I can’t get rid of the feeling that our smart chimpanzee’s brains are still too chimpanzee to ever really get a hold of these things. But to be curious is great.
If the brain is a survival mechanism, "getting hold of things" is just a behavoir. It does not correspond to anything in reality, but as long as we are not extinct, we have this illusion of "understanding". However, if so, then what's written above is total gibberish :)
As defined by a physicist- The explanatory gap is the fact that all our subjective senses of sound, touch, taste, smell, colour and all the subjective aspects of our conscious experience such as pain, happiness and so on are difficult to explain in relation to the supposed objective properties of the physical world. We have only rather weak correlations that we can make. We can correlate chemicals in the body to experiences of pain and pleasure but these correlations tell us nothing about how these feelings arise. How do you explain sight to a blind man? Where in our explanation of the physical world do we account for what it is like to experience the colour red? We have no idea at all how consciousness arises - whether it is mediated by the brain or generated by the brain. Whether it requires an explanation that has something additional to pure physical theory or whether explanations will arise from physical theory when we know more. This fact usually upsets a few people here who will swiftly produce a word salad about consciousness that explains nothing. Given the failure of our mechanistic explanations some people think that the world of woo that is the current multiple interpretations of the pure maths of QM will help us. It wont. It's hard to see how physical processes that are probabilistic will make any more sense than deterministic ones when it comes to consciousness. It is the woo of dead/alive cats, collapsing wave functions and so on that generates the term Quantum Mind which hasn't really got anywhere. It is strange that the holy grail of Physics or a "Theory of Everything" seems reliant on a pure maths that is unsolvable in all but the simplest of situations and has nothing to say about consciousness itself which is the way we experience the universe and is what generates these theories. But that is where we are and the current state of our knowlege. If you think that an equation modelling a 13 dimensional vibrating string generating a "field" is an explanation then so be it. It has predictive accuracy but we are a long way from the end!
Sum total of my learning is the conclusion that by application of rationality alone, we can not decipher fundamental realities of existence.Our senses are not equipped to comprehend complexities of the universe. Existence is not as it appears or perceived. Our so called reality is based on our deficient perceptions.
Vilenkin believes that the universe must have a beginning because of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) Theorem, which was formulated back in 2003. However, Guth, one of the other authors of the theorem disagrees and maintains that the universe is "very likely eternal." This apparent disagreement seems to be due to the fact that the BGV theorem applies to classical spacetime, but the universe is quantum mechanical.
eternal regression mean infinite possibilities to have found a dead end. So is not possible. Also the existence without causation of the very complex quantum physics cannot be given for granted
@@francesco5581 That's just lazy pseudo-philosophy. Mathematicians eat infinite regress for breakfast, there's nothing inherently problematic about it. Besides, no one knows how time and causality behave on the quantum level anyway, so none of these intuitions are applicable.
@@AlexanderShamov it's not true, Turok has worked decades on the physic of eternal universes and recently abandoned the idea. Frenkel, probably the greatest mathematician of our time agrees. And you have another opinion in this video... So please who are those physics mathematicians who are confident in eternal regression ? . Believing in eternal regression is just an excuse to avoid the first cause problem. And no you cant say that quantum level produce a complex, stable and meaningful universe without an intelligence involved and btw who place the very complex quantum world there ?
@@francesco5581 There's no such thing as a "first cause". The only notion of causality that is known to exist is a purely physical phenomenon, applicable to events WITHIN the already existing universe, so talking about a cause OF the universe is a category error. Anything else philosophers might want to call "causality" is just baseless speculation that's being conflated with the real thing for no reason. No one knows why the universe exists, or what might even constitute an answer to such a question. If anything like your "first cause" existed, that would just shift the same question one level further. Since no one has any answers anyway, I suggest at least keeping the questions grounded in reality.
@@AlexanderShamov Careful Alexander, careful now - it appears you are arguing with someone who has theistic presuppositions. If you would humor my analogy, this is akin to bashing your head against a very, very hard rock.
Thanks for sharing this great video. . !! Prof Vilenkin is simply remarkable in his scientific explanation. The expansion is a plausible and undeniable evidence for the beginning of the universe. Apparently some folks do not feel comfortable with the evidence. Remember: Science is about fact and not feeling..
Can I ask what “evidence” are you referring to? It seems to me the Professor is using “logic” or “mathematical reasoning “ to prove that there had to be a “beginning.” If you have cycles or cycles of inflation. How do we actually observe beginnings?
On a block theory of time you don't have successive moments or a beginning of anything. Timelessness comes first then beginnings and endings are within that, but you can't ask did timelessness have a beginning.
@@Ekam-Sat I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm saying that these conversations take things for granted and aren't radical enough. With different conceptions of time and causation many problems can be avoided.
Entropy, if entropy is always increasing and based on what we know about the early universe doesn't it make sense to assume that everything started in a state of the least possible amount of entropy? Something like a singularity? Edit: I paused the video to write this comment then he addressed the exact question within 2 or 3 seconds of unpausing
The macro-universe or macro-verse always just is, with any activity/change that's happening inside of it as phase change (such as our universe coming into existence and ceasing to be). You can think of the macro-verse as the number 0 which is without beginning or end, always in equilibrium, but manifested as infinite numbers - these infinite numbers inside of the 0 represent various particles, entities, universes, other tangible & intangible attributes coming and going, but the 0 itself does not experience any change, for it is comprised of EVERYTHING (things and their opposites). From its vantage point, there is no passage of time, for time = change. The 0 is both NOTHING & EVERYTHING simultaneously. The numbers inside of the 0 experience change/time because their view of the whole is fragmented. Another way to visualize this is to think of the macro-verse as steam and it simply undergoes phase changes, sometimes manifesting as ice, sometimes as snow, sometimes as liquid water etc. The manifestations/forms are not static, but the underlying reality is.
When will these speculative discussions end? We need better and more out-of-the-box tools to know the "laws of reality". Archimedes' bathtub or Newton's apple tree were great out-of-the-box tools. We need more of those. Maybe a cosmic commode with quantum entanglement flush feature.
I think we're limited in what we can know, as there's only so much data we can get from looking at the sky (eg the CMBR). The key is probably understanding black holes, but that may take thousands of years before we can actually experiment with one I think we could be stuck with speculation for a very long time, maybe till humans die out.
We can observe existence, we can observe expansion, and we can observe evolution. But how do we observe what happened before the existence, the expansion, and the evolution happened? It seems to me, we can only theorize any beginning, i.e., imagine it.
@tarekabdelrahman2194 There is an infrequently used term, "cosmogony", that refers to the exact beginning of the universe. That is different than "cosmology" which refers to the the study of the evolution of the universe and doesn't (or perhaps shouldn't) try to answer the question of the beginning. Isaac Asimov defined cosmogony as a system of beliefs about the origin of the universe. That would, of course, include the Judeo/Christian/Muslim creation story and all other religious, cultural, and even pseudo-scientific beliefs about a "beginning". If you believe the universe had no beginning and has existed forever, then that is a personal cosmogony. And that seems to be exactly what you're saying. It's a personal philosophy or theory. There really is quite a lot of that included in cosmology. Inflation theory is an example. We don't have empirical evidence that inflation occurred, only that it solves some obvious problems with the raw Big Bang theory. But it's an arbitrary patch much like Einstein throwing in the cosmological constant to match the then current view of a non-expanding universe. BTW, Asimov published a group of separately written articles into a fun little book called "Science, Numbers and I" back in the '70's. As I recall, his own personal cosmogony was a chapter called "I'm looking over a 4-leaf clover". An easy read, but also a thought-provoking book if you can find it.
“On that Day We shall roll up the heavens as written scrolls are rolled up; [and] as We brought into being the first creation, so We shall bring it forth anew a promise which We have willed upon Ourselves: for, behold, We are able to do” Surah 21:104
could inflation develop from energy internal to quantum fluctuation, blowing up fluctuation until gravity, perhaps external, roughly equals and slows to accelerated expansion such as cosmological constant of dark energy?
There’s a famous one-page paper by Edward Tryon that you should look up, coupled with the interesting story of that paper’s development. Formally he was the first to say that a universe can be born from a single quantum fluctuation.
Is it not possible -- for example, a' la the conformal cyclic cosmos (CCC) model of Roger Penrose -- that we are in an eon/epoch of expansion that will transit into a new eon at the limiting state of the present expansion and, the cycle had been and would be repeating eons after eons indefinitely?
Ps. As a professional philosopher, I take the insult as a challenge and will be publishing a rebuttal of the idiocy of positing a universe eternally to the future, and not accepting it to the past. In fact, Aristotle gave such a rebuttal already in de Caelo. How can scientists be so narrow minded and parochial?
But what are the implications of having causality before spacetime??? Is the only difference between no time and infinite time, that in "pre-time" the only possibility is spacetime?
If spacetime is expanding via this inflation doesn’t that imply that spacetime is infinitely elastic? Or is new spacetime being created at the boundary? What does the theory say?
Thanks for your interesting video. Area under a curve is often equivalent to energy. Buckling of an otherwise flat field shows a very rapid growth of this area to a point. If my model applies, it may show how the universe’s energy naturally developed from the inherent behavior of fields. Your subscribers might want to see this 1:29 minutes video showing under the right conditions, the quantization of a field is easily produced. The ground state energy is induced via Euler’s contain column analysis. Containing the column must come in to play before over buckling, or the effect will not work. The sheet of elastic material “system”response in a quantized manor when force is applied in the perpendicular direction. Bonding at the points of highest probabilities and maximum duration( ie peeks and troughs) of the fields “sheet” produced a stable structure when the undulations are bonded to a flat sheet that is placed above and below the core material. Some say this model is no different than plucking guitar strings. You can not make structures with vibrating guitar strings or harmonic oscillators. th-cam.com/video/wrBsqiE0vG4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=waT8lY2iX-wJdjO3 At this time in my research, I have been trying to describe the “U” shape formed that is produced before phase change. In the model, “U” shape waves are produced as the loading increases and just before the wave-like function shifts to the next higher energy level. Over-lapping all frequencies together using Fournier Transforms, can produce a “U” shape or square wave form. Wondering if Feynman Path Integrals for all possible wave functions could be applicable here too? If this model has merit, seeing the sawtooth load verse deflection graph produced could give some real insight in what happened during the quantum jumps between energy levels. The mechanical description and white paper that goes with the video can be found on my LinkedIn and TH-cam pages. You can reproduce my results using a sheet of Mylar* ( the clear plastic found in some school essay folders. Seeing it first hand is worth the effort!
@@Paine137 A casual puddle might think it obviously had to fill the hole, a more curious puddle might eventually start to ponder all the narrow ranges of temperature, pressure, gravity, humidity, chemical bonds etc that made this seemingly intuitive reality possible.
Perhaps any Universe that contracts that is similar to the one we exist within and during its own contraction is not an end, but an evolution? The Universe contracts to its most fundamental origins of energy, but is evolving into a finer energy form equally? But not before creating another Universe similar to what it once was? And any new Universe that comes about at any other given period in the future is something different from what we see here today? All while the one created out of the advancing Universe begins as we have now in our reality? Meaning, there could be some extremely old and complex systems that we cannot be a part of, dimensionally, that is until the energy that you and I once were -We... is recreated into something much more advanced?
