What Was There Before the Big Bang? 3 Good Hypotheses!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 พ.ค. 2024
- Sign up for ESET Home internet security for FREE: www.eset.com/us/protecting-ar...
ESET is sponsoring the STARMUS festival in Bratislava, Slovakia May 12-17, 2024: www.starmus.com/
TALK TO ME on Patreon:
/ arvinash
REFERENCES
Video: A Universe from nothing: • What came before the B...
Video: Eternal Inflation: • Eternal Inflation: The...
Multiverse Theory: tinyurl.com/2cv2qxbm
Math proof universe can come from nothing: tinyurl.com/np2vrty
Paper of above: tinyurl.com/223t86z6
What came before big bang: tinyurl.com/y7g4pgwp
CHAPTERS
0:00 Big bang: Lamda-CDM model
3:09 Sponsor: ESET
4:22 Cyclic universe
5:33 How likely is cyclic model?
7:53 Multiverse: Eternal Inflation
11:27 Universe from nothing
15:23 Why can't we answer this question?
SUMMARY
What came before the Big Bang? what happened before the big bang? Since time is thought to have started at the big bang, asking what happened "before" is like asking what is North of the North pole? It may have no meaning. But there are three good theories.
One is the idea of a cyclic or 'bouncing' universe, where the Big Bang is just the latest of many beginnings, in an eternal series of cosmic expansions and contractions. The universe begins from an initial tiny state (a singularity?) in which all the matter and energy of the universe is contained in an infinitesimally small volume. The universe then expanded, and after 13.8 billion years is at its current state. It will keep expanding for perhaps billions more years, and then it will contract for another long period or time until it is tiny again. And then the cycle repeats itself over and over again for eternity.
But the current rate of expansion of the universe is not slowing down. It would need to stop and reverse at some time in the future. But that's not what we observe. If the lambda cdm model is incomplete, then the cyclic model could be correct.
Another hypothesis about what came before the Big Bang is a multiverse, where our universe is just one bubble in a frothy sea of universes, each with its own laws of physics. There are many types of multiverses, but this one stems from the theorized concept of eternal inflation.
The idea is that there exists an infinite spacetime that is expanding faster than the speed of light. This is what we call inflation. Inflation is believed to have occurred in our universe shortly after the Big Bang for an extremely short period of time But in this short time, the universe expanded by a factor of 10^78 in size. Since quantum mechanics ensures that there will always be some randomness, it’s possible that inflation could last a bit longer or shorter than expected in different parts of the universe.
In the 1980s, Paul Steinhardt, Andrei Linde and Alexander Vilenkin realized that the exponential expansion of cosmic inflation, although it stopped in our part of the universe, could continue in other unobservable parts of the universe. And if that’s the case, then the universe we are familiar with, may be a very small fraction of all that exists. It could have stoped in other parts of the universe, forming other bubble universes. This could go on for eternity. Our universe would be nothing but a very tiny part of an unimaginably larger whole.
Another theory is that our universe could have come from nothing. At the subatomic level in empty space, particles are popping in and out of existence all the time. These are virtual particles. They borrow energy from the vacuum and give it right back so quickly that no conservation laws are violated. Energy is conserved.
Cosmologists have speculated that even in a universe where no matter, space or time exists, as long as the laws of quantum mechanics exist, spacetime itself could have emerged in a quantum fluctuation, because in quantum mechanics, anything that is not forbidden by conservation laws necessarily happens with some finite probability. If we live in a closed universe, like a sphere is a closed universe, then all the positive energy of matter is perfectly balanced by gravity, which has negative energy. So, just like with virtual particles, no net energy is created.
Just as virtual particles come in and out of existence without breaking any conservation laws, a small empty space could come into existence probabilistically due to quantum fluctuations. And since time is connected to space, time would follow in this nucleation.
A scientific paper authored by 3 Chinese physicists, titled “spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing,” was published in 2014, which showed a mathematical proof of how this could happen.
#bigbang
#time
Why can’t we turn the clock back just a little bit further and figure out what happened just a tiny fraction of a second before the Big Bang? because current understanding of physics breaks down at the singularity, the moment that predates the Big Bang. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W2D2 | Summer | โหดจัด ซัดไม่เลี้ยง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TJa9d7tpSP4/mqdefault.jpg)
No one on TH-cam able to explain this kind of complicated information easily like you, you deserve to be funded.
What Was There Before the Big Bang? The Big Romance.
Well played hahaha!
The big foreplay
You mean the Big Netflix and the Big Chill?
Little foreplay, big bang
Or... an eternity of foreplay.
