@@eternalleutias6306 and that's the real joke about my name... I made a few changes in the name for the people who can recognize it to think I'm evil or religious or something in between. In fact I'm an atheist. I don't believe in the devil either.
Everything that we perceive as "beginnings" and "ends" is only transformations of substances and systems into other forms. Nothing actually arises and nothing disappears. And moreover, we know that there are fundamental laws of conservation of mass, energy, information and the laws that describe the transformation of one into another. If you think about it, none of us saw a beginning or end, in the sense of the appearance of something from non-existence or departure into non-existence. But if we only see that everything only changes form and organization and has no beginning and end, then why do we believe that the universe had to arise from non-existence?
What's driving these unconscious materials to change. Information is needed at it's core. Just like Genes in the DNA is digital Information. And all Information is a product of intelligence. We're in a video game lol
Sure, we may be in someone’s very advanced video game. But even then it must work very similar to the actual reality of the game creators (as every precise simulation does). And the science thinks that what makes all things and processes move is gradients. When, for example, somewhere there is a lack of pressure then a fluid or gas flows there. When somewhere arises is a gradient of energy (like in habitable zone of a star, for example) then we get intense chemical reactions there, that make reagents flow there and take part in the new reactions with the products, ultimately producing complexity. The first gradients could be created by fluctuations. Fluctuations are oscillations around zero that happen constantly. Quantum fluctuations are based on the uncertainty principle, the macro fluctuations are due to the effect of pseudo-randomness, that arises when there are countless interacting parts in a system. And as a fun fact, despite all their insane complexity, people also move in time and space according to gradients of food, money, pleasures and resources in general to maximise the population.
It's very weird and intricate system. If we apply Occam's razor it's hard to get around the concept of God, since science will never answer the "Why" Question.
in fact, as time goes on, fewer and fewer things need to be explained by the concept of God. Previously, it was believed that lightnings were emitted by God himself, and were not the result of complex geo-atmospheric processes. But if you think about it, the concept of God does not explain anything, it only says that God can always exist and has consciousness. That means, there is such an entity about which it is okay to say that it has always been. But energy also always exists and is concentrated into the so-called matter according to already known laws of the Standard Model. Or the the more fundamental Fabric of Space and Time, the nature of which we do not yet know. The Fabric that generates everything that we see, without having consciousness, like all the processes of chemistry and physics, going by itself and not requiring control. Therefore, I think the main difference between the positions of religion and science is whether the universe has consciousness. Religion says that the substance that has the logical right to be eternal and generates everything has consciousness and is called God. Science tries to stay more minimalistic. It tries to understand if it is possible that the entity that generates everything is a system that does not transform into anything (is eternal) and does not have a mind. Could it create everything by interacting with itself (like strings in M-theory or the fabric of space-time in the Theory of Loop Quantum Gravity)? And there are some successes in building such theories. So far, we see that the reality is well described by mathematics and statistics and there are no signs of process control from outside. The system of reality may work in a similar way as, for example, the Earth’s ecosystem (autonomously and with no need of conscious control) but larger and more complex.
I love those final words... "Sometimes silence gets us closer to truth." This is why I have a certain inclination towards mysticism. Sometimes, all we can do is experience existence as presence and deeply unknown. I hope the scientific endeavor continues but how can we foreclose the search by confidently claiming we will likely wrap it all up one day? We simply do not know where our search will take us let alone know what the beginning/end looks like.
Tesla also said that 'light can only be a sound wave in the ether'. We know that sound waves loose energy over time and distance, so why would light be any different ? If ether exists (and I think the double slit experiment is actually evidence for ether, not for particle-wave contradictions), then light waves will loose energy over time and distance in the ether medium. And even if ether does not exist, space is not a pure vacuum and light waves will still loose energy when traveling through different mediums (plasma clouds, cosmic dust etc) that are omnipresent in space. Which means that the farther they go they will drop in frequency (since E=hf, and h is constant) and become more and more redshifted. Because redlight has the lowest frequency of the visible spectrum. But much farther galaxies will not be visible at all because the loss of energy will be so high that the frequency will drop below the visible spectrum, into infrared, then into microwave and radio waves. And then you will have the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and the whole Cosmic Backround Radiation explained with just a simple equation and a perfectly natural and logical assumption (which also explains the Olbers Paradox or Night Sky paradox instantly).
The answer is still in the future. We have to discover it. It is our duty as beings to know and collaborate with each other until we have that answer then we’ll have more direction in life and our destinies.
There has to be a beginning. If we think of an infinite series of events prior to present moment, doesn't that make us realize that only a limited amount of them is possible? Because if there was an infinite amount of time before the present moment, we could never reach any moment in the future. Why? Because if you had an infinite past you would be stuck in the infinite past, never having a chance to reach the present moment. It appears time itself is a greater mystery than the origin of our own universe.
