that. I really do. Then I ask myself, exactly how many of those people would click on this lecture? How many of those people would dress up, drive to the university and attend this lecture?
Looking at the comments, it seems I'm wrong.
Still, I would have liked to see an actual lecture on what is eating the universe.
I think the RI should have different levels of lecture. Sort of beginner/foundation, intermediate and advanced. Because it's a bit sad if more advanced viewers are forced to watch repeated simple stuff because they're too 'boffin'. It's nice they want to communicate to the less knowledgeable. But don't ignore the bright kids in the class!
It is called "click bait".
Yeah, video was almost over when he got the the part that made me salivate.
I think some of the comments here are as interesting as the lecture itself. Alex Scott's comment is quite telling, but if I may add my own two bits worth here, we are in the realm of sheer conjectures and hypotheses. What matters in the end is that in the process of defining what we are up against vis a vis the Universe and Cosmology etc, we do hone the knives of our intellect, thereby arriving at the limits of our own capabilities. Theories and hypotheses will continue to fall by the wayside as we proceed, but the trick is to take in all of it with an aha of toleration. This journey of to-ing and fro-ing with ideas never did any harm to human civilizations in the past, only jolted us forward to where we are now at present. I love the idea of a platform where people discuss and share cutting-edge thinking in this way. Absent from Abrahamic religions, especially Islam, is any intellectual platform for free debate and exploration. That is my own lament, coming as I do, from a traditional Muslim background. But just to cap it up, I am using poetry (in Urdu) to air some of these issues and aspects myself. Can't say any more here except to say that you cannot chain thinking and ideas. You can't box in water as it has a way of finding its own way out.
Sigge Dr. Saltensø :Thank you Paul : I've been following You now for the majority of 77 year. Time is a Point. And there I stand, so help me, God, and watch You aproaching me.
48:11
E = F*s divide by V = s^3 = A*s (E...energy, F...force, V...volume, s...space, A...area)
E/V = F/A = p (p...pressure)
This is so fascinating he explains things so simply almost anyone can get their head around it. Wonderful lecture and lecturer.
definitely one of the better authors.
And a wonderful moustache as well.
@@billoddy5637 Imagine a long beard too!
@@lifesgood9528 Indian monk ??
@@HypnoDrip im thinking more thr Gandalph type but he can be Indian too even Aussie 👌🤣😁🎶
Somehow I am reassured by Paul Davies lecture that it's a useful step forward to at least know what I don't know.
My first physics book was a Paul Davies book I received as a 18th b'day present and I knew nothing of physics and thought it was the most boring present ever until I got bored one night and OMG I transformed into a new dimensional being 😂
My mind was blown 💥 because I don't know math but Paul Davies made me understand the most technical stuff that I never ever imagined I would be able to understand without knowing math..
Thank you Paul 👊💥😁
Ive done that before with a present too! The best ones are the ones you least expect!
Fake Money & Nuclear END Any Time Now Fake Money Takes The World To A Nuclear END
Which book please?
Maths!
The "Anthropic Principal" has always troubled me. To say that an observer is needed to witness and measure a quantum event, means that the Universe did not exist before human consciousness. That is a recent event. The Buddhist claim a Universal Consciousness existed before humans. I prefer logic rather than mysticism. Is the gap between atoms expanding? Or is it just the space between galaxies? What mete would we use to judge?
Boltzmann brain' - the matrix'
Thank you Paul. I followed physics as a theoretical physicist since 40 years. We all assume that the physics laws and constants apply to the whole universe and do not change with time.
There is also a not very much developed theory stating that the universe is a plane. Maybe there is another type of mathematics which descibes our universe.
For me the most interesting point you made was about photon emission by an atom. It is emitted spontaneously out of the atom. There can be no photon inside the atom and it comes so to say from nothing. Good health to you and heartful wishes from Lima, Peru.
Regarding your comment about another type of mathematics describing the universe, there's an interesting (although probably not true) theory about an algorithmic description of the universe, postulated by Stephen Wolfram. You can google him up or go to the older videos in this very channel and find the talk Dr. Wolfram gave some months ago, which is a very good summary of his ideas
@@jaungiga Very good point from you. I saw his videos and I even have a small supracomputer based on wolfram alpha. Dr Wofram can be right, why not?