Your intro is perfect, a quick tease and straight to the topic after a couple of seconds. I love this channel
Yes, this video is a masterpiece.
Obviously it goes on forever because now is no different
From then because
we are always occurring at half way in time
but the weird thing
is that there is more time before you
than after you because of a weird quark
Time is experienced forward into the past technically
Because you were never alive, that means you can't technically die
so if you're not dead, that must mean rebirth
You don't perceive the moment of death, which means it must be shed like snake skin...
And something else weird I have a hunch that what is really happening is that the event horizon is what is seen /were space is free from form because it hasn't been yet created and is pulled into a pillar of space time
Any ways I belive the core of the star that caused the black hole is moving backwards in time
Compressed from all sides evenly by gravity perfectly spherical so the star shrinks away from our side and ends up going back in time through space so slight drift occurs and and when the star breaks its connection because as it gets further before time than it's effect will diminish over time thus singularity is all occurrence
You're looking into somebody's head that exists in a lower dimension you are a black hole in a higher dimension
Critical mass.... out of all the stars in the universe
one star could potentially have to perfect mass that it is the critical mass it rings like a bell as in it explodes in both directions while all the others fall in
Hypothetical cosmic inflation is a joke. Big Bounce is realistic.
@smlanka4u hence rings like a bell
and central time
as in
you are in the middle of an eternity .. like a 💍 your the gem
Including the projection angle 45°
Obviously, we aren't able to be real because you can't get something from nothing unless you have a false vacuum ..
It's pitch, and it's void, but there is this strange, almost fluid like essence almost like an energy resonating in potential 🤔
Time can't move without an observer
So we are the embodiment of time.
Infinite in one aspect but totally non-existent in the other aspect because what you believe
i would say that
is probably the most likely thing that you would get a potential energy from in quantum bits
as where else would you gain principle
Causality and(or) potential ...
other than from an observation or experience resolved by intuition and to conclude from the math .. so when you no longer see the machine in other lives than you have finally ⁵½²
@@smlanka4u s
Great video and looking forward to the Starmus festival in Bratislava! :)
i love how you talk about all models and theories no matter how unlikely they are. it’s my favorite part of your videos. get all perspectives on each topic you bring up.
Yes, but he forgot to mention why matter and antimatter suddenly stopped annihilating themselves in this quantum fluctuation, because only then could a universe begin to form.
Because people will believe anything but the truth.
So goes the saying
It’s easier to lie to someone than convince them that they have been lied to
Awesome video as always Arvin! Keep going!
Brilliant, love it, Arvin is legend!
He truly is. This world 🌎 has talent man!
Hi Arvin, Let me extend my compliments to your unprecedented research work. Plus the communication skills that you have, truly stupendous !
Excellent as always. Thanks mate. 🖖😁🇦🇺
Best topic to make video upon 🙏🏼 thank you so much 🙏🏼
Your talks are eternally and infinitely fascinating.
I love and enjoy your teaching style Arvin, thank you.
Thank you Mr. Ash, great video ! Greetings from Brazil, right now !
Great video!
Thank you Arvin ,like always very informative clip
Excellent video, Arvin. 👏👏👏👏
Once again, a fantastic video capturing our uncertain reality. The graphics are truly mind-blowing.
Amidst the awe, one pressing question arises: At the inception (just before or at the moment of the big bang), was there only energy or a mix of energy and fundamental particles?
Grateful to anyone who can provide insight 😊
From what we think today: at the very very start the temperature literally was too high for the fundamental particles to exist! So that would mean that there should only be "energy" at the exact beginning. As to what form this energy was in I'm not sure, but we usually say that photons are "pure energy", so if thats true then maybe there were only photons and then when it cooled fundamental particles (matter particles) started to form.
Remember that these extremely early times are not very well understood, and are still subject to some speculation.
@@rogumann838 thanks for the answer
this was exactly my thought process as well
The third hypothesis is the nothing-pothing-mothing model. Nothing vibrates creating pothing(positivenothing) and mothing(minusnothing) for a very short period of time. Then pothing and mothing recombine to form nothing again. And so on.
Sometimes, when two neighbouring pothings are formed simultaneously, these two pothings combine due to attraction and will form a nonvisible entity of gravity (we call that dark matter) leaving the two mothings behind. These two mothings will drift away and form more space (we call that dark energy)
This is like how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
If that is not sarcasm...
@@jybrokenhearted All of them.
Thank you for the video. I'm always curious about it and you explain some of the theories. Fascinating to my mind.