Tesla said that in order to understand the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration. This is how I understood where the galactic redshift is coming from. It is extremely simple and makes perfect sense. It is because the light waves loose energy as they travel millions and millions of years through space. Based on the EM wave equation E=hf, since h=constant, any loss in energy of the light wave equals to a drop in frequency. And since redlight has the lowest frequency of visible light, this means *a redshift appears naturally as the wave looses energy*. How exactly does a light wave loose energy over millions or billions of years and all the galactic and intergalactic mediums it has to pass until it reaches us is not that hard to imagine. Now imagine how a space expands way faster than the speed of light and streches the imaginary photon particle-wave, as the alternative. It is insane to even conceive that something like this is possible, as the light particle will be unable to move in such a space that expands faster than light can move. A space that expands is absurd on its own, since space is not a physical thing and cant have physical properties, but a space that expands faster than light is borderline insane, because it is obvious that any light particle would be continuously pushed away by such a space, not streched, and will be forever traped in that expanding space. And those star trek galaxies will not be able to communicate in any way with our galaxy (via light waves, microwaves, radio waves), since they are moving away from us at speeds exceding light speed, which is the limit for causality. So it would be physically impossible to have a cause there and an effect here. They would be completely disconnected from us and might as well be in a completely different universe.
3:56 *Because very distant galaxies look different than present day ones* And how is this evidence that the universe had a beginning ? Not even the present day galaxies look all the same. We see not only spiral galaxies in the current universe, we also see elliptical ones, and galaxies in a wide variety of irregular shapes and sizes. And the 'very distant galaxies' which appear to be small and clumpy are probably not that very distant at all. That is merely your interpretation of distance based on their very high redshift. But that very high redshift can have many causes, as Halton Arp has showed in his book Seeing Red it can simply be an intrinsic redshift (unrelated to distance) or could be caused by a certain medium that surrounds those galaxies (which have very active star formation) which causes light to loose energy and drop in frequency much faster, thus giving the impression they are much farther away. Therefore they could just as well be in the present day universe, if your method of dating them is wrong or based on presupositions which are simply not true to reality. So how do you know they are very distant ? Because they have a much higher redshift that present day ones, correct ? But what if your interpretation of redshift as recessional velocity due to 'space expansion' is simply WRONG ? Space expansion is a non-sense, there is no such thing as a space expansion, because space doesnt have any properties. This is pure insanity and metaphysics as Tesla himself said. You know, that guy who invented the modern world, who Einstein himself said is the smartest man in the world ? He wasnt too fond of this space expanding non-sense, and for good reason. It. Doesn't. Make. Any. Sense. Not even for Einstein, because he innitially said that his relativitistic universe should be contracting because of gravity. And dreamed a cosmological constant to counter this contraction, not an expansion.
It's really semantics. The laws describe things after they happened from our perspective but we still need to answer the question: What cause it? The laws (or cause) would have to pre exist the event?
does space-time have the negative energy that balances with matter positive energy, maintaining conservation of energy? and if space-time has negative energy, could be quantum waves / fields?
My theory is that existence has always existed, so to speak! Our universe is one of infinite others...hence there was never a beginning to existence, nor will there come an end. It just is! That way we have no need to explain the laws of existence and why things are the way they are...perhaps they have ALWAYS existed, and so no matter how far you go back in 'time', there will never be a starting point.
It's a convenient explanation, I just don't buy it - I'd rather admit I just don't know. The sky was always there for our ancestors after all, by the same logic why even bother finding out why ?
There is universe because there is someone observing it. There is no music if no one is listening. There is nothing if no one knows. In short, the Universe is our mind.
All answers require a starting point/ Cause and everything else that happens after is an Effect. But since there's No Beginning nor End there's no starting point. Something that can never be created nor destroyed. So where do you go from there. To Create a starting point/ the 1st Cause ever, you would have to consider No Beginning nor End the starting point as awhole itself, since there's no individual starting point within itself because it's infinite. So now you have a Cause. Almost like an infinite finite without limits but 1 bound. Effect is created. The only 'Why' question that can arise is the Effect, because like I stated, the one and only Cause already happened. Everything else is just the Effect/ Continuous
What I've always thought is that the singularities of large enough black holes with the correct ingredients and because of their "infinite mass" cause a distortion in time and create new universes and because of the expansion of the universe around them, all previous light has no chance to reach anything in this "newly created universe". it appears like it's an entirely new universe although in fact it is just so remote, it being alone is an illusion and the universe always existed.
@@Brabdog yes, and our black holes are others. There is a theory for this where universes undergo evolution. So our universe is the parent of the other universe from our black holes.
quantum waves / fields outside quantum energy fluctuation that expands as inflation and then cosmological constant space? the quantum energy fluctuation does not contain the quantum waves / field, rather the other way around?
It's a one-two punch, from nothing to something and back again! But we are yet to understand what that nothing really is!!! Ohhhh it ain't nothing!, More like everything!!! And existence is hehe, A flash, a bolt of light illuminating existence with wonder, warmth, love, terror, pain, clarity, confusion, of sincerity, of deception! And why? For the most beautiful sacred unfathomably perfect reason ever!!!!!