It's rather obvious that you have NOT studied physics nor even understand the methods or philosophy of science.
I have my own thoughts on the shape of the Universe, Hans'.
If you take a straight line, it is a 1D universe but it has boundaries. However if you deform it in the second dimension to form a circle it creates a 1D universe without any boundary.
Similarly, if you take a 2D surface and deform it around a 3D sphere you get a 2D surface without boundaries. The surface of the Earth, for example.
By extrapolation, taking a 3D space and deforming around a 4D sphere the result will be a 3D space without boundaries.
I therefore conclude that the actual shape of the Universe is a 4D spheroid. Spheroid, because it is probably rotating, as is everything else within it.
I wish I had the maths to see if it's a viable hypothesis. Or not!
Best regards from UK.
@@hans-rudigerdrzimmermann Oh, sure, he can be right and I hope he is because his "theory of everything" is the most elegant one I've encountered so far, but I'll remain a skeptic until we have further evidence of its validity. So far it's just a beautiful idea
Suggesting it began with a quantum fluctuation presumes something was there to fluctuate. Same with multiverses-they all had to begin somewhere at sometime. That we exist, think, and are self-aware is a miracle. That we know so much and can look back so far is a miracle’s miracle; a blessing of Father Physics and Mother Nature.
"they all had to begin somewhere at sometime." is an assumption, it may well be that we are unable to exist in the dimension universes are born let alone understand the local physics that apply. Maybe there is no multiverse just an on switch for a school kids quantum computer the universe exists in that he will have to turn off before bedtime.
depends on how you define miracle, i feel like all this was pretty much unavoidable.
"Somewhere at sometime" is already post creation.
The question, I believe, is what caused "something and somewhere", time and space.
Try GOD. We didn't get this lucky by chance , and miracles miracles only happens from the power of GOD
"they all had to begin somewhere".....no they didn't. You have to have time for "begin" to make sense and you need space for "somewhere" to make sense.
Such a beautiful presentation. Elegant simplicity woven from a massively complex subject
What a great day it is! To hear this lecture has made it so!
Very well delivered lecture! Thanks for making it available.
Liu Cixin has answered the Fermi Paradox pretty profoundly in his "three body problem" series. Highly recommended reading. In essence, the universe is somewhat like central park at night: Your best chance of survival is finding a cop but you cannot try to call out for a cop. You would want to find a friend, but the last thing you'd do is actually signaling your location and your second last thing you'd do is answering someone else who is signaling his location. Every one is a potential hazard. So you keep hidden where you are until day break or until a cop appears nearby. The difference between the universe and central park? A. There is no cop. and B. The night never ends.
I don’t think Central Park is that dangerous
Excellent summation w/out any spoilers, well done. Three body problem is an amazing series and I second your recommendation.
But we've been emitting a huge mass of signals already, and will continue to do so for probably a very long time. I don't really understand how any civilization could remain "hidden" s such. Even if we somehow magically manage to stop emitting signals into space, it would be too late anyway, weäve been doing it for a long time.
@@Kim_Jong-un1356 Signals fade away with the distance squared. Currently even our strongest signals would fade away in about 10ly.
i think the grabby aliens theory pretty well solves the fermi paradox. we really could be the first, and the facts point towards it
G'day from Australia
Very interesting lecture.
Cheers
And a good morning to you sir, my antipodean friend...👍
Great lecturer! Thanks for making this kind of quality content available to anyone with internet access!! Long may it continue!
All bs. They don't know any of it.
@@aimokoivunen7046 Thank you, professor. 🙄
Lecturer...correct. zero proof of ball earth tho. Observable false
@@aimokoivunen7046 Brilliant comment. You added a lot to the conversation.
@@davecarsley8773 Just the truth.
Prof Paul Davies rocks.
THANK YOU DR.PAUL DAVIS...!!!
SCIENCE AND MATH...!!!
AND THE BEAUTY OF SERENE AND ENERGIZING COSMIC MUSIC & DANCE...OUR UNIVERSE...!!!