Great video, once again Arvin!
good video thanks. that Heisenberg guy though. I'm uncertain about him.
Willy Wonka?
... Walter White?
🙄
I like that one 😂😂😂
@@Gelatinocyte2woodrow wilson 🤓
I like how our science and understanding completely breaks apart at any singularity.
Let's say our knowledge is incomplete.
Our science and understanding doesn't break down at a singularity. Our science is good and it's predictable. We just do not understand singularity since we can't observe it
Gotta love Arvin!!!
Awesome as always 🙂
I always love science videos that have information that i hadn't heard before like that spontaneous universe creation theory
I really appreciate you using "hypotheses" instead of "theories." It can get frustrating when some scientists aren't as precise with their language. The loose use of terms makes it hard for us, especially when we're dealing with dogmatic folks who try to undermine science.
god doesn't appreciate this comment
@@mentat1341 Lay off the Fallout Mentats bro they don't make you smart.
The title may say 3 hypotheses but he does repeatedly say theories in the the video which is annoying.
He wasn't "precise" when he described Big Bang with the nonsense "space exploded/expanded", which is idiotic. Space is just mathematical model, a relational concept, it wasn't involved in Big Bang in any shape or form. Matter/energy exploded. One participant. One force. Everything else effects. Imagine teaching generations of people about imaginary "space" and "time", that 100% don't exist. Universe and physical objects in it don't interact with imaginary constructs.
None of this is a criticism of the video, but none of the science-based theories have as much evidence as the biblical account.
Love ❤️ these videos.
Wow! I did learn a new thing watching this vid! I have watched like all PBS Space Time, all Sabines vids, All Antons vids.
And Fermilabs vids. And hundreds upon hundreds of random physics and space vids - and I still got a little something new here. Thank you!
❤ Please make a video about Plank's distances and time. Is there a minimum space-time volume? Is space "pixelated" at smallest scales or theres no minimum limit for space (and time)?
Big Bounce models don't need cosmic inflation hypothesis.
From what I recall, there was an experiment with comic rays that showed that they travelled along the H plank distance grid, like a really fine resolution computer game. They didn't mention the dimension, but showed a graphic of how the cosmic rays never traveled on the diagonals of the grid (like graph paper and you couldn't use anything but the established lines).
That's why all the speculation we are just a simulation, imo. We exist in a resolution... A very very small, fine resolution, but something that theoretically can be captured by a super duper duper super computer eventually. At least Musk thinks so too.
>jeffreyspinner5437 : I'm skeptical about whether an experiment actually demonstrated a planck-length grid. Can you cite the paper's title, year, author, or some other metadata that allows us to find that paper?
The pictures from galaxies far away are too crisp.
"Is there a minimum space-time volume? Is space "pixelated" at smallest scales"
Its quite literally in your own question :D. The smallest space-time volume, which basically makes spacetime itself quantized (pixelated if you will) IS the Planck volume. And this is just the (planck length)^3
I'm really amazed at the astronomers who create these theories just by observation and calculation!
What's amazing is that they make money doing it but can't prove any of it
@@terrific804 Science doesn’t prove stuff.
@@terrific804 Science only falsifies hypothesis. And the surviving ones are what we call theories. They are all subject to be falsified, but the most accepted ones survived so many attempts that we are comfortable with them. Newton's gravity for example was a hypothesis that survived for a long time before Einstein found out that it's not always accurate. Newton's gravity is still being used all the time, because for most calculations it's accurate enough, but we now know that it is only an approximation that works well in our day to day conditions.
@@Pyriold They will never know the answer to the question why. It's not 42.
@@uriituwall fields of science?
This is a mind bending topic. Potentially so many Universes !
I may not always understand what is said on this channel, but I am still fascinated and watch anyway.
As you noted, though, how physicists define “nothing” is not how philosophers do. The physicists’ nothing presupposes the existence of the Laws of Physics, which enable those particles to pop into existence.
Yes, defining nothing is a problem. Imagine what an infinite void would look like. Can you have space without time? Our phsics equations seem to say no. A state with no space, no time, and no matter, or what we imagine to be a "nothing" or an "infinite void" might be an infinitesimally small point.
if "true nothing" excludes even laws of physics, but laws of physics are rules and boundaries like conservation and causality, then true nothing has no rules or boundaries on conservation or causality, and anything can happen from nothing, and then you get a universe anyway.
I think we need to have a definition of "nothing" within the boundaries of spacetime and "nothing" outside the boundaries of spacetime....
@@AndrewBrownK I concur with this
Good point!