I really like this video. None of the infinity silliness. It makes sense for there to have been a 1st state because it's logically contradictory to have counted through infinity, obviously! I guess it's safe to say there existed an IS-ness, that simply "existed"... but not to say that it "always existed", although I admit it does feel that way.
What I see is that there is some kind of infinite cosmic soup and that universes are born inside of it, and that each universe is tied to a consciousness landscape.
Timeline 20:15 To define nothing as: a quantum mechanical fluctuation appears out of nothing , so the laws of quantum mechanics already pre-exist Is not nothing First a law is just a mathematical description of a observation, laws do not create, it describes, Second mathematical laws are it self non material and abstract, this only exist in a mind Hence the appearance out of nothing requires a mind, to be able to create the law and to create a quantum mechanical fluctuation
Here is where i have some confusion and questions. We can see about 13.8 billion years into the past, that is our view distance. At that point, we can see the cosmic microwave background. The cosmic microwave background is esentually the remnance from the big bang, the beginning of time and space. Hopefully i'm correct so far? It is often then questioned, what's beyound that, could there be other galaxies and stars. Now if i'm understanding things correctly, there can't be a great deal beyound that other than more information on the steps of the beginning of the big bang, so no more stars or galaxies right? When the james web looks back then it should see much futher back in time and that means, closer to when it all began at which point, no galaxies or stars would have formed. So does this mean that all we see or all that we eventually see as we look back is all that there is?
Why did the universe begin? Why the Laws of Physics? Only When there is a Creator can this Question be answered. All linked to Consciousness, The Mind, and Self-Awareness. To Experience Multitudes of Feelings and Emotions . Taste, Beauty, Enjoyment, which includes negative emotions like suffering and pain because both are inseparable. No One can understand Beauty and Joy without understanding Ugliness and Pain.
From big bang to the eventual heat death of the universe - and perhaps a perpetual rinse and repeat - what really fry’s my brain is what is the universe expanding into?
@Scientific Irfan that is exactly what i have been saying for a long time. i think we are expanding into a 4th spatial dimension. it is a simple concept, but explains many things, including why the singularity is not a part of our universe
Can someone explain to me what George Smoot is talking about around 16:20 when he's referring to 'acoustic waves' both around the sun and at the beginning of the universe? Obviously, as we're talking about space, he's not referring to sound waves in the sense that I understand them.
The final point is: The small imperfections in the CMWB, shows us these were once very tiny imperfections in the very small beginning, that [not said: through gravity/ dark matter] created galaxies
I've heard a number of top physicists refer to the rewinding of the expansion of the universe where everything ultimately comes together in a very small space, some say a microscopic space. So, the expansion over the ensuing 13.7 billion years would seem to me to leave a large open/vacant space where we all began and from which we are all leaving. But, I've never heard of any observation of that huge empty space from which we are all fleeing. Wonder why that is?
@@Graewulfe So, everything is moving away from the starting point, that means that the point of origin would have been vacated. Therefore the point of origin would be empty. Can we locate the empty area from which it all began? If not, the hypothesis must be faulty.
@@Graewulfe So if the center point is expanding, there should be nothing expanding into the center point. Accordingly, the vast 13.7 billions years of expansion away from the center poitn should leave a large empty space where it all began.
@@Graewulfe Logically inconsistent, isn't it? The central point is that we've been told for ages that you could "rewind" the movie of the expansion of the universe since the big bang and everything, all galaxies would go back to their starting point and that point would be very tiny, some say atomic size others say size of a baseball or so. Now, if all that's true, wouldn't the 13.7 billion years of expansion leave a big empty space in the very center? If not, I give up!!
It did not have a beginning. Because if the universe is infinite, it would take an infinite amount of time for it to become infinite. So it cant have any beginning, because 13 billion years is not enough to achieve infinity. If it is finite, then it can have a beginning, but it has to begin from something, which is already there. But then how did that something begin ? Or has something actually existed forever, and ever, and ever. And then got really bored and began to build an universe from his own self. To me, this sounds a bit like god, but it doesnt actually solve the problem because why doesnt he have a beginning ? He just exists like that for no reason, other than to create a universe, which cant just exist like that for no reason. But if the universe is made from god, then it is also eternal and infinite, as it is just a different state of an omnipresent god. So the universe still does not have a beginning, because it is god incarnated or materialised in the universe. But if god is not material, then the universe cannot be material either. It is an illusion of matter and the universe doesnt exist. So in this case the universe still doesnt have a beginning because it does not exist. But if the universe exists, and it is material, then an imaterial god cannot exist as a prime material for the universe. So in this case the universe exists on its own forever and has no beginning what so ever. I think thats were I started, but its also where I ended.