THE BEAUTY ... BALANCE ...
AND
PURITY ( NOT RELIGIOUS PIETY ) ...
OF THE EQUILIBRIUM OF THE PRAPANCHAM( THE INFINITY )...!!!
Such a great lecture, but I was shocked to see very few people in the audience. Why??
Amazingly thought provoking and delivered in a way for anyone to understand.
I don’t believe in atheism
As I am geared more towards engineering rather than science; I really cannot help but wonder why in the topic of universal expansion the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not seem to be considered.
Is it because the idea that we and our measuring tools are atomically getting smaller, due to fields slowly losing their strength, is inconceivable?
It just seems better to attribute, or at least look into the effects of something we see to something we think we understand than to something we know we don't understand.
It is...but only to a certain extent. Because quantum particles don't currently play nicely with it. As we learn more about quantum particles, and how they interact with things, there will be a specialist who will revisit it to try to make it fit into the, then, current theories.
Simple answer might be because we aren't there yet. Unless, you assume information as having mass.
@@_UnknownEntity Or, it might be because there is no research money in it. If the answers were simple; where's the profit in that?
This started me thinking about the 'natural' and 'supernatural'. By one definition, 'supernatural' is simply the 'natural' that we don't yet understand. When you start talking about other universes though, 'supernatural' could then be things we can never know, test, understand or even imagine.
Just to let you know, the photo at about 3 minutes in is actually of the Kitt Peak National Observatory in southern Arizona, NOT the Lowell Observatory. Not a big deal of course, I'm just a stickler for accuracy. GREAT lecture otherwise!
I was thinking it wasn't Lowell. He even pronounced it correctly, then incorrectly. Hard to believe he's from the country where English was established. He's murdering it.
não ver que TRUMP tá inventando isso eu te digo porque ele daria um GOP em um Americano em seu País .em se fosse a Sim ele não existiria mais.ele deu o seu GOP em um Estrangeiro de outro País.😊#
não ver que sou área .como alguém daí pode ser área e Oval 🥚👌#
This is just wholesome constructive critique, nicely done
Accuracy is essential in Theoretical Phisics & Mathematics.
I was there, too, in those halcyon days. As I recall, Telstar was our (the USA's) technology demonstrator; our assurety that we could out-Sputnik Sputnik. The following Echo series (Echo 1, 2, et al) represented our ongoing, more practical, attempt to bounce signals across the pond dependably.
The best lecture of making CLEAR the ideas of TRUTH & WITHOUT All the Need to show or include the Math-….. which often times Begins to ‘loose’ the general person trying to understand these theories! 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽So… Thank You 🙏🏽!!
Fantastic Lecture and Spot On !!
I Can’t Begin To Tell You, How Very Very MUCHHH I Enjoyed
Your Lecture
truth 😆😂
Astrophysics and interstellar mechanics are almost entirely explained in advanced mathematical equations. It's an unfortunate reality for those of us not as acquainted or capable in that department.
@@Enonymouse_ 😆 u lost buddy. good luck
"thank you for uploading these videos. Even if I'm having a hard night, I just put a relaxing astronomy video on and listen. It always makes my nights go much easier.
Thank you!!!"
Great lecture and explanation that everyone can understand ! Thanks !
Depends on what you understand by "understand" and "everyone".
@7.42 the New York Times article written about "Hubbell" makes no mention of expansion. It simply states that the use of higher power telescopes to observe distant spiral nebulae or island universes has resolved the images to collections of individual stars, such as Andromeda, and explains that they were able to use those stars to calculate distance to the structures and thence the size of the structures. There is no mention in this article about velocity, redshift, nor expansion.
Just to join all those saying what a wonderful thing it is that we still have lectures like this and the Royal Institution itself. And, thank you Paul Davies
What's eating the universe? Trump's ego!!!!
@@henrythegreatamerican8136 TDR is eating your brain,its been 2 years get a grip! And Henry son there are no great Americans,well other than THE DONald Trump...🤣🤣 LETS GO BRANDON 🤡
@@henrythegreatamerican8136 Which, itself, is like a monstrous blackhole... lol
Halton Arp said that redshift was also linkedto the intrinsic youth of an object and Hubble towards the end of his life was convinced of Arp's findings. Arp got sumarily dismissed from his position due to an editor of a periodical arbitrarily deciding that it 'exceeded his imagination'.