Maybe the observed expansion is only 'local'. Our observable portion could be surrounded by a denser mass that we're gravitating towards. Our observable portion could be a relative void
did inflation produce small hot dense state before start of universe from a cold quantum state? how would inflation produce a hot dense state from a cold quantum state? is a quantum fluctuation even hotter than small hot dense state from inflation?
Robert, you never asked the question: "Why is there something rather than nothings?" to the one I believe has the best answer. Hope you will still ask him. Robert Cummings Neville. Well read in world religions, much of science, Biosemiotics, the history of philosophy cross culturally as well. Hope you get this and give him a try with your question...
I think the universe began when god was in his cosmic workshop and he finally finished building a beautiful world we are living in, when the final lick of paint was added life began just like that. So beautiful and holy 🙌
A good point of view All humanity ever not being able to decode the universe beginning just proves one thing. There is a superior power demonstrating to human the impossibility to put a total theory of universe existence.
It's the year 1782. No one on Earth is able to show that man can fly. That's proof that "there is a superior power demonstrating to human the impossibility" of flight. Unfortunately for the deity, the Montgolfier brothers demonstrated otherwise the following year. Just because we cant answer a question now, doesn't mean that it's impossible.
@@triplec8375you are right for flying, but what you’re saying is not an analogy to the start of universe. Nobody did prove that we cannot fly. But here we have a solid proof that it is impossible that anything can be created of the real nothing. And for this we use one of the most known laws, the first law of thermodynamics.
@@tarekabdelrahman2194 I like your use of the term "the real nothing". As a non-scientist, one of the things about cosmologists that really irritates me is the unqualified use of the term "nothing". There are respected astrophysicists who have written articles and books purporting to reveal how everything came from nothing, but their "nothing" turns out to be an eternal, infinite spacetime field that has quantum properties. I'm not able to accept that as being nothing. If you haven't read it Robert Lawrence Kuhn's brief article "Levels of Nothing" is a quick summation of the ambiguity of "nothing". Sabine Hossenfelder has an entertaining and informative TH-cam video on the same subject. While I certainly agree with you about the 1st Law, many much more knowledgeable than me, maintain that the known laws of physics including the thermodynamic laws break down at the point of origin. If that is true, then the 1st Law argument isn't applicable. But we simply do not know if the idea that the physical laws break down is correct or not. So at this point, my perspective is that there are no absolute proofs either way so it remains a philosophical question. Thanks for kicking around some ideas with me. This is all very fascinating.
@@tarekabdelrahman2194 Thought you might like to see Stephen Hawking's view on the question. In his last book, "Brief Answers to the Big Questions", he writes, "If you believe in science, like I do, you believe that there are certain laws that are always obeyed. If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence." Thanks again for sharing your views.
It depends on what you mean by ‘beginning’ and what you mean by ‘universe’. Basically, Vilenkin suspects that the fundamental laws of physics have a kind of platonic existence, such that they apply even in the absence of spacetime. Given that assumption, it is possible to how that a microscopic ‘bubble’ of zero net energy spacetime could spontaneously quantum tunnel into existence and then start inflating.
The answer is YES. BGV has mathematically proven the universe has a finite physical beginning of space-time and matter. There is really no escaping that conclusion. He gave some speculative attempts to avoid the beginning, but then explained why they fail.
@@EdithBromfeld again, we need to be careful with our terms. He does NOT believe that the universe insofar as how people like William Lane Craig would define it had a beginning, since he believes that physical reality would exist even if spacetime did not, since the laws of physics have a kind of platonic existence. But insofar as how physicists would tend to define ‘the universe’, yes, he does believe that that is not past-eternal. Again, anyone who wants to cite Vilenkin on this issue needs to be very careful with how they are using their terms, because otherwise you’re going to be misrepresenting his position.
@@AK_UK_ why assume they ‘came’ from anywhere? Maybe they did. Maybe they’re just a brute fact. Maybe every conceivable set of laws has its own platonic existence and corresponding universe as Tegmark believes. Either way, that’s an entirely separate question.
How can tunnelling from nothing happen? Nothing is a state of non existence. Nothing can come from there and nothing can go there. Empty space is a something, regardless of size.
Wonderful topic. I used to emotionally react to the poetry of the possibility that nature is eternal. For instance, according to one theory, our universe arose from a pre-existing spatially infinite universe that existed forever prior to the birth of our universe and was cold, dark, and nearly empty for that time. Then, gravity caused matter in a region of it to start being drawn together, and then, eventually, all of that matter collapsed into an incredibly massive black hole. The matter at the center of the black hole kept on contracting, until it reached a critical density and could contract no more. Then the center of the black hole rebounded in what I think (I may have misremembered) was the Big Bang at the beginning of our universe. Proponents of the First Cause argument make the gratuitous intuitive assumption that nature can't be eternal and also that if nature began, there must have been some kind of context for nature to come from, even if there wasn't anthying before nature! Very interesting listening to Vilenkin and I hope that in my lifetime scientists will either prove that Nature is eternal or had a beginning.
I've always been in the B. Greene camp that maybe a 'beginning' has no meaning when it comes to the Universe. We know what that word 'beginning' means, but it's the wrong question and perhaps simply doesn't apply to the Universe.
if it had a beginning, and obviously there was a beginning (because eternal regression is not logical) , then it needs a first causation ... so what there is (or who) outside our universe is in a "no time" environment.
You're still regressing to a prior state, so you still haven't eliminated eternal regression, and if whatever that was can exist in a no-time state why can't an early state of our universe?
@@simonhibbs887 there cant be regression in a state of "no-time" , things simply are. We know that time is strictly related to matter and the forces of our universe so if we remove matter even time should disappear. So a kind of consciousness could be not tied to time, if out of this universe.
@@wouldhavessure, it could have come out of nothingness. Anything is possible. But is that a rational explanation? Has anything ever come out of nothingness that humans have observed?
@@MattSmithJ nothingness doesn't contain logic or laws of physics, so it wouldn't be surprising if things spontaneously came from nothingness, since cause and effect rely on logic. Once the set of things spawned from nothing includes logic, it's harder to get more things.
If the universe can expand faster than the speed of light then the universe can do whatever the hell it wants it's not bound by any theory any of us would choose to shackle it with just because we need to control the environment we live in, no matter how infinite it may be
@@Ekam-Sat Change doesn't have a purpose (purpose presupposes intention), however, change is necessary and it has a cause. Change is due to the instability of remaining in a static state.
The universe itself undergoes expansion, while the dynamics within the universe can both contract and expand. However, these internal dynamics collectively decay and expand into larger structures. In my model (which is likely closest to the truth), the path update of a vector is determined by averaging its neighboring vectors with its own vector. The stress-energy is represented by the direction differential over volume, leading to the formation of reflection gradients towards motion flow symmetry patterns (implosion and explosion equilibrium), which are polarization formations, equating to mass. The Planck mass is the first to form, establishing our "space," which balances out with charge "mass" (space is flat btw, the motion curves and forms the pseudo space time (general relativity) we live in). The mass we are composed of consists of longer and shorter motion flow loops, where the sum of the circumferences of these loops, divided by the number of motion flow loops in that mass, equals the Planck constant (h constant). The h value is a relative constant, relative to the observer made out of mass charge, it is always expanding in the true reference frame as are we. The quantum gravitational doughnut polarizations are in a perpetual state of decay and expansion across the vector field. Energy density remains uniform throughout the universe, but the specific energy density ratios vary in their extractability. This variability depends on the reflection gradients that facilitate perturbations. In this framework, mass and charge emerge from the complex interplay of motion vectors, leading to the formation of matter as we know it. The continuous interaction and adjustment of these vectors underpin the dynamic and ever-expanding nature of the universe. You are expanding with the doughnut field as well; you just don't detect it.
Yup. Without matter beginning, before, began, all are meaningless words. Size and distance (space) is also meaningless. So there is no possible way to measure disorder/entropy in such a system which is how Penrose also gets out of the thermodynamic argument against a cyclic universe. When a closed system is 100% radiation, everything in it is everywhere at every time which I suppose could also be considered a very low entropy state, like the one before the Big Bang
If a beginning requires time, but time requires matter, but we just ruled out that matter can be past eternal, then they all have some explanation that is neither from something that is none of the above, created in simultenaity. I'm not sure how you know "you cannot have time without matter" however. Either way, it seems to demonstrate that belief in an eternal physical reality falls apart.
@@godfreydebouillon8807 the “no time without matter” conjecture is basically just a logical consequence of massless particles moving at the speed of light and therefore experiencing no time themselves. Anything moving at c experiences no time and arrives at its destination the same exact same moment it’s emitted, from its frame of reference at least. So without mass, the only thing left is radiation moving at the speed of light and therefore there’s nothing to experience any passage of time from any particular reference frame of existing energy, so time and distance become essentially meaningless
0:47 “If the universe is expanding, therefore it had a BEGINNING” → Define “BEGINNING” precisely. The singularity of the big bang, the beginning of some type of bounce, the beginning of a phase transition, the eruption of a bubble universe ‽ 7:55 “Tunneling from Nothing”, or why not “Tunneling from SOMETHING” ‽
Say there is a red square on the left and blue square on the right, separated from each other by one step of time. The red square is two squares in one. It is a square that is in its original space, and also a square that has just come from its original space on right. If the same is true for the blue square on the right, then both squares can each be two squares in one, each being part of two systems. Say the two squares switch spaces with each other infinitely fast non stop. That would mean both the squares would be in each other’s spaces at the same time, shoving each other away. But instead of shoving each other away, if both the squares each became one system instead of two systems in one, both squares could be in the two spaces at the same time with out shoving each other out of the way each becoming two 5th dimensional squares. With this technique you could mix two 3 dimensional things together with out them both expanding. Let’s say the two squares are each still part of two systems. For instance, the red square on the left is two squares in one, it is a square that is in its original spot, and a square that has just come from its original spot on the right. If the square that is in its original spot on the left turns into the square that has just come from its original spot on the right, then it is like it has all of a sudden switched or come from the right, even though it was never on the right. Now let’s imagine 10 different squares forming a circle each separated by one step of time. Each square is moving forward into the next squares space, all in the same direction and at the same time, like a second hand on a clock. Each square has its original space but each square is 10 squares in one, or 10 systems in one. If one of these squares in its original space become one of the other 9 systems, it can’t say it has just come from the previous space, because turning into one of the other 9 systems is no different then turning FROM one of the other 8 systems. So if it turns into one of the 9 systems, it is like it has NOT been in the previous space in the first place. A bit like the 6 days of the week that aren’t separated from each other by time. And besides that, if the original space of the system its turning into is 5 steps back in time, then it can’t say it has just come from that space because it is 5 steps back in time. Let’s say you have two cars parked next to each other. One has just come from Texas and the other has just come from California. The car from California is two cars in one. It is its original self but is also the car from Texas, making it two cars in one or two systems in one. This same symmetry applies to the car from Texas that is parked beside. If the car from California turns into the other system, it’s like it has just come from Texas even though it hasn’t, so would the car’s existence be based on a lie or the truth. The car from California turns into the car from Texas in a flash. If it did it slow and gradually it would turn into an infinite number of cars before turning into the car from Texas. If the car from California turns into another thing before turning into the car from Texas, then the fact that it really has come from California would be a lie. All of this is similar to each of the 10 squares being 10 systems in one, with a system in its original space turning into one of the other 9 systems. Now let’s say you have a red square on the left and an empty space on the right both separated from each other by one step of time. As the red square switches spaces infinitely fast non stop, it will take up both spaces at once. Could this mean that the red square has become the two empty spaces and the two empty spaces have become the one red square. Or have the spaces and square switched identities. If Friday switches spaces with the 6 other days infinitely fast non stop, the 6 other days would all have to fit into the space Friday is leaving behind. To solve this problem, why don’t we think of the space Friday is leaving behind as constantly whizzing past the 6 other days infinitely fast non stop.