If the inflation theory is correct and if the space expanded exponentially for a limited duration, then the size of the visible+invisible universe should still be fixed. Also the entire matter could not have been contained in the plank volume but rather it is likely that when then inflation stopped, the the curved space-time got flatter and flatter..not really sure though what could have created the primordial soup.. another bizzare thing is that most videos on TH-cam call this premordial soup as some mixture of hot gases..this isn't possible if matter didn't exist then..it couldn't have been plasma either..
Tesla said that in order to understand the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration. This is how I understood where the galactic redshift is coming from. It is extremely simple and doesnt require any unnnecesary asumptions about the physical world, or metaphysical non-sense such as 'space itself expands', 'particles are waves' and so on. It is because the light waves loose energy as they travel millions and millions of years through different mediums of space. Based on the EM wave equation E=hf, since h=constant, any loss in energy of the light wave equals to a drop in frequency. And since redlight has the lowest frequency of visible light, this means *a redshift appears naturally as the wave looses energy*. How exactly does a light wave loose energy over millions or billions of years and all the galactic and intergalactic mediums it has to pass until it reaches us is not that hard to imagine. Now imagine how a space expands way faster than the speed of light and streches the imaginary photon particle-wave, as the alternative. It is insane to even conceive that something like this is possible, as the light particle will be unable to move in such a space that expands faster than light can move. A space that expands is absurd on its own, since space is not a physical thing and cant have physical properties, but a space that expands faster than light is borderline insane, because it is obvious that any light particle would be continuously pushed away by such a space, not streched, and will be forever traped in that expanding space. (the photons would have to exceed the speed of light in order to escape and get to us, so light would have to travel faster than light). And those star trek galaxies will not be able to communicate in any way with our galaxy (via light waves, microwaves, radio waves), because the space between them would be expanding faster than photons can travel in space. And since those galaxies are moving away from us at speeds exceding light speed, they would break the speed limit for causality. So it would be physically impossible to have a cause there and an effect here. They would be completely disconnected from us and might as well be in a completely different universe.
First - the Big Bang was not the creation of the universe, it was our local universe changing its form, from a singularity to the present state. Second - We don't know if our local Big Bang event is all there is to The Universe.
No baseless hint of a suggestion/claim that "god did it" in this episode? I may have to start watching these again, you certainly seem to get the top minds to interview and best understand reality.
Have believed since my early twenties, over fifty years ago, that the sum total amount of mass and energy in the universe--not just our visible universe--is zero. If so, no issues exist about something from nothing--nothing is the constant. Time is an outgrowth of local observation only.
Hmmmm it's the ultimate question in a way! And not the universe but what they mean by the universe! And at the end of the day, the question really is, did we have a beginning? Or always have we been...and always will we be... So how is this truth possible? Now that's a question??? You can not solve this riddle without glimpsing something utterly impersonal, something utterly unfathomable...
The universe, however it began- was created? It did not come out of nothing.. It did not create itself, n it didn’t exist- certainly.. then what is left ? It must have a creator…! If u think about that … U can see… how big an idea it’s … Then…. The q’n really becomes hu- who? Created this magnificent “universe”:s …
The 'Parents-Principle', is a Eternal Principle, which means that all and any Life-Unit, is born from Parents, our Local Universe is No exception. We know that physical bodies, is changing, gets renewed untill it is Not usefull any longer. We also know that Life-Units is born from closely related 'species', for planets it is a variation, and they dont need closely related parents as We do.
The universe is just one element of "Existence" expressed through multidimensionality. The beginning (origin point) of the universe must be evaluated like we would with anything else. Let's use Henry Ford's Model-T as an example. *Henry Ford's Model-T:* *(1)* Conceives the Model-T *(2)* Works out mathematical schematics for a Model-T *(3)* Produces a prototype Model-T *(4)* Produces a Model-T *Q:* "Which numbered line represents the absolute origin point for the Model-T invented by Henry Ford?"
The universe is just infinitely younger and our minds can't comprehend that. I don't think we understand the vastness of time relative to space. Its like trying to understand, in a relative way, the fact that infinity exists between 0 and 1, whilst also outside of 0 to 1; for example 1 through a thousand. For applications in everyday life, this is inconsequential but for the meaning of time and space could be crucial. That is my abstract thought on the subject. I am on board with the scientific model currently accepted. Now, time to watch and hope I need not remove a foot from my mouth. 😂 Much love all.
This question and the question of is the universe actually exists and not our consciousness just dreaming it are two things that might never be answered
I can never understand if the Universe is much larger than the current "observable" universe and we look at the most distant galaxies we can see and run everything backwards we conclude the universe is 13.8 billion years old but what about the universe so distant we can't see it? How long for it to get back to the point of origin? It seems to me we could only conclude the Universe has a minimum age of 13.8 bil/yrs and the true or maximum age would be unknown.