Also, these so-called "laws" of physics, though some may appear complex to us, are really no more than what's possible, what's not and statistical probabilities. In the same way that 2+2 cannot equal 5 or that the internal angles of all rectangles add up 360 degrees and the internal angles of all triangles add up to 180 degrees, something which is pretty obvious when you consider that any rectangle can be divided into 2 triangles, and vice versa.
Going a little further, entropy is no more than statistical probability, a concept not difficult to grasp when applied to a simple system (one with few components).
And entropy is what gives us "time".
At the level of a quantum particle, there is no direction of time. Time emerges as we add more quantum particles to the system - it emerges from the statistics of the number of particles in the system. If you don't understand how this works, time may appear complex, even mysterious. If you do understand how this works, time is as obvious as 2+2=4.
Some of these "laws" are obvious to us, others are far from it, but that's all they really are.
This is how the "laws" of physics always exist (2+2 will always equal 4, even when there is nothing to count).
Before the big bang, there was young sheldon
Booooooo
Very good information Sir. Thanks 👍
this was the best video ive ever watched.
Can we please leave String theory behind.
I'm getting Spinal Tap energy from this...prolly seeing Brian May in the video.
Spirituality is more concrete than String Theory! 🤣 What's your Zodiac sign?
Sting likes it
Has it been completely and unequivocally debunked? If not, why should we not pursue all probable solutions?
What if string theory is really behind it !
virtual particles popping in and out of existence that in enough time could create Infinite bubble universes - sounds like a variation of the 'steady state' theory. Somewhere, Fred Hoyle's spirit is nodding it's virtual head and smiling.
Nothing like the steady state universe hypothesis.
Danke!
Thanks so much!
This is marvelous work!! I tend to agree more with the last hypothesis of a pre-existing spacetime (the quantum fields) which is the background of all matter and interaction
What I can't get to wrap my head around is the "flat universe" thing... In my mind it's always been some sort of a sphere, expanding in 3d, changing that to a flat model blows my mind... Maybe it's even more than 3 dimensions for all we know.
"Flat" doesn't mean literally flat like a pancake. In physics, a flat spacetime means that two parallel lines stay parallel forever because space has no overall curvature. If space were like a sphere, then two parallel lines would eventually converge.
@@ArvinAsh This comment made me realise that lines of latitude on the earth are not really lines, even in the context of a curved surface; lines of latitude are presumably then just circles. The equator is I assume a line in the context of a curved surface but with periodic boundary conditions.
Basically, it's flat from a 4th dimensional perspective.
nobody observes overheated Universe 13.5 billion years ago, thus there was no observation of big bang
@@alsmith20000that's the best way I understand it as well, but it doesn't really help me understand over all, like why that's important in the first place. I just lack too much fundamental education in the field.
I’m so glad I watched this sober. This way I was able to understand about 7% of it. Fascinating stuff.
A late comment, this has/is always a question I dwell on. This discussion provides a theory/perspective that brings "hmmm" to forefront. Appreciated as always. Watch regularly and happy to see the skin cancer issue from a few years back has been cured - hopefully.
1. Not only are the laws of physics (quantum mechanics) _something_ (not nothing), so are the quantum fields described by quantum mechanics. So what was the origin of the laws and fields?
2. A fourth possible explanation involves a causation-defying time loop, where the far future is also the distant past. Unlike the "bouncing universe" hypothesis Arvin described first, the time loop hypothesis doesn't propose an infinite past or a finite-but-vast past. Whether or not a time loop is more paradoxical than an infinite past or the origin of a vast past seems to be a matter of personal taste.
3. Beyond the big bang singularity, thar be dragons.
I think that was Penrose’s idea, that if you allow the universe to expand long enough, eventually it will become completely homogenous; and once there’s nothing moving through space anymore, time loses its meaning. And that essentially recreates the conditions that led to the Big Bang. Something like that, I’m sure I’m glossing over important details
Reality isn’t real. It’s a simulation from the quantum realm. Beyond the simulation is more simulation. The simulation is all.
@@SoffiCitrus Nah. It's called Cyclic Conformal Cosmology. Look it up on Wikipedia for the idea. It's not really all that far out if you can deal with infinities.
It IS a brow rubber friend, but I think causal time loops are more of a philosophical consideration as opposed to a scientific one.. I think of it as philosophy or metaphysics given that it is not only unfalsifiable, BUT if true, would falsify ALL logical considerations like naturalism, the scientific method of information analysis, and much more.. A rather dubious idea in my humble opinion, peace friend..
@@darrennew8211 I never heard that Penrose said far future is also the distant past. He says that universe forgets how big it is. Is that the same thing?