I was just thinking about Dr John Hartnett's talk about Halton Arp when I read your comment.
I gather Davies doesn't mention quantised red shifts then.
I might just go watch Dr Hartnett's video then.
Thanks.
@@hwd7 I find it hard to believe they don't know about Arp, but it's like an inconvenience they just choose to ignore. How many more times must the standard model fail and for us to repeatedly be told they need to 'go back to the drawing board', yet they never do.
This is a great presentation, making incomprehensible ideas less incomprehensible. I don't understand about the function of pressure, however, and would love to have Dr Davies explain that at greater length.
Really enjoying this talk/lecture/presentation. 🙏🏼
Professor Davies is a marvelous teacher.
Always had a real problem with the presumption of Hubble's law. I'm not saying the answer for redshift can't be doppler shift. But it is also entirely conceivable that the observation of redshift vs. distance could be caused by the medium (which is spacetime) slowly sapping the energy of the light, and that this is only noticeable over large enough distances.
Yay! I understood 90% of this! What a brilliant teacher
The other 10% is "dark knowledge" 😂
Yep. Thoroughly dumbed-down.
@@danguee1 I imagine he's used to it, unless you're on the same level as him
@@danguee1 again, you complain about the level...
The RI themselves say "...Our purpose at the Royal Institution is to connect as many people as possible with science...".
if you don't like it, don't watch... or, make your own video explaining more complex topics to people, nothing is stopping you, except yourself.
@@danguee1 Oh cry me a river. It's not dumbed down, it's clear and interesting and exactly what those of us sadly not so educated as you would love to have more of. So there ;-)
This begs the question of whether or not we are travelling very close/ at the edge of the event horizon of a super very massive black hole where our known universe is spiralling around
That could be, but it still begs all the questions of origin.
@@Safetytrousers maybe a simulation is not a far fetched theory after all.
But personally, I have taken comfort in thinking of intelligent life, in this case human, as the universe trying to make sense of itself. It is similar to how human is trying to make sense of the consciousness and the soul. Now we do not know where our consciousness comes from, but surely it helps us make sense of our universe, just as the universe is trying to make sense of itself.
Or perhaps there were no origin to begin with since time in a higher dimension happens differently. And the origin (to us) is actually happening, simultaneously.
@@QuanNguyen-di9nd That is all questions.
Thanks, very interesting presentation, very well explaind. not sure if I could explain to someone else what Paul was saying
Davies is one of several people with very broad and extensive multi-disciplinary knowledge. But he is almost unique in being able to communicate that knowledge to the layperson.
Fantastic lecture. Thank you.
@-GinΠΓ Τάο On a conceptual level it shows future possibilities, likely to not occur in OUR lifetimes; all unknown, now.
Listening to people like Mr. Davies on an Iphone, that‘s when I think, the internet and social media ARE progress after all.
Good summary of cosmology....but the last 2 minutes are specially golden. I had to pause to absorb the quotes....should have been given 10 or so extra minutes for them.
our universe is like a cartoon I've seen of Homer Simpson, when he stood beside a green hedge, then he slowly backed into it, disappearing into the hedge.
A superb presentation, from a brilliant individual.
In his book The Last Three Minutes: Conjectures About The Ultimate Fate Of The Universe, he talks in detail about the universe dying from quantum vacuum decay. He says that the decay bubble would expand at slightly less than the speed of light (c). Assuming that the decay bubble would expand at v = 0.99c, we can calculate how long the time would be between the bubble's discovery and our doom (t). That interval would depend on how far away from us the bubble first formed (d).
If d = 10,000,000,000 light-years, then t = 1,010,101,010 years.
If d = 1,000 light-years, then t = 1,010 years.
If d = 1 light-year, then t = 369 days
If d = 0.1 light-year, then t = 37 days
If d = 0.01 light-year, then t = 4 days
If d = 0.001 light-year, then t = 9 hours
Ha ha very funny
Ok, but if the decay bubble will start outside our cosmic ( deSitter) horizon, it will never reach us. "We"' 'll have to wait for another bubble, that'll start at some place less than 16 billion light years away from our galaxy ( approximately).