If the universe does not have a beginning (becuase it has existed always on one form or the other) then the present is not possible, becuase the line of time to our left (the past) would be infinetely long, which then means that the present can never be reached...but then again some physicists believe that time does not exists and that we live in an ever branching fractal of possibilities that each on itself is the present and that it is brain that allucinates the passage of time.
@@BugRib what if reality was a DVD? The DVD does not have time itself....all is there, but we play it on certain orther that makes It look like It goes from beggining to end... Further, Einstein's block universe hints that all exists at the same time (past, present, future) as coordinates in space time...
@@Codigoduro1 then we are still not talking about the DVD but rather the video player itself. What the DVD is inserted into just becomes the universe in question. Sure the DVD is being run in a straight line but how is the universe bound to do so?
Oh, that theory of that ever branching fractal of possibilities is interesting. Where can I find more info please?? I was today thinking that I have only my memory of my history and who knows I could even switch spontaneously from history line and I would never know. (sorry Descartes)
The laws of the Universe were there prior the Universe? That would indicate that our Universe exists in some sort of bigger space where the laws of physics propagate to everything within it, including our Universe and possibly many other Universes?
So many good sources but what about the conformal cyclic cosmology theory of Sir Roger Penrose? No wonder you always only get closer to truth yet never at truth..
There is one fact that Gauss considered sufficient reason to doubt the multitude of geometries he had discovered were not ripe enough to publish, and I am exact agree meant with his conclusions. His underlying consideration is euclidian SPACE has no element of necessity. It does not satisfy the necessity of the scientific method. If one wants to use mathematics to construct a theory consistent with the "Scientific Methods," then necessity is the prime consideration that must be the first consideration. This is why mathematics is not compatible with the Scientific Method, and a mathematician does not use this consideration, which is why they are not scientists. The above consideration is almost always ignored by people calling themselves Physicists, which results in the so-called sciences being ignorant of the irrational results that provide the sciences. The fact we have ignored provides all mathematics, and it has been coined irrationality, apply. The irrationality is contained in Euclid's first assumption, which he and others except for Gauss and myself I have found no trace of. Although Paul Dirac made all the relevant points with each of his students. He suggested they not waste their time on the current notions of QM. Instead, he suggested they spend their time finding a new, simpler, and more straightforward, elegant representation. Excuse the pun, but it seems unavoidable, "pointless absurdity" takes place at the onset: Euclid began his exposition by listing 23 definitions in Book 1 of the 'Elements.' This is the first reason stated by Euclid. Just stop and realize A point is not "a picture of a point." No one can see a point. FOR, 1. A point is that which has no part Here is Gauss's response to Bessel. Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; We must, in humility, admit that if number is merely a product of our mind. .
At the big bang, did attractive gravity start alongside repulsive gravity during inflation? Could attractive gravity begin from the higher temperature / lower entropy of hot dense state at end of inflation?
If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It's not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it." "So it could be that this universe is merely the science fair project of a kid in another universe," Shostak added. "I don't know how that affects your theological leanings, but it is something to consider." Filippenko stressed that such statements are not attacks on the existence of God. Saying the Big Bang - a massive expansion 13.7 billion years ago that blew space up like a gigantic balloon - could have occurred without God is a far cry from saying that God doesn't exist, he said. "I don't think you can use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God," Filippenko said. 'Why are there laws of physics?'" he said. "And you could say, 'Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes, maybe more than one.'" But that answer just continues to kick the can down the road, because you still need to explain where the divine creator came from. The process leads to a never-ending chain that always leaves you short of the ultimate answer, Filippenko said. The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve. "The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."
'The problem with modern cosmogony is that they all suffer from the same paradox. Quantum fluctuations, quantum tunneling and Hawking's notion that the law of gravity caused the universe to emerge, and other such theories require time and space to function. They always forget to discuss this. If on the other hand there was, let's say a quantum vacuum and space and time "before" the singularity, what evidence is there for example anything has ever been observed emerging from a quantum vacuum other than a virtual particle which emerges and then quickly disappears? Hawking's claim that because there are laws such as gravity the universe creates itself, suffers from a couple problems. It assumes that natural laws have the power to create while laws require a human mind to discover these laws but they no ability to bring anything into existence. otherwise we should have observed this in nature. Secondly, in our space and time we have never seen the laws of nature bring anything into existence.
![F.HERO Ft. JSPKK x ลำไย ไหทองคำ x M-PEE - ไม่สนิทบิดหมด (Thai Riders Anthem) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kPJZ0UihBfk/mqdefault.jpg)
I have a feeling we might be in for a big surprise now that the james webb telescope is soon to be up and running. Time travel boys.
Anything in particular you have in mind?
I am very excited about the JWST!!!!!
@@eternalleutias6306 That's the kind of comment that doesn't add anything to a serious conversation.
@@eternalleutias6306 I never noticed any sarcasm.. thing is I'm just so fed up with religions I don't stop to think someone can be joking. My bad.