Sometime when watching videos like these, my mind tries to wander into the realm of "understanding existence". It's like opening a door into a huge dark room with scary noises I don't understand. I usually get scared and leave that train of thought.
Yes, same feeling
Arvin - thanks for making me feel even more insignificant. 🙂
Holy crap!!! I finally understand the bubble universe. Thank you...
Only the programmer will know.
Programmer?
I’ve programmed stuff… sometimes I don’t know how it works, so there’s that possibility too lol
@@uriituw he means the one who programmed us
@@samsaini379 What do you mean by that? Be specific.
@@uriituwprobably hinting at simulation hypothesis or some form of god.
Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but if objects come in and out of existence on the quantum level, does this not point to time operating in a different way on the quantum level?
It does 😊
Why would it mean that? The fact that things appears and disappears doesn't mean they go forward and backward in time
@@stefanogandino9192 Then what are they up to between disappearing and reappearing?
Like I said, sorry if this is a dumb question, for me, it's very hard to wrap my head around.
@@LordandGodofTH-cam they are up to nothing because they are nothing, they are not real particles but numbers to describe what the quantum field does, and the quantum field is always there. That's why they come from nothing and go to nothing without violate anything
@@stefanogandino9192 Thanks. That is going to take some time to sink in here.
So glad it is behind you, Arvin, however I do miss the beanie 😊
Well explained.
WHAT was before the Big Bang?: Another Universe, part of the Multiverse we will NEVER be able to comprehend.
You only have to except infinity.
We're a black hole inside that universe
@@inertiaforce7846 The Multiverse (only hypotesis that can explain everything) is Eternal and Infinite and ultimately the true, unavoidable, only "God" as the Only Source of everything that exists or we believe exists !
Not an extremely low level, imperfect, human-like "God", a human Concept, "Creator" of imperfect things.
A Multiverse (Set of Universes) remains a SINGLE UNIVERSE composed of multiple universes (like ours, which could be inside a Black Hole - who can prove otherwise? -), ETERNAL and INFINITE that is continuously TRANSFORMING or evolving and manifests itself in many, infinite different ways, whatever they are called or perceived by us: Human Beings, Animals, Rocks, Water, Fire, Air, Planets, Asteroids, Suns, Stars, Galaxies, Clusters (of Galaxies), Quasars, Black Holes, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Singularities, etc...
The Universe or Multiverse only transforms: It is PURE ENERGY...
Remember Einstein's proven equation: E = mc2, which shows that E, Energy, is the same as mass (or what we believe or perceive as "solid" matter) multiplied by the square of the speed of light, a very large number. Or put another way, what we believe to be "matter", what we can "touch" is actually PURE ENERGY somehow interconnected with the rest of the Universe or Multiverse.
If you think you can "touch" matter, use an ever increasingly powerful microscope: Body, cells, molecules, atoms... And do you think you can see or "touch" an atom? NO !
It has subparticles: Electrons, protons, neutrons... And do you think you can see or "touch" them? NO ! They in turn include other quantum untouchable "particles" that are elusive... because they are PURE ENERGY! Ask the scientists of CERN Accelerator in Switzerland...
It is impossible to prove it because it is and will be far beyond our limited intellectual and technological capabilities, but it does not make sense that the Multiverse or God, however you prefer to imagine it has a Beginning or an End in time... or any physical LIMIT.
What can lie BEYOND the "physical limit" of the Multiverse? Well, ANOTHER Universe or type of Universe. That is, we would be facing a new Multiverse.
And what could have existed BEFORE the BIG BANG? Well, another Universe or Multiverse...
And once ours cools down (which is what is happening with ALL the stars burning their limited nuclear energy source) and perhaps it WILL COLLAPSE into a SINGULARITY or Black Hole and then maybe (Who could prove it or refute it?) give rise to another "Big Bang".
That is, our Universe is... ETERNAL
And most importantly: That Universe or Multiverse is... GOD or "Creator" of everything we observe!
A God who does not reward, punish, monitor or "prefer" anyone. "He" does not condemn anyone to suffer eternally in "hell" (which does not exist!).
A God not concerned about anyone, much less these imperfect human beings, absolutely insignificant:
INSIGNIFICANT for the Earth, in turn insignificant for the Solar System, this one for the Milky Way Galaxy, totally insignificant for a Cluster of Galaxies, and this Cluster, insignificant for the known Universe and perhaps for a Multiverse, which is the most likely "thing" that exists.