🎶 "you put your right foot in and your right foot out. Your right foot in and you shake it all about. You do the hokey pokey and you turn around, and that's what it's all about..." 🎶 🙃
Perhaps one of the main reasons "scientists" are most dubious in these kinds of queries is the fact science is endlessly revised and therefore one knowing the track record thereof has persons bite their tongues. Something reprehensible I notice is the lack of respect for Theology today. Some may think Theology to be only a dogma - only beliefs and theories concerning Theology may be expressed as dogmatic or on the other hand, factual. What science does is not science. The essence, faculties, qualia, natures, etc. are not properties of science. Science, a method(s). You'll hear fallacious phrases from certain persons in, "we're doing real science" or "this is science" as if they are studying science itself. The field under study, in utility of science, is THEOLOGY. Is this not most reprehensible in those who have an agenda to push who defame Theology? The nature of all this is not science; science studies this nature(s); our scriptures are based on these sciences in the field of Theology. Is it that persons today aren't strong enough to handle this fact? It's not of virtue in llowing these persons of dark agendas today to completely high jack "science" influencing others. How is it so many who think themselves wit are incapable of acknowledging Theology? Those who lack courage and direction should never be considered.
That sure is a long way of saying, my god beliefs and my god bible are true and all scientific claims that don't fit my god belief and my god bible is false.
They use the word universe in too many applications. Yes, the current universe may have had a beginning, but that doesn't mean there was a previous similar universe. Better to say that Existence itself preceeded the current universe, but in what form or under what natural laws we do not know. 😮
The universe is expanding at an increasing rate which means that the outer edges are at the spreed of light causing it to actually be getting smaller till a single point and another big bang.
6:54 'Something happened' and the Universe changed state, an 'event' occurred. In itself not of too much importance but then another event occurred and twixt the two 'Time' became emergent. The metric of time depended upon the 'events' then occuring. Things change. Though maybe not so much today. To Tim McGraw the beginning is a BBQ stain on a white T-Shirt, but to 'Inflationists' it is a big bang. At last their dogma has been punctured in a big way. Inflation is a frig, always has been, at least now its fantasies are limited by common and mathematical sense. This presentation is a breath of fresh air 🙂
The Universe before inflation and befor time was a 'something' (hence the observational metric mentioned above) . Quantum Mechanics can not explain that. It is cheap to bring Heisenberg into the conversation just to obtain a fallacious out. His Principle is based upon observations of Energy and Matter. Neither Energy nor Matter is based upon his Principle, unless principles have god like powers. 'Something from Nothing' is not currently understood. It begs the question of 'Why' which is something Physics in The 21st Century is poorly trained to ponder. Unzicker's view on American and European thought has a resonance here. I freely admit that I know not the answers but I can smell a fish. To sever Inflation from the implication of the necessity for a Big Bang is quite revolutionary. I dare say Prof Brian Cox will go apoplectic :-)
Well, nobody knows the whole universe, perhaps other sectors behave differently and actually contracting in order to maintain the universe equilibrium of momentum.
There is probably no way the Matter that is thousands of light years away from the orgin of the "BigBang" (in all directions) would collapse back to that point of origin. There is no source of gravity that would pull everything back, you get one explosion and a eternally expanding universe. The only way everything goes back to the singularity is if it bounces off a boundary outside the Universe or twists in on itself or everything eventually becomes part of a Black Hole which all attract and combine to give us a "BigBang".
The is no special origin point of the big bang in space. The big bang occurred simultaneously across all space as the universe as a whole, all of spacetime, expanded and continues to expand.
C'MON Lawrence; just ask them how successfully the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is violated contriving a universe of origin. OR conversely, how an eternal universe has not distributed to equilibrium heat. EINSTEIN'S DYING TO KNOW...he said Thermodynamics would NEVER be overthrown.
You apparently been reading too much creationist bs. The Laws of Thermodynamics don't apply as we know them UNTIL the current expanding universe passed inflation.
The universe is infinite and eternal. That which is infinite can't expand - it's already everywhere. That which is eternal had no beginning - it has always been. The human mind can't handle this - though the ramifications are truly mind-blowing and should be investigated by all. The quality of your life and happiness depend on it.
07:43 “The universe could have spontaneously originated through quantum mechanics, tunneling from nothingness into a dense state”. Wow, that escalated quickly! He started with a scientific explanation and then jumped into some wild philosophical nonsense. He could have just admitted he doesn't know how the universe began.
I was confused too because "nothing" supposedly doesn't exist. Something can't come from nothing. He did say that "nothing" was no space-time. I think that no space-time is probably another dimension that we don't understand. It's not nothing. We call it nothing because no 'matter' exists. Something other than matter exists, so it is something. Perhaps if he didn't call it 'nothing' it would make more sense.
@@RealQuInnMallory *"Yes time only moves forward in time not backward in time only moves in one direction time and only moves one direction in space and time"* ... Correct! Time follows the same forward-progressing pattern as everything else.
@@sinisterintentions3273 *"Actually there's a theory that time can move in any direction"* ... I'll bet you one "grandfather paradox" that the theory is incorrect.
The universe had a beginning...or was that a start of the end of something else,or perhaps the universe itself...on repeat, or multi-verse theory in play perhaps?..who knows?
Im not quite sure how the interviewee is difining a beginning if something was there before inflation. He probably means a beginning of our world as we know it. I will have to listen to it again. If something was there before inflation then I guess there's probably a cyclical beginning and ending to the multiverse, or whatever. We've been told that "nothing" is not a possibility. If "nothing" were a possibility, then a beginning and ending of the entire cosmos, multiverse, many worlds, or whatever you believe in, would have an ending where "nothing" is a possibility. Only if "nothing" were a possibility, then a beginning and total ending of anything at all would make sense.
One week goes around in a circle. if the 7 days were each frozen infinitely large 3 dimensional spaces. The circular week would be composed of time, but not the 7 days. If Friday is switching spaces with the 6 other days infinitely fast non stop, Friday would be taking the 6 o days spaces up all at once, so Friday would go from being a frozen 3 dimensional space to becoming 4 dimensional because it would now be composed of time. As Friday is constantly spaces with the 6 other days infinitely fast non stop, the 6 other days would have to all fit inside the space Friday is leaving behind all making one 3 dimensional day. Imagine if Friday and the 6 other days remain in their own spaces not switching. If Friday is separated from the 6 other days by time, but the 6 other days are not separated from each other by time, then the 6 other days would make one 4 dimensional entity. So now the same thing is happening with all 7 frozen days remaining in their spaces. Imagine 2 zero dimensional points. These 2 zero dimensional points are the only known red colour and only known blue colour to exist. Imagine if both these 2 zero dimensional points are each composed of 20 individual zero dimensional points. If these 2 points split apart into 40 individual points, you might think red and blue don’t exist any more, but if the all the dispersed points formed a system like the week with frozen days, red and blue could still exist. Imagine two groups of people, group A and group B. These two groups are separated by the shortest span of time possible, therefore there is no time In between these two groups. If one person from leaves group A and enters group B, then someone from group B would leave group B and enter group A at the exact same time, because time can’t move on until this happens. Imagine a circle composed of 20 frozen 3 dimensional days. Each frozen day was either red or blue. So it goes red red blue blue blue red red blue blue and so on. Let’s imagine each frozen days as being red or blue, or being like groups A or group B. If one day switched with the day next to it that is a different colour, all the other days would each switch with the different coloured day next to them at the exact same time, because even though a day next to another day that’s the same colour are not switching with each other, they are still acting at the exact same time because they are still both separated by the shortest span of time possible that is not composed of any more time. With seven days of the week being frozen infinitely large 3 dimensional spaces, Friday can’t be separated from Monday by time, it would have to be separated from Monday by time and space, because the 3 dimensional spaces of Saturday and Sunday would block it from getting to Monday.
Infinite space Infinite time Infinite matter The universe is Infinite which means no beginning and no end. It looks like someone is too stubborn to even acknowledge this as a fact.
The problem lies with both mankind's intelligence/comprehension and our physics, which appertain solely to our planet and solar system. Our galaxy formed 13 billion years ago. 8.5 billion years passed before our solar system formed around 4.5 billion years ago. Intelligent life has been around for 200,000? years. What we see and what we learn at close hand, is what we accept as normal/standard. Although we can see deep into space/far back, what happens in our own back yard, may not play out the same way, the further back we go/look. Conditions/environments may have different affects/effects if we were able to travel through these far distances.
Beginnings, endings, time- are all human things. The universe is beyond all that. If you believe the universe "came into existence" - you basically believe that the greatest thing we know of (by far) just popped out of (basically) thin air (ha, ha on you for that). Of course the universe has always been there. It is almost common sense, its also called infinite. If you think about it for a half second even: if it was made, how was it made? Where was it made? Where did all this material come from to make it? What state was the material in before that (were they transformed in the process?) I couldn't even fathom what would be involved in that....
@@browngreen933 *"That's why I prefer the term Existence to universe. The current universe is just a temporary manifestation of Existence itself."* ... Obviously I'm in agreement.
you heard Vilenkin say that if it’s expanding, there must’ve been a beginning, but you know for sure that it’s always been there. Hmm who’s the opinion should I accept?
Where is universe in your present reality,in your memory,yes some thing is there more than you know out of your memory understand in present and that's is fundamental REALITY,which has equal and opposite copy of everything as a base to stand ,day stand on night ,right stand on the parameters of wrong ,all else has vise a versa ,finding your wise a versa as God is all about true spirituality ,be true spiritual ❤,🙏
Opinions, and just guesses: yes, many physicists ‘reject’ the idea of a universe that actually had a beginning( e.g. Hawking). Their ‘world view’ is agnostic, even atheistic. Aristotle claimed the Universe is eternal. Leibnitz question still holds: ‘ why is there something rather than nothing ‘? Why? A philosophical question in fact.
I used to think that, but now I no longer do. The reason entropy increases is because of statistics, not because it necessarily HAS to. If you took any fixed amount of stuff, there are countless configurations that stuff could take. Some of those configurations are random noise, but some are ordered states that can contain information. Since there are vastly more disordered states than ordered states, whenever the configuration changes, it's vastly more probable that it will become more disordered than ordered. For example, imagine you have a box of alphabet cereal, and you spread all the pieces out on the floor. There are vastly more arrangements of the pieces that don't spells words, sentences, paragraphs, etc. than there are arrangements that DO spell words, sentences, paragraphs, etc. So if you started off with some state affairs in which some of the alphabets spelled words and sentences while others didn't, and you shook it up, you'd be more likely to get a configuration in which there were no words (or were fewer words) than one in which you had more words and sentences. That's why there is a second law of thermodynamics. Every time there is some change in the universe, the total amount of entropy increases. But that is because it's vastly more LIKELY to increase than to decrease. But notice that doesn't mean it's IMPOSSIBLE for it to decrease. Given an infinite amount of time, even very improbable events become probable. So even if the low entropy at the beginning of the universe is vanishingly improbable, if the universe were infinitely old, the low entropy of the universe could eventually happen. So the second law of thermodynamics doesn't necessarily imply a beginning of the universe.