Is it consistent to say that our universe has no centre, and no boundary, but also say we may have bumped into another one?
Possibly. Nobody knows.😄
The Earths surface is a 2D surface with no centre and no boundaries. However, it constantly has similar 2D surfaces colliding with it.
So, Yes! I think that comparable events in the third dimension would be entirely consistent.
With there being no center, That would help with my question. We sometimes wonder where we (Mankind) came from. What if... Like the universe is expanding and if it has no center... What if... We just always were. Like Infinity. Impossible to wrap your mind around, but it just always was and always will be. With short (Million year) Semi extinction periods where we have to start pushing the rock up the mountain yet again. Oh... AND... What if... The planet is set on a timer and the polar icecaps are the fuse. If we have not reached world peace and mastered space travel by then... then we won't. Time to shake the etch-a-sketch and start over again. When the ice caps thaw, bacteria escapes that combine (from the north and South Pole) and create the thing that shuts down all but a few thousand humans, scattered around the planet. I wonder if I have time to turn that into a book? But it seems like most everything else is wrapped in some sort of "What If".
Multiverse theory is thought to be probably correct among Experts but untill its proven by Mathematics , it isnt something thats accepted .Having said that , lots of ideas cannot be proven but are considered to be correct. Black holes are mathematically described by Einstein in 1935 , as having a Bridge /wormhole which may be a link to somewhere other than our Universe .perhaps this is a clue as to the validity of the Multiverse idea.
According to brane theory that's a possibility, yes.
Every universe can move freely in a higher dimensional "block".
At the moment we don't really know, as there's no evidence for any universe, other than our own.
I discovered you with "God and the New Physics" and have read just about every book since then.... Happy to see you on Royal Society on TH-cam... thanks for all your writings you have prodded me into some deep thoughts.... 👍👍 10:28
"It's a delight to, be back here in London, away from the unrelenting blue sky and warm sunshine"
That is some top quality dry humour.
I was thinking that too. That's the best kind of humour when you're lecturing. It gets kind of cringe when lectures try to make a joke, and make space for laughing.... best not to try so hard.
Yes ! Wes Cecil should study this
technique !! He's the worst ! It really is Cringeworthy !
Just to be clear @ 12;33... Paul Davies says "I can well remember TELSTRA. The first communication satellite..."
Telstra is an Australian telecommunications company.
TELSTAR was the name of the satellite he can well remember.
Thanks for sharing Ri
He said he lived through the "Golden Age" of cosmology but I think the golden age will be when they know what Dark energy and Dark matter is because we still don`t know what holds it all together.
@pyropulse A lot like most comments found on YT.
@pyropulse Agreed. Its crossing the line from science to faith. Multiverses that can never be proven to exist. Ditto strings and what is it now 11 dimensions.
@@davidfiler5414 The logical conclusion is that the universe started with a comment.
@@nmarbletoe8210 Really! Were you thare?
@@davidfiler5414 Nah someone else had already written 'first'
I came here looking for an acoustic guitarist. I left with the average intelligence of a Nobel prize-winning physicist.
Great lecture ! Even I, a mere accountant, could follow him :)
I'm at 24:00m not a hint of the title. Just checking on you. Time is elemental geometric progression from point to line - linearity defined by any two points, and perhaps (as is now common knowledge) vector functions.. You align events that manifest in any form (you know - bosons, photons, "Let there be light" and from it - matter.) and you have time. Collapse that in less energy and it goes away. It's very simple.
One of my top 5 all time favorite scientists
Who are the other four?
Bill Gates
Bill Gates
Bill Gates
and Bill Gates?
@@0ned I'm really struggling to see the utility of this reply
@@luckygitane "You can lead a horse to water, can't make him drink."
@@luckygitane They're baiting to try find followers for their conspiracy channel. Has psychosis written all over it. Hope they find help.
@@0ned Are you talking about Bill Gates?
This is such a wonderful lecture. So sad that the seats are not full of curious people.