So, forget all those fears or feelings of "guilt" (of WHAT?) that you learned or were brainwashed since you were a child, convince yourself there is NO afterlife (where to?) because all of our cells DIE and desintegrate into dispersed molecules and then "atoms" that eventually will disperse randomly and help create, combined with others, new stars that will in turn "die", collapse and explode as super novas releasing new atoms to create new stars...and...
ENJOY your LIFE... or "delusion" of life... or whatever it is...👍 !
I'm so hoping scientist would come up with some major discoveries on the topic during my lifetime...
I'm sure there will. There are 2 huge telescopes under construction and there will be a flying drone sent to Saturn's moon Titan arriving in 2034.
Thanks for this excellent video! I was recently watching a video featuring Roger Penrose discussing his insight about this topic - something along the lines (though I don’t clearly understand it) of the situation around the big bang being equivalent in terms of the impossibility or meaninglessness of measuring time, to the situation near the heat death of the expanding universe, where time itself cannot be measured-leading to a suggestion that the heat death at the terminal stage of the expanding universe is equivalent to a big bang in some way, thus suggesting another type of recurring cycle. I wonder if you can comment on that?
Third theory is my personal favorite and makes the most sense to me out of these
I wonder why physicists who talk about other universes always say that those universes would have their own laws of physics? Isn't it possible that there are multiple universes, but all have the same laws?
It's possible, but if they begin with a singularity, then even slight variations in initial quantum fluctuations would made each universe unique. It would be kind of like a fingerprint.
Because scientists need a way to explain the precision and design of this universe that allows us to exist. So they need to have a "theory" that proposes an infinite number of universes where one like ours (that is clearly designed) is simply a mathematical certainty. I.e. give a monkey and a typewriter infinite time, he'll produce Shakespeare.
@@98593le This is the exact right answer.
@@98593lewhat about the fact that over 99% of life that once existed on this planet are now extinct? Doesn’t sound “designed” to me.
@@98593le Bro... if the universe was designed it woudn't be a possibly infinite universe but a small planet with a tiny sun orbiting around it.
It's like creating the whole solar system just to have somewhere on earth a 20L aquarium with shrimps inside, a big waste of time and energy.
So no, it's clearly not designed
Arvin, you've made a mistake.
You said the the universe is homogeneous because it looks the same everywhere you look in space.
That's not homogeneity, that's isotropy, which has been observed experimentally.
Homogeneity, on the other hand, cannot be observed experimentally, it's a philosophical assumption.
They are similar concepts. Homogeneity means that there is no preferred location in the Universe. That is, no matter where you are in the Universe, if you look at the Universe, it will look the same. Isotropy means that there is no preferred direction in the Universe. That is, from your current location, no matter which direction you look, the Universe will look the same. Our universe is both. I suppose I could have been more technical, and explained this more fully, but that was not the central point of the video.
@@ArvinAsh It's not a matter of being technical. You gave a wrong definition of "homogeneous".
Also, you are saying "our universe IS both", as if you were sure and had observational proof of this. No, homogeneity cannot be experimentally observed. Only isotropy can be experimentally observed.
@@ArvinAsh Arvin, why is it so hard to admit your mistake?
Because your mistake hides a dogmatic stance?
Science should show a little humility. Your audience would like that!
I agree, there should be a pinned clarification. What I don't understand is how we can simultaneously assume the Copernican principle to turn our isotropy evidence into homogeneity evidence, and also claim expansion speeds vary on extra-observable scales? Sorry if it's a a dumb question.
Very interesting video.
Thanks Arvin for explaining these concepts to physics fans like me who are not trained in physics. The section on Eternal Inflation was the first time I understood it conceptually, esp. the reason why we cannot interact with those other universes.
The thing that boggles my mind most is, where did the laws if Quantum Mechanics come from, if they exist even without space and time? Also, is Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology not mainstream enough to be included as a 4th hypothesis in this list?
Physics is beautiful but jee coaching in india are making it the worst subject ever no one cares about our existence and universe everyone just cares about getting into prestigious institutions anyway I am trying my best to not to be like everybody else....
IIT sheep
Because you r just hearing in layman's language actually physics is very difficult apart from intersting
I'm so lucky I was never pushed into Indian education system.
@@Anityamthat's true. The problem is no one reached the concepts only formulas. Hence physics is tough 😅
You probably wont listen to me but: better DO go there and care about existence and stuff after you finished it. There will be enough time left, and if you care about existence first there wont be enough time left for your prestigious institution. Just saying.
How strange!!!! The word God was not mentioned no even once!!! That is because it does not explain anything, therefore, not needed.