(5:25) *AV: **_"Cycles have to start at some point."_* ... Exactly! Same applies to anything that posits a bidirectional *infinite existence* (i.e., God, Multiverse, Many Worlds, Big Bounce, etc.). Explaining a universe that has a beginning is obviously a difficult task, but we don't simply toss questions off the table just because they are difficult. Likewise, answering the question with, _"It's just always existed!"_ is a quick fix, ... but it creates more questions than what you started with. *Five Issues with an infinitely existing universe:* *(1)* An infinitely existing universe cannot be conceivably reconciled. With no starting point, there is no possible way to place ourselves anywhere along the universal timeline nor comprehend our relationship to it. *(2)* Infinity moving forward from a starting point = *possible.* Infinity moving forward without having a starting point = *Impossible.* With everything purportedly existing forever, the latter eliminates the concept of "forward movement" as forward movement requires a prior moment as a starting point. *(3)* If the universe has always existed, then time is not present. Time is a measurement of change, and with no initial starting point to start the clock ticking, _then there is no time._ *(4)* "Evolution" is incompatible with an infinitely existing universe. Evolution is the movement from simplicity to complexity. Increasing complexity is unlimited in its potential, but simplicity must eventually resolve to the word "simplest." Even positive and negative numbers eventually regress to the simplest of numbers, which is 0. *(5)* An infinite universe succumbs to a logical fallacy called *Special Pleading.* When a rule applies to everything, but we make an exception for *one thing,* that's called "Special Pleading." *Example 1:* _Everything that exists has a beginning except for God who has no beginning._ *Example 2:* _Everything in the universe demonstrates a beginning except for the universe which has no beginning._ *Example 3:* _Every human has a birthday except for a guy named Joe who has no birthday._ ... Imagine how much progress could be made in science if we eliminated all these crazy theories based on "infinite existence."
We mere humans can't really comprehend 1000s of years and somehow you think we should be able to understand infinity or how matter/energy could exist without a beginning.
*"We mere humans can't really comprehend 1000s of years and somehow you think we should be able to understand infinity or how matter/energy could exist without a beginning."* ... We have absolutely no conceivability issues whatsoever with our species existing for over 300,000 years. However, an "infinitely existing" human, species, universe, or anything else is utterly inconceivable. You can conceive a circle and conceive a square, but a square-circle is inconceivable. You can also conceive of something existing for a year, ten years, one thousand years, or three hundred thousand years, but something that has no beginning (infinitely existing) is inconceivable.
*"We mere humans can't really comprehend 1000s of years and somehow you think we should be able to understand infinity or how matter/energy could exist without a beginning."* ... My first reply was shadow-banned. Second attempt: The human mind has no problem with comprehending starting points for things that exists no matter how far back we regress. Inconceivability ensues the moment you try to conceive something that has no starting point.
>(1) An infinitely existing universe cannot be conceivably reconciled. With no starting point, there is no possible way to place ourselves anywhere along the universal timeline nor comprehend our relationship to it. Why? We’re here. It’s a perfectly good place to be, whether there are an infinite or finite number of other places. As for conceiving things, we can conceive of infinite number lines just fine, and Georg Cantor characterised a plethora of distinct types of infinity which all seem not just conceivable, but distinguishable and definable. > Infinity moving forward without having a starting point = Impossible. With everything purportedly existing forever, the latter eliminates the concept of "forward movement" as forward movement requires a prior moment as a starting point. Things don’t necessarily exist forever though, they exist now. And infinite series still have sequences of elements, each element by definition has a predecessor so there is always a prior moment. >(3) If the universe has always existed, then time is not present. Time is a measurement of change, and with no initial starting point to start the clock ticking, then there is no time. That’s just an assertion, not an argument. > Evolution is the movement from simplicity to complexity. We currently observe entropy increasing, but if we extrapolate into the future everything will be cold and uniform. As Roger Penrose the only difference between cold and uniform in the future, and hot and uniform in the past is the scale. Mathematically they are equivalent. I think his Conformal Cyclic Cosmology argument is wacky, but in the good way. He makes a lot of very good points. >Example 2: Everything in the universe demonstrates a beginning except for the universe which has no beginning. I don’t think ‘the universe’ as a whole can be treated the same way as a contingent arrangement of components within that universe. By definition the universe in total must be fundamental while particular arrangements of parts of the universe are contingent. The rules for contingent things can’t be the same as for fundamental things, that’s what makes them contingent. >… Imagine how much progress could be made in science if we eliminated all these crazy theories based on "infinite existence." What part of established current practical science actually depends on infinite existence? These sorts of theories are speculative, no established result depends on them. Theories at the cutting edge are always speculative, and most of them end up being discarded. None of this is obstructing advancement though.
*"Why? We’re here. It’s a perfectly good place to be, whether there are an infinite or finite number of other places."* ... God obviously created us all. I mean, ... we're here aren't we? *"Things don’t necessarily exist forever though, they exist now. "* ... And as I've stated so many times before, _The eternal existence of something that has a beginning is conceivable _*_provided there are no barriers_*_ to its sustained existence."_ That obviously cannot apply to purported 'infinitely existing things" that have no beginning, right? *"And infinite series still have sequences of elements, each element by definition has a predecessor so there is always a prior moment."* ... If every sequence has a prior moment, what is the prior moment to the initial sequence? Vilenkin alluded to this regarding infinite cycles. *"That’s just an assertion, not an argument."* ... It's an argument based on logic. If I wrote, _"If nothing existed that demonstrated any length, then an 'inch' wouldn't exist."_ would that be an assertion or an argument? *"We currently observe entropy increasing, but if we extrapolate into the future everything will be cold and uniform."* ... A cataclysmic end to the universe does not mean evolution does not move from simplicity to complexity. You can watch a movie that starts out simple yet gets more and more complex as it goes. The fact that the movie eventually ends does not change the fact that it grew more and more complex over time. *"I don’t think ‘the universe’ as a whole can be treated the same way as a contingent arrangement of components within that universe."* ... Rubber balls bounce and roll. If I have a thousand rubber balls, they will all bounce and roll. If I have a zillion rubber balls shaped into a planet-size ball, it will still bounce and roll. Likewise, if I have a universe chock full of things with a beginning and an end, and the universe itself is a collection of everything that exists, then the universe has a beginning and an end. ... Finite in; finite out. *"Theories at the cutting edge are always speculative, and most of them end up being discarded. None of this is obstructing advancement though."* ... There are 196,000,000 results on the word "Multiverse." Brian Green has a 17-minute-long video touting the Multiverse that would make Spielberg jealous. Imagine if all that time, effort and money was spent on something less "fantastic."
Vilenkin's theorem states that the universe had a beginning & the Bible states that God created the universe, ex nihilo, from nothing. Genesis 1 v 1, In the beginning God created the heaven & the earth. Hebrews 11 v 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
@@wmpx34 good 1 -- yes, I've seen the #s there too but I'm specifically referring to the English Gematria synchronicities which are out of this world; search for 444 English Gematria: Jesus, Messiah, Cross, Point and many others
Now, after using a big mathematical stupidity, Alexander Vilenkin et Co. have to invent an even bigger one. The Universal natural dynamic has no beginning and no end, Alexander.
I can’t get rid of the feeling that our smart chimpanzee’s brains are still too chimpanzee to ever really get a hold of these things. But to be curious is great.
If the brain is a survival mechanism, "getting hold of things" is just a behavoir. It does not correspond to anything in reality, but as long as we are not extinct, we have this illusion of "understanding".
However, if so, then what's written above is total gibberish :)
Explanatory Gap
As defined by a physicist- The explanatory gap is the fact that all our subjective senses of sound, touch, taste, smell, colour and all the subjective aspects of our conscious experience such as pain, happiness and so on are difficult to explain in relation to the supposed objective properties of the physical world.
We have only rather weak correlations that we can make. We can correlate chemicals in the body to experiences of pain and pleasure but these correlations tell us nothing about how these feelings arise. How do you explain sight to a blind man? Where in our explanation of the physical world do we account for what it is like to experience the colour red?
We have no idea at all how consciousness arises - whether it is mediated by the brain or generated by the brain. Whether it requires an explanation that has something additional to pure physical theory or whether explanations will arise from physical theory when we know more.
This fact usually upsets a few people here who will swiftly produce a word salad about consciousness that explains nothing.
Given the failure of our mechanistic explanations some people think that the world of woo that is the current multiple interpretations of the pure maths of QM will help us. It wont. It's hard to see how physical processes that are probabilistic will make any more sense than deterministic ones when it comes to consciousness.
It is the woo of dead/alive cats, collapsing wave functions and so on that generates the term Quantum Mind which hasn't really got anywhere.
It is strange that the holy grail of Physics or a "Theory of Everything" seems reliant on a pure maths that is unsolvable in all but the simplest of situations and has nothing to say about consciousness itself which is the way we experience the universe and is what generates these theories.
But that is where we are and the current state of our knowlege. If you think that an equation modelling a 13 dimensional vibrating string generating a "field" is an explanation then so be it. It has predictive accuracy but we are a long way from the end!
Sum total of my learning is the conclusion that by application of rationality alone, we can not decipher fundamental realities of existence.Our senses are not equipped to comprehend complexities of the universe. Existence is not as it appears or perceived. Our so called reality is based
on our deficient perceptions.
" Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think."
Werner Heisenberg
why you are doing an interview in a typhoon???
HAHA! Because that's the only place where the conditions ressemble to those at the Big Bang 😊
Because then his hair looks more like einstein. ;-)
Vilenkin believes that the universe must have a beginning because of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) Theorem, which was formulated back in 2003. However, Guth, one of the other authors of the theorem disagrees and maintains that the universe is "very likely eternal." This apparent disagreement seems to be due to the fact that the BGV theorem applies to classical spacetime, but the universe is quantum mechanical.
eternal regression mean infinite possibilities to have found a dead end. So is not possible. Also the existence without causation of the very complex quantum physics cannot be given for granted
@@francesco5581 That's just lazy pseudo-philosophy. Mathematicians eat infinite regress for breakfast, there's nothing inherently problematic about it. Besides, no one knows how time and causality behave on the quantum level anyway, so none of these intuitions are applicable.
@@AlexanderShamov it's not true, Turok has worked decades on the physic of eternal universes and recently abandoned the idea. Frenkel, probably the greatest mathematician of our time agrees. And you have another opinion in this video... So please who are those physics mathematicians who are confident in eternal regression ? . Believing in eternal regression is just an excuse to avoid the first cause problem. And no you cant say that quantum level produce a complex, stable and meaningful universe without an intelligence involved and btw who place the very complex quantum world there ?