@@eternalleutias6306 and that's the real joke about my name... I made a few changes in the name for the people who can recognize it to think I'm evil or religious or something in between. In fact I'm an atheist. I don't believe in the devil either.
"Sometimes only silence...gets us...Closer to Truth"
That's because nothing can grow on something that's constantly moving.
😅
YES!
Humans overthink the universe. My hunch is that it might be simpler than we currently imagine.
Thank you for your genuine quest to get closer to truth 💗🍃...and still the mystery remains...
Best channel on TH-cam
Please date the interview segments.
Fantastic, as always. I really love this channel!
Everything that we perceive as "beginnings" and "ends" is only transformations of substances and systems into other forms. Nothing actually arises and nothing disappears. And moreover, we know that there are fundamental laws of conservation of mass, energy, information and the laws that describe the transformation of one into another.
If you think about it, none of us saw a beginning or end, in the sense of the appearance of something from non-existence or departure into non-existence.
But if we only see that everything only changes form and organization and has no beginning and end, then why do we believe that the universe had to arise from non-existence?
What's driving these unconscious materials to change. Information is needed at it's core. Just like Genes in the DNA is digital Information. And all Information is a product of intelligence. We're in a video game lol
Sure, we may be in someone’s very advanced video game. But even then it must work very similar to the actual reality of the game creators (as every precise simulation does).
And the science thinks that what makes all things and processes move is gradients. When, for example, somewhere there is a lack of pressure then a fluid or gas flows there.
When somewhere arises is a gradient of energy (like in habitable zone of a star, for example) then we get intense chemical reactions there, that make reagents flow there and take part in the new reactions with the products, ultimately producing complexity.
The first gradients could be created by fluctuations. Fluctuations are oscillations around zero that happen constantly. Quantum fluctuations are based on the uncertainty principle, the macro fluctuations are due to the effect of pseudo-randomness, that arises when there are countless interacting parts in a system.
And as a fun fact, despite all their insane complexity, people also move in time and space according to gradients of food, money, pleasures and resources in general to maximise the population.
It's very weird and intricate system. If we apply Occam's razor it's hard to get around the concept of God, since science will never answer the "Why" Question.
in fact, as time goes on, fewer and fewer things need to be explained by the concept of God. Previously, it was believed that lightnings were emitted by God himself, and were not the result of complex geo-atmospheric processes.
But if you think about it, the concept of God does not explain anything, it only says that God can always exist and has consciousness. That means, there is such an entity about which it is okay to say that it has always been.
But energy also always exists and is concentrated into the so-called matter according to already known laws of the Standard Model. Or the the more fundamental Fabric of Space and Time, the nature of which we do not yet know. The Fabric that generates everything that we see, without having consciousness, like all the processes of chemistry and physics, going by itself and not requiring control.
Therefore, I think the main difference between the positions of religion and science is whether the universe has consciousness.
Religion says that the substance that has the logical right to be eternal and generates everything has consciousness and is called God. Science tries to stay more minimalistic. It tries to understand if it is possible that the entity that generates everything is a system that does not transform into anything (is eternal) and does not have a mind. Could it create everything by interacting with itself (like strings in M-theory or the fabric of space-time in the Theory of Loop Quantum Gravity)? And there are some successes in building such theories.
So far, we see that the reality is well described by mathematics and statistics and there are no signs of process control from outside. The system of reality may work in a similar way as, for example, the Earth’s ecosystem (autonomously and with no need of conscious control) but larger and more complex.
@@YMe-hp7hi Who said they're unconscious?
"Sometimes only Silence gets us closer to truth"
Wow!
I love those final words... "Sometimes silence gets us closer to truth." This is why I have a certain inclination towards mysticism. Sometimes, all we can do is experience existence as presence and deeply unknown.
I hope the scientific endeavor continues but how can we foreclose the search by confidently claiming we will likely wrap it all up one day? We simply do not know where our search will take us let alone know what the beginning/end looks like.
Tesla also said that 'light can only be a sound wave in the ether'. We know that sound waves loose energy over time and distance, so why would light be any different ?
If ether exists (and I think the double slit experiment is actually evidence for ether, not for particle-wave contradictions), then light waves will loose energy over time and distance in the ether medium. And even if ether does not exist, space is not a pure vacuum and light waves will still loose energy when traveling through different mediums (plasma clouds, cosmic dust etc) that are omnipresent in space. Which means that the farther they go they will drop in frequency (since E=hf, and h is constant) and become more and more redshifted. Because redlight has the lowest frequency of the visible spectrum. But much farther galaxies will not be visible at all because the loss of energy will be so high that the frequency will drop below the visible spectrum, into infrared, then into microwave and radio waves. And then you will have the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and the whole Cosmic Backround Radiation explained with just a simple equation and a perfectly natural and logical assumption (which also explains the Olbers Paradox or Night Sky paradox instantly).
The answer is still in the future. We have to discover it. It is our duty as beings to know and collaborate with each other until we have that answer then we’ll have more direction in life and our destinies.