I greatly respect Davies and admire his ability to call B.S. on a lot of things other physicists say-that said, this talk contains B.S. of his own. He clarifies quite specifically that “nothing” means nothing. As in, not anything. Not empty space. Not ANYTHING. Then he proceeds to say that quantum fluctuations would allow a universe to be created “from nothing.” I’m sorry, Paul. But that’s not “nothing.” He gives the example of an atom decaying into a photon… An atom is not “nothing”, a photon is not “nothing”, the quantum vacuum in all its fluctuations are not “nothing.” By the very definition he himself gave. Quantum Mechanics has not even remotely begun to answer the question of how something comes from that which is truly “nothing.” To switch between a rigorous definition of “nothing” as literally “not any thing at all” and then use “nothing” as quantum fluctuations is either disingenuous or seriously air-headed on his part. Why is there a quantum vacuum? THAT is the question we want answered; explaining how the pre-existing quantum mechanisms create the universe doesn’t even touch the old question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
Well said!
Obviously it's THAT big question and still it cannot be answered. Here, in this video, it still feels like Medieval skywatchers guessing what happened. The only difference in modern times is the use of the latest and fashionable scientific words lol.
You have thoroughly made the point IMO that this video is of absolutely no interest to me.I would have come across those points and been incensed at my wasted time. I could be watching horrifically bad special effects for that.
I only come here to experience what it feels like to have things flying over my head.
I'm 20 minutes into this and just happened to notice your comment. At first I started to laugh as I read it
but you make perfect sense ! Paul is very educated, so how can he explain or not explain what he's explaining ?
@@robertbihn3005 Seems appropriate let some laughter fill the void. I marvel that anything like this is at my fingertips. Really.
Around 22.59 I an sorry but when discussing the origin of the universe any mention of any matter/energy is forbidden. Why? Because you are discussing the origin of matter. So any use of any matter implies the existence of what you are trying to explain the existence of. You can't mention any matter at all in any way. Either matter always existed or it did not. It could change -yes but it must exist in some form if the universe [ as we see it] had a beginning. There is only one logic. Something always has existed or it came into existence. If it came into existence something else has to exist to bring it into existence. So the only explanation is that either a substance independent of matter existed and created the universe or the universe has always existed.
Wonderful presentation, thank you so much :)
What is this 'arrow of time', can someone point me in the right direction?
I am so effing happy that this is taking place at that desk again.
The universe we live in has to be conducive to life, no matter how fantastically improbable that may be.
define life
@@etyrnal bake cookies
@@truthpopup - if you truly understood, you'd have known the cookies were already baked before anyone even knew what a cookie was
@Arturo’s Michelangeli magic
@@etyrnal life: a highly complex turbulence in the flow of entropy
Must've heard this story like 20 time....still fascinating
Prof Robert Hazan on the great courses have two courses on life; “origins of life”, “the origin and evolution of earth”. They are detailed with the latest hypothesis on the subject. One of the most interesting explanations is that the first replicating molecules come from rock surfaces that template molecule formation. Essentially, it means all rock surfaces across the planet can act as catalysts.
Especially early on, when oxygen was still bound in the rocks and water. Likely, the atmospheric pressure was substantially higher as well.
Once we're well and truly away from STP, chemistry gets decidedly different than what we typically expect.
And it also means shifting the information problem to an area even less well known. It means the rock surface template assumed that particular arrangement randomly. To say randomness is equivalent to saying by magic. Because randomness is a completely unknown 'process'. Randomness follows no laws nor can it be modelled mathematically, therefore it is as good as no explanation at all or saying it happened by magic.
@@r00kiepilot no, randomness means a non-ordered state, notable for no process being present to generate it, as it is by nature random. Magic is getting something from nothing, which has yet to be observed in this universe. That the object has a random texture does not mean that the texture is magical, but that it is uneven and the surface unpredictable and potentially, disordered entirely.
In the air, an airplane travels past random air molecules, as there is no magical system that ordains where the molecules flow past, above or below the wing, as an example. That does not suggest or imply in any way that airplanes fly by magic!