@@francesco5581 There's no such thing as a "first cause". The only notion of causality that is known to exist is a purely physical phenomenon, applicable to events WITHIN the already existing universe, so talking about a cause OF the universe is a category error. Anything else philosophers might want to call "causality" is just baseless speculation that's being conflated with the real thing for no reason.
No one knows why the universe exists, or what might even constitute an answer to such a question. If anything like your "first cause" existed, that would just shift the same question one level further. Since no one has any answers anyway, I suggest at least keeping the questions grounded in reality.
@@AlexanderShamov Careful Alexander, careful now - it appears you are arguing with someone who has theistic presuppositions. If you would humor my analogy, this is akin to bashing your head against a very, very hard rock.
This guy always picking the best places for interviews. Also mic issues or a big wind gust 😂
Thanks for sharing this great video. . !! Prof Vilenkin is simply remarkable in his scientific explanation. The expansion is a plausible and undeniable evidence for the beginning of the universe. Apparently some folks do not feel comfortable with the evidence. Remember: Science is about fact and not feeling..
Science' fake theories that are expanding their pockets does not mean the Universe is expanding...
Can I ask what “evidence” are you referring to? It seems to me the Professor is using “logic” or “mathematical reasoning “ to prove that there had to be a “beginning.” If you have cycles or cycles of inflation. How do we actually observe beginnings?
What irony that, as humans, we have insatiable curiousity, yet there are things we can never know.
Amen!
"...and you ˹O humanity˺ have been given but little knowledge." Quran 17:85
There's a whole lot more to the world than we can ever know
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
We're on a speeding train with no conductor, asking if we've left the station
In short, we've never left a station nor headed to another. We simply keep on going. (*In long I guess)
@@pequod4557 Precisely.
@ralphmacchiato3761 all secrets are known now. that's why its gonna keep expanding instead of contracting like it was supposed to do
There is a conductor. God!!! Just open your êtes and your heart and you'll see Him. Allah is wherever you turn your eyes !
@@Isdendounabdoun great sigh...
On a block theory of time you don't have successive moments or a beginning of anything. Timelessness comes first then beginnings and endings are within that, but you can't ask did timelessness have a beginning.
So basically you are saying we are the initial singularity?
@@Ekam-Sat I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm saying that these conversations take things for granted and aren't radical enough. With different conceptions of time and causation many problems can be avoided.
@@Ekam-Satthat is what he said but he don't know that he said it.
@@UriyahRecords 🤣 Good ONE Brother
What do they mean by the universe (matter, energy, space, time, or all of them)?
I listened to this twice, read many comments.
We as humans just don't know enough to answer such questions.
That shouldn't stop us from speculating over a doobie, though.
Entropy, if entropy is always increasing and based on what we know about the early universe doesn't it make sense to assume that everything started in a state of the least possible amount of entropy? Something like a singularity? Edit: I paused the video to write this comment then he addressed the exact question within 2 or 3 seconds of unpausing
The very first statement is incorrect, you can always get to you small and smaller measurement of space and time
The macro-universe or macro-verse always just is, with any activity/change that's happening inside of it as phase change (such as our universe coming into existence and ceasing to be). You can think of the macro-verse as the number 0 which is without beginning or end, always in equilibrium, but manifested as infinite numbers - these infinite numbers inside of the 0 represent various particles, entities, universes, other tangible & intangible attributes coming and going, but the 0 itself does not experience any change, for it is comprised of EVERYTHING (things and their opposites). From its vantage point, there is no passage of time, for time = change. The 0 is both NOTHING & EVERYTHING simultaneously. The numbers inside of the 0 experience change/time because their view of the whole is fragmented.
Another way to visualize this is to think of the macro-verse as steam and it simply undergoes phase changes, sometimes manifesting as ice, sometimes as snow, sometimes as liquid water etc. The manifestations/forms are not static, but the underlying reality is.
When will these speculative discussions end? We need better and more out-of-the-box tools to know the "laws of reality". Archimedes' bathtub or Newton's apple tree were great out-of-the-box tools. We need more of those. Maybe a cosmic commode with quantum entanglement flush feature.
I'll just nip to my shed and se what tools I've got.
I have a few socket sets, spanners and screwdrivers. I'm sure I'll have something that will work.
@@lewis72 a near-infinite set of vice grips should be handy.
Ain't gonna happen. We lost our only 10mm wrench.
I think we're limited in what we can know, as there's only so much data we can get from looking at the sky (eg the CMBR).
The key is probably understanding black holes, but that may take thousands of years before we can actually experiment with one
I think we could be stuck with speculation for a very long time, maybe till humans die out.
So why does Allan Guth think the universe did NOT have a beginning?
We can observe existence, we can observe expansion, and we can observe evolution. But how do we observe what happened before the existence, the expansion, and the evolution happened? It seems to me, we can only theorize any beginning, i.e., imagine it.
@tarekabdelrahman2194 There is an infrequently used term, "cosmogony", that refers to the exact beginning of the universe. That is different than "cosmology" which refers to the the study of the evolution of the universe and doesn't (or perhaps shouldn't) try to answer the question of the beginning. Isaac Asimov defined cosmogony as a system of beliefs about the origin of the universe. That would, of course, include the Judeo/Christian/Muslim creation story and all other religious, cultural, and even pseudo-scientific beliefs about a "beginning". If you believe the universe had no beginning and has existed forever, then that is a personal cosmogony. And that seems to be exactly what you're saying. It's a personal philosophy or theory. There really is quite a lot of that included in cosmology. Inflation theory is an example. We don't have empirical evidence that inflation occurred, only that it solves some obvious problems with the raw Big Bang theory. But it's an arbitrary patch much like Einstein throwing in the cosmological constant to match the then current view of a non-expanding universe. BTW, Asimov published a group of separately written articles into a fun little book called "Science, Numbers and I" back in the '70's. As I recall, his own personal cosmogony was a chapter called "I'm looking over a 4-leaf clover". An easy read, but also a thought-provoking book if you can find it.
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all in it 00:01
“On that Day We shall roll up the heavens as written scrolls are rolled up; [and] as We brought into being the first creation, so We shall bring it forth anew a promise which We have willed upon Ourselves: for, behold, We are able to do” Surah 21:104
it is beginning at this just moment....but in a different location...it restarts at the center ( there is no center ) so it begins somewhere
could inflation develop from energy internal to quantum fluctuation, blowing up fluctuation until gravity, perhaps external, roughly equals and slows to accelerated expansion such as cosmological constant of dark energy?
There’s a famous one-page paper by Edward Tryon that you should look up, coupled with the interesting story of that paper’s development. Formally he was the first to say that a universe can be born from a single quantum fluctuation.
Is it not possible -- for example, a' la the conformal cyclic cosmos (CCC) model of Roger Penrose -- that we are in an eon/epoch of expansion that will transit into a new eon at the limiting state of the present expansion and, the cycle had been and would be repeating eons after eons indefinitely?
Ps. As a professional philosopher, I take the insult as a challenge and will be publishing a rebuttal of the idiocy of positing a universe eternally to the future, and not accepting it to the past. In fact, Aristotle gave such a rebuttal already in de Caelo. How can scientists be so narrow minded and parochial?
I totally agree. It's totally illogical.
But what are the implications of having causality before spacetime???
Is the only difference between no time and infinite time, that in "pre-time" the only possibility is spacetime?
I found it a bit odd to discuss entropy and 2nd law of thermodynamics without mentioning black holes, at least in passing.
Why does infinity seem neither falsifiable nor unfalsifiable?
If spacetime is expanding via this inflation doesn’t that imply that spacetime is infinitely elastic? Or is new spacetime being created at the boundary? What does the theory say?
Thanks for your interesting video.
Area under a curve is often equivalent to energy. Buckling of an otherwise flat field shows a very rapid growth of this area to a point. If my model applies, it may show how the universe’s energy naturally developed from the inherent behavior of fields.
Your subscribers might want to see this 1:29 minutes video showing under the right conditions, the quantization of a field is easily produced.
The ground state energy is induced via Euler’s contain column analysis. Containing the column must come in to play before over buckling, or the effect will not work. The sheet of elastic material “system”response in a quantized manor when force is applied in the perpendicular direction.
Bonding at the points of highest probabilities and maximum duration( ie peeks and troughs) of the fields “sheet” produced a stable structure when the undulations are bonded to a flat sheet that is placed above and below the core material.
Some say this model is no different than plucking guitar strings. You can not make structures with vibrating guitar strings or harmonic oscillators.
th-cam.com/video/wrBsqiE0vG4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=waT8lY2iX-wJdjO3
At this time in my research, I have been trying to describe the “U” shape formed that is produced before phase change.
In the model, “U” shape waves are produced as the loading increases and just before the wave-like function shifts to the next higher energy level.
Over-lapping all frequencies together using Fournier Transforms, can produce a “U” shape or square wave form.
Wondering if Feynman Path Integrals for all possible wave functions could be applicable here too?
If this model has merit, seeing the sawtooth load verse deflection graph produced could give some real insight in what happened during the quantum jumps between energy levels.
The mechanical description and white paper that goes with the video can be found on my LinkedIn and TH-cam pages.
You can reproduce my results using a sheet of Mylar* ( the clear plastic found in some school essay folders.
Seeing it first hand is worth the effort!
As much as we never have an answer,we will still seek it.
I love you brother.
It just all seems so fine-tuned
The puddle says the same thing after it rains.
@@MarkPatmosand the correct answer would be “I don’t know”
@@Paine137 A casual puddle might think it obviously had to fill the hole, a more curious puddle might eventually start to ponder all the narrow ranges of temperature, pressure, gravity, humidity, chemical bonds etc that made this seemingly intuitive reality possible.
Perhaps any Universe that contracts that is similar to the one we exist within and during its own contraction is not an end, but an evolution? The Universe contracts to its most fundamental origins of energy, but is evolving into a finer energy form equally? But not before creating another Universe similar to what it once was? And any new Universe that comes about at any other given period in the future is something different from what we see here today? All while the one created out of the advancing Universe begins as we have now in our reality? Meaning, there could be some extremely old and complex systems that we cannot be a part of, dimensionally, that is until the energy that you and I once were -We... is recreated into something much more advanced?
At first he says that a collapsing universe is impossible and at the end he says the chance of a collapsing universe is non-zero. What is it?
If I understood the video correctly, he is referencing two different and contrasting cosmological models.
Only a non expanding universe has a chance of collapse.
Are we expanding or traveling?
Traveling in the expansion.
Maybe the observed expansion is only 'local'. Our observable portion could be surrounded by a denser mass that we're gravitating towards. Our observable portion could be a relative void
Brilliant ... but how did the universe begin?
He's acknowledging the issue better than most physicists.
Someone didn’t watch the video
did inflation produce small hot dense state before start of universe from a cold quantum state? how would inflation produce a hot dense state from a cold quantum state? is a quantum fluctuation even hotter than small hot dense state from inflation?
If there was a "cold quantum state" in existence , wouldn't that in itself constitute a "universe", but perhaps in a different phase?
Robert, you never asked the question: "Why is there something rather than nothings?" to the one I believe has the best answer. Hope you will still ask him. Robert Cummings Neville. Well read in world religions, much of science, Biosemiotics, the history of philosophy cross culturally as well. Hope you get this and give him a try with your question...