@ 23 : 07 ,such a beautiful shot ,superb photography throughout, enjoyed the episode very much, thank you 💫
There has to be a beginning. If we think of an infinite series of events prior to present moment, doesn't that make us realize that only a limited amount of them is possible? Because if there was an infinite amount of time before the present moment, we could never reach any moment in the future. Why? Because if you had an infinite past you would be stuck in the infinite past, never having a chance to reach the present moment. It appears time itself is a greater mystery than the origin of our own universe.
Something can’t come from nothing; therefore something always had to be here😂
I agree. Mind boggling 😂
Another entertaning video which brought us no closer to truth.
what happens when physical things begin? most physical things start tiny and grow?
A much more mid boggling and fascinating question that has haunted scholars since time immemorial is why kids love the taste of cinnamon toast crunch
We haven't nailed down the beginning with all that much precision. Nobody knows what day of the week it happened on.
Good one 😂
It was on February the 12th, 14.45 GMT, 13.700.120.609 BC
It’s was a Tuesday.
Yes we know
It was Friday
Everyone else here is clearly wrong. The universe didn't happen _on_ a day of the week, it _was_ the week! So Thursday evening-Friday morning, approx.
are quantum waves / fields considered to be nothing? while particles considered to be something, popping into existence from quantum waves / fields?
What if there was empty space before the big bang.
I agree. There has to be space, or at least something for the universe to expand into.
Great video
Tesla said that in order to understand the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration. This is how I understood where the galactic redshift is coming from. It is extremely simple and makes perfect sense. It is because the light waves loose energy as they travel millions and millions of years through space. Based on the EM wave equation E=hf, since h=constant, any loss in energy of the light wave equals to a drop in frequency. And since redlight has the lowest frequency of visible light, this means *a redshift appears naturally as the wave looses energy*.
How exactly does a light wave loose energy over millions or billions of years and all the galactic and intergalactic mediums it has to pass until it reaches us is not that hard to imagine. Now imagine how a space expands way faster than the speed of light and streches the imaginary photon particle-wave, as the alternative. It is insane to even conceive that something like this is possible, as the light particle will be unable to move in such a space that expands faster than light can move. A space that expands is absurd on its own, since space is not a physical thing and cant have physical properties, but a space that expands faster than light is borderline insane, because it is obvious that any light particle would be continuously pushed away by such a space, not streched, and will be forever traped in that expanding space. And those star trek galaxies will not be able to communicate in any way with our galaxy (via light waves, microwaves, radio waves), since they are moving away from us at speeds exceding light speed, which is the limit for causality. So it would be physically impossible to have a cause there and an effect here. They would be completely disconnected from us and might as well be in a completely different universe.
3:56 *Because very distant galaxies look different than present day ones*
And how is this evidence that the universe had a beginning ? Not even the present day galaxies look all the same. We see not only spiral galaxies in the current universe, we also see elliptical ones, and galaxies in a wide variety of irregular shapes and sizes. And the 'very distant galaxies' which appear to be small and clumpy are probably not that very distant at all. That is merely your interpretation of distance based on their very high redshift. But that very high redshift can have many causes, as Halton Arp has showed in his book Seeing Red it can simply be an intrinsic redshift (unrelated to distance) or could be caused by a certain medium that surrounds those galaxies (which have very active star formation) which causes light to loose energy and drop in frequency much faster, thus giving the impression they are much farther away. Therefore they could just as well be in the present day universe, if your method of dating them is wrong or based on presupositions which are simply not true to reality.
So how do you know they are very distant ? Because they have a much higher redshift that present day ones, correct ? But what if your interpretation of redshift as recessional velocity due to 'space expansion' is simply WRONG ? Space expansion is a non-sense, there is no such thing as a space expansion, because space doesnt have any properties. This is pure insanity and metaphysics as Tesla himself said. You know, that guy who invented the modern world, who Einstein himself said is the smartest man in the world ? He wasnt too fond of this space expanding non-sense, and for good reason. It. Doesn't. Make. Any. Sense.
Not even for Einstein, because he innitially said that his relativitistic universe should be contracting because of gravity. And dreamed a cosmological constant to counter this contraction, not an expansion.
Is there another possibility besides the following two? 1) The universe is in time. 2) Time is in the universe.
The laws of physics don’t cause things to happen. They only describe things after they happen.
Interesting point to consider.
Okay, subtle, but true, but they caused us😃 to look back on the start lol
It's really semantics. The laws describe things after they happened from our perspective but we still need to answer the question: What cause it? The laws (or cause) would have to pre exist the event?
anything with physical nature has beginning?
does space-time have the negative energy that balances with matter positive energy, maintaining conservation of energy? and if space-time has negative energy, could be quantum waves / fields?
is the negative energy that balances the positive energy of matter found in quantum fields / waves?
The universe is surely expanding into something, and that something was always there.
Here's to hoping that the JWST will provide additional data that helps answer some of these questions.