@@r00kiepilot such rubbish. A hypothesis is a possible explanation. And it's not as if rocks & minerals suddenly disappeared. Actually there are many more minerals and clays than the early earth. This process is active today too. I think you lack understanding when it comes to the term "random" in the context of physical processes. Your adaptive immune system is based on "random" - the second most complex system known to man. In engineering "random" processes are a fact of life.
That was great to listen to!
So glad to see lectures back in person.
An important clarification...space is expanding only on the cosmological (grandest/largest of) scale. But absolutely not locally. And local means any gravitationally bound areas such as large groups of galaxies that make up superclusters...including the Virgo Supercluster of which the Milky Way belongs to. So no expansion is taking place inside galaxies...let alone inside any star system (or spaces even smaller).
Wonderful lecture, encompassing just everything! Even if you don't swallow the Multiverse hypothesis, there is certainly enough to ponder for your little brain in the coming weeks ...
Awesome Q&A section!
I could listen to this for all eternity
Water always finds it's Level . If Earth Moved at all we would never see the same sky , much less have exact alignment with a structure on the land . Earth is Flat and it does not Move . Take your Globe and Go Home
We inhabit a motionless realm covered by an impenetrable dome.
We use gas pressure to debunk space that directly represents the heliocentric model.
Space is a direct violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Using science to disprove the heliocentric model is the best way to get people to learn the truth.
If you believe in a globe earth, outer space travel, or virus transmission....
YOU ARE NOT AWAKE
Man, I really didn't know how lucky I was back in 1990 at Newcastle University to be sitting in Paul's lectures.
Great University on my doorstep too.
Stuart Kauffman, At Home in the Universe. Among other things. The greatest mistery is just how we haven't still managed to fully extinguish ourselves.
Won't be much longer ? Within next few years..?
Great lecture!, That being said I believe black holes are eating space 🙂
(I wish they had included the question and answer session as well but I suppose one can’t ask for everything!)
I like the description given to me that some sort of catastrophic event happened in the pre-universe that created the bubble that essentially is what are universe is. That this event caused the expulsion of matter antimatter and the quantum level. That quantum annihilation and expansion happened therefore. He went on to say something about the complicated physics of the early universe in the first few seconds and expansion were different than today. That's why we can't just wind the clock backwards. I'm still stuck with the image that the proto universe was a sponge that was squeezed in the matter and antimatter fell out and annihilated each other
There is some thinking that the vacuum energy level may be at a metastable value, either above or below the average outside of the universe, which impacts the math in why there is a preponderance of mater, rather than an equal mixture of matter and antimatter.
The earlier we go in age of the universe, the higher the energy level was, when speaking of the first instants. We can almost reach the edge of that energy level at a microscopic level with our largest colliders, but nowhere close to the first instants of the universe. When some worried about the LHC generating black holes, physicists promptly pointed out that we have far more energetic collisions in our atmosphere from cosmic rays than anything that we can generate in a lab, but the press ignored that over sensationalism.
I like the idea that our universe has a mirror universe in which all anti-matter wound up, with the arrow of time pointing in the opposite direction from ours.
I liked the talk up to the point when he starts talking about the dark matter and fairy tales of the sort. He might as well talk about the Avengers to make the "Multi-verse" sound interesting.
If the speed of light or time was slowly decreasing, that would explain red shift. There would be no need to have an expanding universe or even a big bang. BTW you could not prove this as you can't measure the speed of light or the passage of time without the other being constant. If they were both decaying through entropy they would appear constant.
The constancy of the "speed of light" is already a consequence of Maxwell's equations...
@@jpdiegidioWhat if Maxwell's equations are wrong but they are decaying so slowly that we still did not notice yet?
Origin of life: The universe contains the law that life could develop in any point in space, just like particles appear and disappear into the void. The building blocks of life only remain where the laws equal the correct conditions allow them to remain, develop and grow, until they become complex enough to perceive of themselves - and by extension, the universe itself.
This is why life is highly likely to exist across the universe.
One of the most open minded scientists alive
Yeah okay
Just another royal liar
Who's Hermann Fricke‽
Here's word of Michael Faraday
Two hundred years ago, mate!
At least Maxwell credited Faraday's work.