I think the universe began when god was in his cosmic workshop and he finally finished building a beautiful world we are living in, when the final lick of paint was added life began just like that.
So beautiful and holy 🙌
It begins every moment.
Smart man.
It is so busy with beginning permanently that it does not even exist. 😆
@@Prof-Joe-H it's an imagined permanent existence.
@@edimbukvarevic90 I do agree! (Sorry for misleading emoji.) 🤓
@@Prof-Joe-H it wasn't misleading. 👍
A good point of view
All humanity ever not being able to decode the universe beginning just proves one thing. There is a superior power demonstrating to human the impossibility to put a total theory of universe existence.
It's the year 1782. No one on Earth is able to show that man can fly. That's proof that "there is a superior power demonstrating to human the impossibility" of flight. Unfortunately for the deity, the Montgolfier brothers demonstrated otherwise the following year. Just because we cant answer a question now, doesn't mean that it's impossible.
@@triplec8375you are right for flying, but what you’re saying is not an analogy to the start of universe. Nobody did prove that we cannot fly. But here we have a solid proof that it is impossible that anything can be created of the real nothing. And for this we use one of the most known laws, the first law of thermodynamics.
@@tarekabdelrahman2194 I like your use of the term "the real nothing". As a non-scientist, one of the things about cosmologists that really irritates me is the unqualified use of the term "nothing". There are respected astrophysicists who have written articles and books purporting to reveal how everything came from nothing, but their "nothing" turns out to be an eternal, infinite spacetime field that has quantum properties. I'm not able to accept that as being nothing. If you haven't read it Robert Lawrence Kuhn's brief article "Levels of Nothing" is a quick summation of the ambiguity of "nothing". Sabine Hossenfelder has an entertaining and informative TH-cam video on the same subject. While I certainly agree with you about the 1st Law, many much more knowledgeable than me, maintain that the known laws of physics including the thermodynamic laws break down at the point of origin. If that is true, then the 1st Law argument isn't applicable. But we simply do not know if the idea that the physical laws break down is correct or not. So at this point, my perspective is that there are no absolute proofs either way so it remains a philosophical question. Thanks for kicking around some ideas with me. This is all very fascinating.
@@tarekabdelrahman2194 Thought you might like to see Stephen Hawking's view on the question. In his last book, "Brief Answers to the Big Questions", he writes, "If you believe in science, like I do, you believe that there are certain laws that are always obeyed. If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence." Thanks again for sharing your views.
@@triplec8375 Nature is the executor of God's laws (Galileo)
Could someone translate this for me in layman terms. Does he believe the universe has a beginning? Thanks!
It depends on what you mean by ‘beginning’ and what you mean by ‘universe’. Basically, Vilenkin suspects that the fundamental laws of physics have a kind of platonic existence, such that they apply even in the absence of spacetime. Given that assumption, it is possible to how that a microscopic ‘bubble’ of zero net energy spacetime could spontaneously quantum tunnel into existence and then start inflating.
The answer is YES. BGV has mathematically proven the universe has a finite physical beginning of space-time and matter. There is really no escaping that conclusion. He gave some speculative attempts to avoid the beginning, but then explained why they fail.
@@EdithBromfeld again, we need to be careful with our terms. He does NOT believe that the universe insofar as how people like William Lane Craig would define it had a beginning, since he believes that physical reality would exist even if spacetime did not, since the laws of physics have a kind of platonic existence. But insofar as how physicists would tend to define ‘the universe’, yes, he does believe that that is not past-eternal. Again, anyone who wants to cite Vilenkin on this issue needs to be very careful with how they are using their terms, because otherwise you’re going to be misrepresenting his position.
@@fanghur where did you those laws come from?
@@AK_UK_ why assume they ‘came’ from anywhere? Maybe they did. Maybe they’re just a brute fact. Maybe every conceivable set of laws has its own platonic existence and corresponding universe as Tegmark believes. Either way, that’s an entirely separate question.
How can tunnelling from nothing happen? Nothing is a state of non existence. Nothing can come from there and nothing can go there. Empty space is a something, regardless of size.
Wonderful topic. I used to emotionally react to the poetry of the possibility that nature is eternal. For instance, according to one theory, our universe arose from a pre-existing spatially infinite universe that existed forever prior to the birth of our universe and was cold, dark, and nearly empty for that time. Then, gravity caused matter in a region of it to start being drawn together, and then, eventually, all of that matter collapsed into an incredibly massive black hole. The matter at the center of the black hole kept on contracting, until it reached a critical density and could contract no more. Then the center of the black hole rebounded in what I think (I may have misremembered) was the Big Bang at the beginning of our universe. Proponents of the First Cause argument make the gratuitous intuitive assumption that nature can't be eternal and also that if nature began, there must have been some kind of context for nature to come from, even if there wasn't anthying before nature! Very interesting listening to Vilenkin and I hope that in my lifetime scientists will either prove that Nature is eternal or had a beginning.
i like this guy
It didn't begin in the beginning, that's a difficult conception to say "let there be light" called night is un scienctistific.
I've always been in the B. Greene camp that maybe a 'beginning' has no meaning when it comes to the Universe. We know what that word 'beginning' means, but it's the wrong question and perhaps simply doesn't apply to the Universe.
if it had a beginning, and obviously there was a beginning (because eternal regression is not logical) , then it needs a first causation ... so what there is (or who) outside our universe is in a "no time" environment.
You're still regressing to a prior state, so you still haven't eliminated eternal regression, and if whatever that was can exist in a no-time state why can't an early state of our universe?
@@simonhibbs887 there cant be regression in a state of "no-time" , things simply are. We know that time is strictly related to matter and the forces of our universe so if we remove matter even time should disappear. So a kind of consciousness could be not tied to time, if out of this universe.
The universe could have come from nothingness. That would give it a beginning. It solves infinite regression.
@@wouldhavessure, it could have come out of nothingness. Anything is possible. But is that a rational explanation? Has anything ever come out of nothingness that humans have observed?
@@MattSmithJ nothingness doesn't contain logic or laws of physics, so it wouldn't be surprising if things spontaneously came from nothingness, since cause and effect rely on logic.
Once the set of things spawned from nothing includes logic, it's harder to get more things.
If the universe can expand faster than the speed of light then the universe can do whatever the hell it wants it's not bound by any theory any of us would choose to shackle it with just because we need to control the environment we live in, no matter how infinite it may be
A static closed universe is unstabilty. This is why the universe changes. It is eternal
Yes. Correct. But please answer. What is the purpose of constant change? Please let me know. I believe Jesus knows too. But I want you to know too.
@@Ekam-Sat Change doesn't have a purpose (purpose presupposes intention), however, change is necessary and it has a cause. Change is due to the instability of remaining in a static state.
Sounds like conception to me 🤔 @6:06
I think Fred Hoyle was right. The Universe has always been here. That does not mean that Hoyle's "Steady State" model was correct.
I prefer a happy ending.
The universe itself undergoes expansion, while the dynamics within the universe can both contract and expand. However, these internal dynamics collectively decay and expand into larger structures. In my model (which is likely closest to the truth), the path update of a vector is determined by averaging its neighboring vectors with its own vector. The stress-energy is represented by the direction differential over volume, leading to the formation of reflection gradients towards motion flow symmetry patterns (implosion and explosion equilibrium), which are polarization formations, equating to mass. The Planck mass is the first to form, establishing our "space," which balances out with charge "mass" (space is flat btw, the motion curves and forms the pseudo space time (general relativity) we live in). The mass we are composed of consists of longer and shorter motion flow loops, where the sum of the circumferences of these loops, divided by the number of motion flow loops in that mass, equals the Planck constant (h constant). The h value is a relative constant, relative to the observer made out of mass charge, it is always expanding in the true reference frame as are we.
The quantum gravitational doughnut polarizations are in a perpetual state of decay and expansion across the vector field. Energy density remains uniform throughout the universe, but the specific energy density ratios vary in their extractability. This variability depends on the reflection gradients that facilitate perturbations. In this framework, mass and charge emerge from the complex interplay of motion vectors, leading to the formation of matter as we know it. The continuous interaction and adjustment of these vectors underpin the dynamic and ever-expanding nature of the universe. You are expanding with the doughnut field as well; you just don't detect it.
Je ne pense pas qu'il y ait un commencement dans la théorie cyclique de Penrose.
A beginning requires a framework of time, but you cannot have time without matter, so if there is no matter there is also no time and no beginning.
Time is a tool for human consumption.
Yup. Without matter beginning, before, began, all are meaningless words. Size and distance (space) is also meaningless. So there is no possible way to measure disorder/entropy in such a system which is how Penrose also gets out of the thermodynamic argument against a cyclic universe. When a closed system is 100% radiation, everything in it is everywhere at every time which I suppose could also be considered a very low entropy state, like the one before the Big Bang
If a beginning requires time, but time requires matter, but we just ruled out that matter can be past eternal, then they all have some explanation that is neither from something that is none of the above, created in simultenaity.
I'm not sure how you know "you cannot have time without matter" however. Either way, it seems to demonstrate that belief in an eternal physical reality falls apart.
@@godfreydebouillon8807 the “no time without matter” conjecture is basically just a logical consequence of massless particles moving at the speed of light and therefore experiencing no time themselves. Anything moving at c experiences no time and arrives at its destination the same exact same moment it’s emitted, from its frame of reference at least. So without mass, the only thing left is radiation moving at the speed of light and therefore there’s nothing to experience any passage of time from any particular reference frame of existing energy, so time and distance become essentially meaningless
...what was going on yesterday?
I was out sick..
0:47 “If the universe is expanding, therefore it had a BEGINNING” → Define “BEGINNING” precisely.
The singularity of the big bang, the beginning of some type of bounce, the beginning of a phase transition, the eruption of a bubble universe ‽
7:55 “Tunneling from Nothing”, or why not “Tunneling from SOMETHING” ‽
It's all speculation based on inaccurate models resulting in utter confusion and nonsense.
Say there is a red square on the left and blue square on the right, separated from each other by one step of time. The red square is two squares in one. It is a square that is in its original space, and also a square that has just come from its original space on right. If the same is true for the blue square on the right, then both squares can each be two squares in one, each being part of two systems.
Say the two squares switch spaces with each other infinitely fast non stop. That would mean both the squares would be in each other’s spaces at the same time, shoving each other away. But instead of shoving each other away, if both the squares each became one system instead of two systems in one, both squares could be in the two spaces at the same time with out shoving each other out of the way each becoming two 5th dimensional squares. With this technique you could mix two 3 dimensional things together with out them both expanding.
Let’s say the two squares are each still part of two systems. For instance, the red square on the left is two squares in one, it is a square that is in its original spot, and a square that has just come from its original spot on the right. If the square that is in its original spot on the left turns into the square that has just come from its original spot on the right, then it is like it has all of a sudden switched or come from the right, even though it was never on the right.
Now let’s imagine 10 different squares forming a circle each separated by one step of time. Each square is moving forward into the next squares space, all in the same direction and at the same time, like a second hand on a clock. Each square has its original space but each square is 10 squares in one, or 10 systems in one. If one of these squares in its original space become one of the other 9 systems, it can’t say it has just come from the previous space, because turning into one of the other 9 systems is no different then turning FROM one of the other 8 systems. So if it turns into one of the 9 systems, it is like it has NOT been in the previous space in the first place. A bit like the 6 days of the week that aren’t separated from each other by time. And besides that, if the original space of the system its turning into is 5 steps back in time, then it can’t say it has just come from that space because it is 5 steps back in time.