It does explain things to a certain degree, but it just has absolutely no proof so its as unlikely as me saying that the big bang came from the fart I did 2 minutes ago.
Is there really a need for that many exclamation points?
There’s no need to mention any kind of god. There’s zero evidence that any god has any words.
@@uriituw Exactly! It does not exist.
@@jolulipaI'm glad you're so sure about that. Of course, it sure will suck when you find out you're wrong
The human mind is so smart, creative and intelligent that i feel that God is the laziest and easiest answer for the creation of the universe, disrespecting the shear efforts of words greatest scientists
Always fun speculating on how the our universe came into being. I'm glad you stressed these hypotheses are extremely speculative as our knowledge of physics breaks down at that point.
Brilliant!
God is just a refuge for people who don't want to know more.
also a floating mass of pasta
A god. I like Kali.
OR God is a refuge for humans that can look past their own arrogance of knowledge as he teaches us to look beyond just logic and common sense in understanding the U-And-I Verse.
@@Coolie-High what're you smokin
@@Coolie-High The notion of gods are for the intellectually lazy.
Just finished reading Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe From Nothing" (for the 2nd time). To me, Arvin just summarized the book with 3rd Hypotheses and really clarified it for me. Thanks!
Great presentation. I'm a firm believer in the Eternal Inflation hypothesis. It does show us how miniscule and insignificant we are and how little we could ever comprehend. To that end, I believe JWST actually gave us a peek beyond out "Universe" and makes us wonder.
Fascinating theories! Thank you for making this very interesting video, concentrating on unproven ideas!
U forgot the Simulation theory 😉
Thanks for sharing 👍🏼
Love me some Arvin Ash
Great and very intresting video
Thnk you so much! I'm baffled: How did I understand in a 17 minute video something I spent years trying to get?!
oh man!! my curiosity is expanding far far more than the universe, faster than light.
Really great video. You altered my thinking on these questions. If we came from nothing, there's a lot more nothingness out there for others.
The Bang Big!
You Learn me something! Universe one. People zero! Many Thanks Sir!🎈
So easy to understand and immagin that this is possible.
Nice video and topic Arvin Ash, thanks! 😉
We are now (finally) discovering that our universe is a holistic cyclical process...
There is much evidence that our universe renewed itself after the end of the last cycle of existence of the previous universe (the collapse of matter). We are now slowly but surely realizing that our gigantic universe today once consisted of several smaller universes that later all merged together. This is exactly what can explain the different expansion speed (Hubble tension) in different parts of the cosmos.
The very early universe was a completely different world with a different time sequence, lightning-fast mergers and star formation processes.
The black holes were also simply different, usually in the form of particularly powerful quasars that formed from huge collapsing gas clouds (rather than as supernovae from giant stars). We first have to explore this completely different world and explain it, which is not so easy when you see a lot of new things but can't explain them.
If we then build a space telescope with a view of 20 billion years, then we will have better ideas, but the JWST is also really a great thing... with time comes advice...
Very interesting!
Hi Arvin, great Video as always. I personally believe in another possibility.
1. black and white holes grow the volume by r^3 when mass is added. This could explain the accelerating expansion of our universe.
2. the mass in the known universe is in the range of a black hole
3. inflation is just necessary because we have the strange assumption, that the universe comes from nothing. Why that? Why is the starting point an ideal singularity and not a practical one that is a little bit bigger already?
4. the starting point could be a practical singularity as we assume based on ART for black holes.
This would lead to another multiverse approach with mother and child universes.
5. imbalances like matter vs antimatter could be leveled out across a multitude of universes.
Would love to see the arguments why this hypothesis is not working.
I did enjoy the video
Sir can u make a vedio explaining big bang in connection with rising entropY
I like the way you talk and think, so im gunna assume you are the real deal and not an ai youtube production. yer the best out there mate, well done
The cyclic universe hypothesis was described in Lem's "His master's voice" (it's the old SF book, not science paper though).
The 3 body problem novel's 10 dimensional take on the universe is fascinating
05:50 - The Universe did exactly as you implied, for many "iterations". With the added principle of "ongoing creation of matter", that "contraction/expansion" cycle would take more and more time - until it "fell" on the "other edge of the knife " and became the first "stable" and "accelerating" Universe.
Before The Big Bang there was F.R.I.E.N.D.S and before that Seinfeld and The Simpsons
Seinfeld is still the best
Totally agree!
@@christianheichel I haven't given it a watch (I was born in the 80's) but I have an elderly colleague who mocks me for liking Friends. He tells me Seinfeld is the best. So, I should binge it soon.