Kelvin plagiarized Nikola Tesla.
And who's Hermann Fricke?
US Patent Office Clerk Carl Frederick Krafft can tell you,
not this fraud.
Um Grande Cosmologo
This was interesting.
If you can't explain the Universe to a 6 year old, you can't understand it yourself
- Albert Einstein.
This guy is very good
Not one of Einstein's greatest sayings (if it's not in fact a modern myth). None of the 6 year olds I know even understand simple differential calculus. I'm hardly going to be able to explain QFT to them, am I?
@@danguee1 your kid must be slow
@@danguee1 I don't think that what you are thinking was what Albert was thinking. It is true that he wrote it in a correspondence, but what he meant was if you cannot explain the Universe to a child you cannot explain it to an adult either.
I only wish there would be something new in astrophysics. Literally everything we do lectures today was discovered in the 1980s. We had some highlights, like Higgs particle, gravitational waves and pictures of black holes. But how about the Inflation Theory? What is this force? Why did it start, why did it ended? Was there even Inflation? About DM and DE we know as much was we knew in the 1980s. We discovered QM and expanding universe all in the early 20th century. It was one breakthrough after another. What are today's physicist are doing?
We had no idea that exoplanets are everywhere, in the 80s. Big omission
@@LarsRyeJeppesen hm really? I'm sure it was already assumed to be the case? I'm sure I just thought that every star have some planets around it since I was a kid.
@@holz_name yeah we assumed, you are right. But first exo planet was confirmed in the 90s
Your dates are wrong. Dark Energy was discovered in 1998. Nobody knew anything about DE in the 80s.
@@yziib3578 You are right.
31:34 - there are many examples of coincidence in the universe, the ability to view lunar and solar eclipses on Earth springs to mind, for instance BUT what are the chances (and I’m sure there must be A way to work this out) of the universe not being too “Banged” and spread out and not be so weak either that it’d fall in on itself and instead became “just right“ like it is now?
Anyone any ideas, please?🤞
I guess one could conclude that purpose is established in its very fabric..else wise without stability we would not have our conscious place in this world of wonders...or anything else would for that matter...There is an immense glory here for those with honest and child like hearts!
@@druemclaughlin3706 true…
Hawking used to argue that is just ONE possible outcome of many that could occur, by chance but its also the one that allows intelligent beings to ask that. So here you are!
@@stefcep on behalf of the whole human race:
“aw…Shucks!!” ☺️
@@stefcep So put another way, the universe may have tried all the other ways, and this is the first one to work long enough for your comment to be written (using a causality based definition of time progressing, rather than a measurable definition).
The lecture, answer to the question in the title, (if at all) begins at 50 I believe. These expert for sure know how to beat around the bush.
8:00 "Every schoolchild knows the Universe is expanding"...
It would be nice if every teacher did...
...then maybe every child would.
"Every schoolchild knows the Universe is expanding" is an interesting and brave statement to be sure.
@@GiraelCS semantics..he could have said every man and his dog..same thing
@@timkadillari7478 And that would still be a brave statement to make IMO, so I believe I am missing your point.
Sounds like a little bit like indoctrination to me ... a questioning mind that can think independently and rationally is a more laudable aim for an educator, surely?
@@michaellee9743 There are some basic observations every teacher has absolutely no excuse for being ignorant of:
1) The Earth revolves around the Sun
2) The Earth is a ball, and round.
3) Evolution IS biology, and biology is the study of evolution.
4) Stuff is made of atoms. Basic stuff that becomes complex stuff in groups.
5) The Universe is very big, and dynamic. This includes expanding.
There is incontrovertible evidence for these basic tenets. Any "teacher" who doesn't know them isn't much of a student. And being a good student is surely a requirement before one attempts to teach others.
If you don't even know the basics, how can you teach your students how to examine anything?
Yes, questioning is good and right. But one needs to know the basic minimum before one can form intelligent questions about it, or anything.
Good One 👍Thank You!
Paul is 'popular' and this lecture is 'informative ' .
This is so wonderful. Thank you, Dr. Davies!!!
Top teacher !
Boggling fuel for thought. Nice lecture.
i love this lecture