Let’s say you have two cars parked next to each other. One has just come from Texas and the other has just come from California. The car from California is two cars in one. It is its original self but is also the car from Texas, making it two cars in one or two systems in one. This same symmetry applies to the car from Texas that is parked beside.
If the car from California turns into the other system, it’s like it has just come from Texas even though it hasn’t, so would the car’s existence be based on a lie or the truth. The car from California turns into the car from Texas in a flash. If it did it slow and gradually it would turn into an infinite number of cars before turning into the car from Texas. If the car from California turns into another thing before turning into the car from Texas, then the fact that it really has come from California would be a lie. All of this is similar to each of the 10 squares being 10 systems in one, with a system in its original space turning into one of the other 9 systems.
Now let’s say you have a red square on the left and an empty space on the right both separated from each other by one step of time. As the red square switches spaces infinitely fast non stop, it will take up both spaces at once. Could this mean that the red square has become the two empty spaces and the two empty spaces have become the one red square. Or have the spaces and square switched identities.
If Friday switches spaces with the 6 other days infinitely fast non stop, the 6 other days would all have to fit into the space Friday is leaving behind. To solve this problem, why don’t we think of the space Friday is leaving behind as constantly whizzing past the 6 other days infinitely fast non stop.
🎶 "you put your right foot in and your right foot out. Your right foot in and you shake it all about. You do the hokey pokey and you turn around, and that's what it's all about..." 🎶 🙃
@@Failte630 Thanks for the summary, I was having a hard time following that :)
The Name "Creator" or"Sustainer" implies am eternal and continuing Creation.
Perhaps one of the main reasons "scientists" are most dubious in these kinds of queries is the fact science is endlessly revised and therefore one knowing the track record thereof has persons bite their tongues.
Something reprehensible I notice is the lack of respect for Theology today. Some may think Theology to be only a dogma - only beliefs and theories concerning Theology may be expressed as dogmatic or on the other hand, factual.
What science does is not science. The essence, faculties, qualia, natures, etc. are not properties of science. Science, a method(s). You'll hear fallacious phrases from certain persons in, "we're doing real science" or "this is science" as if they are studying science itself. The field under study, in utility of science, is THEOLOGY.
Is this not most reprehensible in those who have an agenda to push who defame Theology? The nature of all this is not science; science studies this nature(s); our scriptures are based on these sciences in the field of Theology.
Is it that persons today aren't strong enough to handle this fact?
It's not of virtue in llowing these persons of dark agendas today to completely high jack "science" influencing others.
How is it so many who think themselves wit are incapable of acknowledging Theology?
Those who lack courage and direction should never be considered.
That sure is a long way of saying, my god beliefs and my god bible are true and all scientific claims that don't fit my god belief and my god bible is false.
@@patrickjohnson6569 quite so.
theology: "pick yer poison".
science: "the process for picking among alternatives".
It's not the Ology it's the Theo that grinds the gears.
They use the word universe in too many applications. Yes, the current universe may have had a beginning, but that doesn't mean there was a previous similar universe. Better to say that Existence itself preceeded the current universe, but in what form or under what natural laws we do not know. 😮
I agree - using "this" universe rather than "the" universe would add some clarity.
Absolutely right. Existence is it always through time. A ' no thing' but everything. Sach, chit, Ananda. The upanishads have this understood.
The universe is expanding at an increasing rate which means that the outer edges are at the spreed of light causing it to actually be getting smaller till a single point and another big bang.
first 6~9
6:54 'Something happened' and the Universe changed state, an 'event' occurred. In itself not of too much importance but then another event occurred and twixt the two 'Time' became emergent. The metric of time depended upon the 'events' then occuring. Things change. Though maybe not so much today. To Tim McGraw the beginning is a BBQ stain on a white T-Shirt, but to 'Inflationists' it is a big bang. At last their dogma has been punctured in a big way. Inflation is a frig, always has been, at least now its fantasies are limited by common and mathematical sense. This presentation is a breath of fresh air 🙂
The Universe before inflation and befor time was a 'something' (hence the observational metric mentioned above) . Quantum Mechanics can not explain that. It is cheap to bring Heisenberg into the conversation just to obtain a fallacious out. His Principle is based upon observations of Energy and Matter. Neither Energy nor Matter is based upon his Principle, unless principles have god like powers. 'Something from Nothing' is not currently understood. It begs the question of 'Why' which is something Physics in The 21st Century is poorly trained to ponder. Unzicker's view on American and European thought has a resonance here. I freely admit that I know not the answers but I can smell a fish. To sever Inflation from the implication of the necessity for a Big Bang is quite revolutionary. I dare say Prof Brian Cox will go apoplectic :-)
Is "a total mess" a technical term?
Only in the absolute sense.
Well, nobody knows the whole universe, perhaps other sectors behave differently and actually contracting in order to maintain the universe equilibrium of momentum.
There is probably no way the Matter that is thousands of light years away from the orgin of the "BigBang" (in all directions) would collapse back to that point of origin. There is no source of gravity that would pull everything back, you get one explosion and a eternally expanding universe.
The only way everything goes back to the singularity is if it bounces off a boundary outside the Universe or twists in on itself or everything eventually becomes part of a Black Hole which all attract and combine to give us a "BigBang".
The is no special origin point of the big bang in space. The big bang occurred simultaneously across all space as the universe as a whole, all of spacetime, expanded and continues to expand.
In other words... "I haven't got a clue what's going on".
“Science flies you to the Moon;
religion flies you into buildings.”
Yes it’s kind of a difficult problem figuring out how the universe works so… “I don’t know” is a valid honest answer.
C'MON Lawrence; just ask them how successfully the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is violated
contriving a universe of origin. OR conversely, how an eternal universe has not distributed to
equilibrium heat. EINSTEIN'S DYING TO KNOW...he said Thermodynamics would NEVER be overthrown.
You apparently been reading too much creationist bs. The Laws of Thermodynamics don't apply as we know them UNTIL the current expanding universe passed inflation.
Good
The short and truthful answer is; “we don`t know”, however, such a statement would no generate much TH-cam income… lol
There are only two options: something forever, or nothing for never.
The universe is infinite and eternal. That which is infinite can't expand - it's already everywhere. That which is eternal had no beginning - it has always been. The human mind can't handle this - though the ramifications are truly mind-blowing and should be investigated by all. The quality of your life and happiness depend on it.
07:43 “The universe could have spontaneously originated through quantum mechanics, tunneling from nothingness into a dense state”. Wow, that escalated quickly! He started with a scientific explanation and then jumped into some wild philosophical nonsense. He could have just admitted he doesn't know how the universe began.
I was confused too because "nothing" supposedly doesn't exist. Something can't come from nothing. He did say that "nothing" was no space-time. I think that no space-time is probably another dimension that we don't understand. It's not nothing. We call it nothing because no 'matter' exists. Something other than matter exists, so it is something. Perhaps if he didn't call it 'nothing' it would make more sense.
Time is not symmetrical.
Yes time only moves forward in time not backward in time only moves in one direction time and only moves one direction in space and time
@@RealQuInnMallory *"Yes time only moves forward in time not backward in time only moves in one direction time and only moves one direction in space and time"*
... Correct! Time follows the same forward-progressing pattern as everything else.
Actually there's a theory that time can move in any direction
@@sinisterintentions3273 *"Actually there's a theory that time can move in any direction"*
... I'll bet you one "grandfather paradox" that the theory is incorrect.
@@RealQuInnMallorythat we’d know of
The universe had a beginning...or was that a start of the end of something else,or perhaps the universe itself...on repeat, or multi-verse theory in play perhaps?..who knows?
Im not quite sure how the interviewee is difining a beginning if something was there before inflation. He probably means a beginning of our world as we know it. I will have to listen to it again. If something was there before inflation then I guess there's probably a cyclical beginning and ending to the multiverse, or whatever. We've been told that "nothing" is not a possibility. If "nothing" were a possibility, then a beginning and ending of the entire cosmos, multiverse, many worlds, or whatever you believe in, would have an ending where "nothing" is a possibility. Only if "nothing" were a possibility, then a beginning and total ending of anything at all would make sense.
One week goes around in a circle. if the 7 days were each frozen infinitely large 3 dimensional spaces. The circular week would be composed of time, but not the 7 days. If Friday is switching spaces with the 6 other days infinitely fast non stop, Friday would be taking the 6 o days spaces up all at once, so Friday would go from being a frozen 3 dimensional space to becoming 4 dimensional because it would now be composed of time. As Friday is constantly spaces with the 6 other days infinitely fast non stop, the 6 other days would have to all fit inside the space Friday is leaving behind all making one 3 dimensional day. Imagine if Friday and the 6 other days remain in their own spaces not switching. If Friday is separated from the 6 other days by time, but the 6 other days are not separated from each other by time, then the 6 other days would make one 4 dimensional entity. So now the same thing is happening with all 7 frozen days remaining in their spaces. Imagine 2 zero dimensional points. These 2 zero dimensional points are the only known red colour and only known blue colour to exist. Imagine if both these 2 zero dimensional points are each composed of 20 individual zero dimensional points. If these 2 points split apart into 40 individual points, you might think red and blue don’t exist any more, but if the all the dispersed points formed a system like the week with frozen days, red and blue could still exist. Imagine two groups of people, group A and group B. These two groups are separated by the shortest span of time possible, therefore there is no time In between these two groups. If one person from leaves group A and enters group B, then someone from group B would leave group B and enter group A at the exact same time, because time can’t move on until this happens.
Imagine a circle composed of 20 frozen 3 dimensional days. Each frozen day was either red or blue. So it goes red red blue blue blue red red blue blue and so on. Let’s imagine each frozen days as being red or blue, or being like groups A or group B. If one day switched with the day next to it that is a different colour, all the other days would each switch with the different coloured day next to them at the exact same time, because even though a day next to another day that’s the same colour are not switching with each other, they are still acting at the exact same time because they are still both separated by the shortest span of time possible that is not composed of any more time.
With seven days of the week being frozen infinitely large 3 dimensional spaces, Friday can’t be separated from Monday by time, it would have to be separated from Monday by time and space, because the 3 dimensional spaces of Saturday and Sunday would block it from getting to Monday.
You and yourself above with the red and blue square need to get together and sort this out between you.
Infinite space
Infinite time
Infinite matter
The universe is Infinite which means no beginning and no end.
It looks like someone is too stubborn to even acknowledge this as a fact.
How it be considered a fact if it can't be verified?
Not yet.
there is only now
The problem lies with both mankind's intelligence/comprehension and our physics, which appertain solely to our planet and solar system. Our galaxy formed 13 billion years ago. 8.5 billion years passed before our solar system formed around 4.5 billion years ago. Intelligent life has been around for 200,000? years. What we see and what we learn at close hand, is what we accept as normal/standard. Although we can see deep into space/far back, what happens in our own back yard, may not play out the same way, the further back we go/look. Conditions/environments may have different affects/effects if we were able to travel through these far distances.