Seinfeld is better than any of those.
@@uriituw wow another recommendation for Seinfeld!! I am waiting for next vacation when I will binge watch it :)
I could jump onboard with the third speculation, and not just because it's the most encouraging one. It means that we'll all live again.
Except there is an infinite variety of variations, even in infinite time, such that it is exceedingly improbable that another universe absolutely identical to ours would ever exist again. And even then, it wouldn't be you, it would be a physical copy of you.
@@steveg1961 And that's fine- there's something, not nothing.
Still think it's a interdementale osmosis mechanism that idea is both beautiful and practical where mater plays the role of energy storage and its decay feeds back in to the system. Also a kline bottle feeds in to its self. with out considering higher demental principles as the mechanism for the up to down stream effects of states of matter and energy they clearly can't have a practical solution. It's how you would have a arc of dissequallibrem in a interdementale system.
'For anything to exist, that which is eternal must by necessity be'.
I realised that when I was about nine after loosely digesting Newton's Principia Mathematica.
As usual your analysis is always interesting. But what I can't understand is that something the size of the universe could have started with something very very small. On the face of it that would seem vastly impossible. Keep thinking!
It might be easier to fathom if you can imagine that all the matter in the universe, that is, all the "mass" that you see around you is, at its core, energy. And energy has no minimum size requirement.
One other possibility (similar to the "Bubble Universe" but more general) is that the universe as we know it is the only thing that we're capable of studying and understanding but that there is a vast (possibly infinite) reality beyond our universe that we're destined to never perceive or be capable of comprehending.
Model 1 with a few details from model 2 is the correct one. Cyclical universes do not reset by themselves but they merge together in certain points where multiple big bangs meet and from the aggregation of matter in those points a new universe will form over and over again.
An idea that keeps rolling around in my brain is that the cosmos undergoes a vast and continuous expansion, characterized largely by the influence of dark energy, and this expansion is not uniform; rather, it varies in intensity based on the local density of matter. In regions heavily laden with matter, such as galaxies and star clusters, the gravitational forces are strong enough to counteract the expansive influence of dark energy, maintaining stability within these systems. Conversely, in vast cosmic voids where matter is sparse, the lack of significant gravitational counterforce allows dark energy to dominate.
As we are all aware, constant acceleration, even if the force of acceleration remains unchanged, leads to greater and greater velocities, and correspondingly, total kinetic energy, or momentum. within our current framework, the only thing that prevents velocities from becoming infinite are relativistic limits where energies approach a singularity... This applies to matter of course, but what is matter but a region of spacetime with high energy density.
Could it be possible that, in nearly empty regions of the universe, the minimal presence of matter and the negligible gravitational resistance, allows dark energy to exert its effect unopposed leading to the rates of expansion is so pronounced that they may be described as inflationary?
could it be that periodically, instabilities may occur within these rapidly expanding regions, leading to local decelerations in the expansion rate (singularities). These instabilities could funnel expansion energy into thermal energy creating singularity-like conditions reminiscent of those observed at the Big Bang. Such events introduce a form of drag that mirrors the processes that unfolded after the Big Bang. Over time, as the energy from these events dissipates, the expansion rate begins to accelerate once more.
As regions become increasingly devoid of matter, they eventually return to a state of rapid, inflationary expansion. This dynamic suggests a universe in which inflationary and non-inflationary states alternate, driven by the varying densities of matter and the influence of dark energy. The universe, therefore, is envisioned as a patchwork of varying expansion rates, shaping its structure and evolution over cosmic time scales. This model provides a framework to understand not only the large-scale structure of the universe but also the role of dark energy in shaping these dynamics.
Just a thought.. who really knows though...
Could you make a video about the hidden variables (those that are supposed to consider the probabilistic world as deterministic)? Thanks.
Indeed, I have a video coming out next month on that.
Could you do a video on the great attractor pretty please?
Already did. Here it is: th-cam.com/video/zsBllvtdxZI/w-d-xo.html
3 works for me
Really enjoyed it . thanks. If before the big band there was quantum mechanics and virtual particles were fleetingly coming into existence and then disappearing, does that imply that quantum fields could have existed? Do we think that QFT predates big bang?
We're obsessed with a causal relationship to times and places outside of the universe. Even if "before" or "beyond" of the universe is found, that becomes the new false horizon. It /necessarily/ begins with chance + infinite opportunity.
The sudden brief expansion then stop is kind of like a phase change or crystallization event. Remember space itself is not limited to the 'speed of light'.
It's like asking what's outside outside, or what happens after forever.