Beginnings, endings, time- are all human things. The universe is beyond all that. If you believe the universe "came into existence" - you basically believe that the greatest thing we know of (by far) just popped out of (basically) thin air (ha, ha on you for that). Of course the universe has always been there. It is almost common sense, its also called infinite. If you think about it for a half second even: if it was made, how was it made? Where was it made? Where did all this material come from to make it? What state was the material in before that (were they transformed in the process?) I couldn't even fathom what would be involved in that....
That's why I prefer the term Existence to universe. The current universe is just a temporary manifestation of Existence itself.
@@browngreen933 *"That's why I prefer the term Existence to universe. The current universe is just a temporary manifestation of Existence itself."*
... Obviously I'm in agreement.
Not necessarily eternal
you heard Vilenkin say that if it’s expanding, there must’ve been a beginning, but you know for sure that it’s always been there. Hmm who’s the opinion should I accept?
@@browngreen933 And a local event.
We just know that we dont know…
Inflation is not a theory. It’s happening right now.
Where is universe in your present reality,in your memory,yes some thing is there more than you know out of your memory understand in present and that's is fundamental REALITY,which has equal and opposite copy of everything as a base to stand ,day stand on night ,right stand on the parameters of wrong ,all else has vise a versa ,finding your wise a versa as God is all about true spirituality ,be true spiritual ❤,🙏
Universe go for a space notion, better is Nature = everything.
Did Nature begin?
As Nature is an alternating phenomenon, a beginning is excludes.
No doesn’t
@@zacatkinson3926 I love. Tagore said that. I love.
Beginning is real we have to evidence
@@zacatkinson3926 A start evidence - but go for an end, the start evidence is excluded.
I am delighted to learn that the universe had a beginning.
Otherwise I would have no reason to believe that Jesus loves me.
Opinions, and just guesses: yes, many physicists ‘reject’ the idea of a universe that actually had a beginning( e.g. Hawking). Their ‘world view’ is agnostic, even atheistic. Aristotle claimed the Universe is eternal. Leibnitz question still holds: ‘ why is there something rather than nothing ‘? Why? A philosophical question in fact.
@@MarkPatmos your comment suggests ever so ‘shyly’ that you might yourself think there is a purpose to the Universe/ Reality.
Why are you asking proven questions? It is well accepted the universe began.
Not among atheists. They will fight for eternal universe and multiverse to the end 😇
The second law of thermodynamics should also rule out a beginning.
I used to think that, but now I no longer do. The reason entropy increases is because of statistics, not because it necessarily HAS to. If you took any fixed amount of stuff, there are countless configurations that stuff could take. Some of those configurations are random noise, but some are ordered states that can contain information. Since there are vastly more disordered states than ordered states, whenever the configuration changes, it's vastly more probable that it will become more disordered than ordered.
For example, imagine you have a box of alphabet cereal, and you spread all the pieces out on the floor. There are vastly more arrangements of the pieces that don't spells words, sentences, paragraphs, etc. than there are arrangements that DO spell words, sentences, paragraphs, etc. So if you started off with some state affairs in which some of the alphabets spelled words and sentences while others didn't, and you shook it up, you'd be more likely to get a configuration in which there were no words (or were fewer words) than one in which you had more words and sentences.
That's why there is a second law of thermodynamics. Every time there is some change in the universe, the total amount of entropy increases. But that is because it's vastly more LIKELY to increase than to decrease. But notice that doesn't mean it's IMPOSSIBLE for it to decrease.
Given an infinite amount of time, even very improbable events become probable. So even if the low entropy at the beginning of the universe is vanishingly improbable, if the universe were infinitely old, the low entropy of the universe could eventually happen.
So the second law of thermodynamics doesn't necessarily imply a beginning of the universe.
(5:25) *AV: **_"Cycles have to start at some point."_* ... Exactly! Same applies to anything that posits a bidirectional *infinite existence* (i.e., God, Multiverse, Many Worlds, Big Bounce, etc.). Explaining a universe that has a beginning is obviously a difficult task, but we don't simply toss questions off the table just because they are difficult. Likewise, answering the question with, _"It's just always existed!"_ is a quick fix, ... but it creates more questions than what you started with.
*Five Issues with an infinitely existing universe:*
*(1)* An infinitely existing universe cannot be conceivably reconciled. With no starting point, there is no possible way to place ourselves anywhere along the universal timeline nor comprehend our relationship to it.
*(2)* Infinity moving forward from a starting point = *possible.* Infinity moving forward without having a starting point = *Impossible.* With everything purportedly existing forever, the latter eliminates the concept of "forward movement" as forward movement requires a prior moment as a starting point.
*(3)* If the universe has always existed, then time is not present. Time is a measurement of change, and with no initial starting point to start the clock ticking, _then there is no time._
*(4)* "Evolution" is incompatible with an infinitely existing universe. Evolution is the movement from simplicity to complexity. Increasing complexity is unlimited in its potential, but simplicity must eventually resolve to the word "simplest." Even positive and negative numbers eventually regress to the simplest of numbers, which is 0.
*(5)* An infinite universe succumbs to a logical fallacy called *Special Pleading.* When a rule applies to everything, but we make an exception for *one thing,* that's called "Special Pleading." *Example 1:* _Everything that exists has a beginning except for God who has no beginning._ *Example 2:* _Everything in the universe demonstrates a beginning except for the universe which has no beginning._ *Example 3:* _Every human has a birthday except for a guy named Joe who has no birthday._
... Imagine how much progress could be made in science if we eliminated all these crazy theories based on "infinite existence."
We mere humans can't really comprehend 1000s of years and somehow you think we should be able to understand infinity or how matter/energy could exist without a beginning.
*"We mere humans can't really comprehend 1000s of years and somehow you think we should be able to understand infinity or how matter/energy could exist without a beginning."*
... We have absolutely no conceivability issues whatsoever with our species existing for over 300,000 years. However, an "infinitely existing" human, species, universe, or anything else is utterly inconceivable.
You can conceive a circle and conceive a square, but a square-circle is inconceivable. You can also conceive of something existing for a year, ten years, one thousand years, or three hundred thousand years, but something that has no beginning (infinitely existing) is inconceivable.
*"We mere humans can't really comprehend 1000s of years and somehow you think we should be able to understand infinity or how matter/energy could exist without a beginning."*
... My first reply was shadow-banned. Second attempt:
The human mind has no problem with comprehending starting points for things that exists no matter how far back we regress. Inconceivability ensues the moment you try to conceive something that has no starting point.
>(1) An infinitely existing universe cannot be conceivably reconciled. With no starting point, there is no possible way to place ourselves anywhere along the universal timeline nor comprehend our relationship to it.
Why? We’re here. It’s a perfectly good place to be, whether there are an infinite or finite number of other places. As for conceiving things, we can conceive of infinite number lines just fine, and Georg Cantor characterised a plethora of distinct types of infinity which all seem not just conceivable, but distinguishable and definable.
> Infinity moving forward without having a starting point = Impossible. With everything purportedly existing forever, the latter eliminates the concept of "forward movement" as forward movement requires a prior moment as a starting point.
Things don’t necessarily exist forever though, they exist now. And infinite series still have sequences of elements, each element by definition has a predecessor so there is always a prior moment.
>(3) If the universe has always existed, then time is not present. Time is a measurement of change, and with no initial starting point to start the clock ticking, then there is no time.
That’s just an assertion, not an argument.
> Evolution is the movement from simplicity to complexity.
We currently observe entropy increasing, but if we extrapolate into the future everything will be cold and uniform. As Roger Penrose the only difference between cold and uniform in the future, and hot and uniform in the past is the scale. Mathematically they are equivalent. I think his Conformal Cyclic Cosmology argument is wacky, but in the good way. He makes a lot of very good points.
>Example 2: Everything in the universe demonstrates a beginning except for the universe which has no beginning.
I don’t think ‘the universe’ as a whole can be treated the same way as a contingent arrangement of components within that universe. By definition the universe in total must be fundamental while particular arrangements of parts of the universe are contingent. The rules for contingent things can’t be the same as for fundamental things, that’s what makes them contingent.
>… Imagine how much progress could be made in science if we eliminated all these crazy theories based on "infinite existence."
What part of established current practical science actually depends on infinite existence? These sorts of theories are speculative, no established result depends on them. Theories at the cutting edge are always speculative, and most of them end up being discarded. None of this is obstructing advancement though.
*"Why? We’re here. It’s a perfectly good place to be, whether there are an infinite or finite number of other places."*
... God obviously created us all. I mean, ... we're here aren't we?
*"Things don’t necessarily exist forever though, they exist now. "*
... And as I've stated so many times before, _The eternal existence of something that has a beginning is conceivable _*_provided there are no barriers_*_ to its sustained existence."_ That obviously cannot apply to purported 'infinitely existing things" that have no beginning, right?
*"And infinite series still have sequences of elements, each element by definition has a predecessor so there is always a prior moment."*
... If every sequence has a prior moment, what is the prior moment to the initial sequence? Vilenkin alluded to this regarding infinite cycles.
*"That’s just an assertion, not an argument."*
... It's an argument based on logic. If I wrote, _"If nothing existed that demonstrated any length, then an 'inch' wouldn't exist."_ would that be an assertion or an argument?
*"We currently observe entropy increasing, but if we extrapolate into the future everything will be cold and uniform."*
... A cataclysmic end to the universe does not mean evolution does not move from simplicity to complexity. You can watch a movie that starts out simple yet gets more and more complex as it goes. The fact that the movie eventually ends does not change the fact that it grew more and more complex over time.
*"I don’t think ‘the universe’ as a whole can be treated the same way as a contingent arrangement of components within that universe."*
... Rubber balls bounce and roll. If I have a thousand rubber balls, they will all bounce and roll. If I have a zillion rubber balls shaped into a planet-size ball, it will still bounce and roll. Likewise, if I have a universe chock full of things with a beginning and an end, and the universe itself is a collection of everything that exists, then the universe has a beginning and an end. ... Finite in; finite out.
*"Theories at the cutting edge are always speculative, and most of them end up being discarded. None of this is obstructing advancement though."*
... There are 196,000,000 results on the word "Multiverse." Brian Green has a 17-minute-long video touting the Multiverse that would make Spielberg jealous. Imagine if all that time, effort and money was spent on something less "fantastic."
Vilenkin's theorem states that the universe had a beginning & the Bible states that God created the universe, ex nihilo, from nothing. Genesis 1 v 1, In the beginning God created the heaven & the earth. Hebrews 11 v 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Windy
Sounds more persuasive than the "God must have created it."
Gematria444:360=1.23*MONAD
“Sir, this is a Wendy’s”
@@wmpx34 good 1 -- yes, I've seen the #s there too but I'm specifically referring to the English Gematria synchronicities which are out of this world; search for 444 English Gematria: Jesus, Messiah, Cross, Point and many others
If ++-+=-+-/
Then I need secven hours too digest
Im just here to see all the know it all's cry about things they dont understand but pretend to.
Something from nothing. Just like d Fed...
inflation is nonsense
Why do you say that?
Looks like scientists have to accept the power of God acting behind the origin of the universe.
No no no its a remote past image projected into an immediate future
Now, after using a big mathematical stupidity, Alexander Vilenkin et Co. have to invent an even bigger one.
The Universal natural dynamic has no beginning and no end, Alexander.