My theory is that existence has always existed, so to speak! Our universe is one of infinite others...hence there was never a beginning to existence, nor will there come an end. It just is! That way we have no need to explain the laws of existence and why things are the way they are...perhaps they have ALWAYS existed, and so no matter how far you go back in 'time', there will never be a starting point.
What is existance?
It's a convenient explanation, I just don't buy it - I'd rather admit I just don't know. The sky was always there for our ancestors after all, by the same logic why even bother finding out why ?
Believe as you wish, but calling your idle speculation a theory is rather grandiose, don't you think?
@@waynebrinker8095 I think he meant the theory that we use in common language not a scientific theory
Your theory isn't scientific.
There is universe because there is someone observing it. There is no music if no one is listening. There is nothing if no one knows. In short, the Universe is our mind.
Are you a Buddhist? That is very similar to Buddhist philosophy, perception in one hand, yet not denying the existence
Excellent!!
as the universe cools with expansion, will more heavier elements be produced?
All answers require a starting point/ Cause and everything else that happens after is an Effect.
But since there's No Beginning nor End there's no starting point. Something that can never be created nor destroyed. So where do you go from there.
To Create a starting point/ the 1st Cause ever, you would have to consider No Beginning nor End the starting point as awhole itself, since there's no individual starting point within itself because it's infinite. So now you have a Cause.
Almost like an infinite finite without limits but 1 bound. Effect is created.
The only 'Why' question that can arise is the Effect, because like I stated, the one and only Cause already happened. Everything else is just the Effect/ Continuous
This one was a great episode
why would inflation end in space of universe after exponential expansion?
what does cosmic microwave background say about what came before it, all the way back to big bang, inflation, and even before?
What I've always thought is that the singularities of large enough black holes with the correct ingredients and because of their "infinite mass" cause a distortion in time and create new universes and because of the expansion of the universe around them, all previous light has no chance to reach anything in this "newly created universe". it appears like it's an entirely new universe although in fact it is just so remote, it being alone is an illusion and the universe always existed.
Interesting… so we’re living on the other side of some other universe’s black hole?
@@Brabdog yes, and our black holes are others. There is a theory for this where universes undergo evolution. So our universe is the parent of the other universe from our black holes.
Infinite density?
@@Brabdognope, still the same side. Just way in the future
@@rickreed123 I'm talking about the singularity
quantum waves / fields outside quantum energy fluctuation that expands as inflation and then cosmological constant space? the quantum energy fluctuation does not contain the quantum waves / field, rather the other way around?
the fact that any of us are here is absolute proof that the universe had a beginning
This channel just keeps re-hashing the same old videos from years ago.
I think Billy Preston said it best, Nothing from nothing leaves nothing, you gotta have something if you want to be with me.
Last time I was this early, it was still "only two weeks to flatten muh curve"
Thanks again!
It's a one-two punch, from nothing to something and back again! But we are yet to understand what that nothing really is!!! Ohhhh it ain't nothing!, More like everything!!! And existence is hehe, A flash, a bolt of light illuminating existence with wonder, warmth, love, terror, pain, clarity, confusion, of sincerity, of deception! And why? For the most beautiful sacred unfathomably perfect reason ever!!!!!
I really like this video. None of the infinity silliness. It makes sense for there to have been a 1st state because it's logically contradictory to have counted through infinity, obviously! I guess it's safe to say there existed an IS-ness, that simply "existed"... but not to say that it "always existed", although I admit it does feel that way.
Around 21:40 mark. If the postulate is that the universe spontaneously POPS OUT and starts to expand, where or into to what does it POP OUT INTO?
What I see is that there is some kind of infinite cosmic soup and that universes are born inside of it, and that each universe is tied to a consciousness landscape.
٤٧ وَالسَّمَاءَ بَنَيْنَاهَا بِأَيْدٍ وَإِنَّا لَمُوسِعُونَ47 We constructed the universe with power, and We
are expanding it. Quran 51:47
Timeline 20:15
To define nothing as: a quantum mechanical fluctuation appears out of nothing , so the laws of quantum mechanics already pre-exist
Is not nothing
First a law is just a mathematical description of a observation, laws do not create, it describes,
Second mathematical laws are it self non material and abstract, this only exist in a mind
Hence the appearance out of nothing requires a mind, to be able to create the law and to create a quantum mechanical fluctuation
might the laws of quantum mechanics start universe with energy fluctuation?
Haunting intro music
Well , if it had a beginning , then it must end , what a fun !
Love your series
So interesting ...
Where did the laws of physics come from?
Intelligent design is the only plausible answer.
pls provide timestamps. its always annoying to skip the theistic parts
What is good of to precieve the Truth.??
Wow! That’s a question.... the one I’ve been stuck all my live. Thanks. 👩🏽🚀🙈🙉
Here is where i have some confusion and questions.
We can see about 13.8 billion years into the past, that is our view distance.
At that point, we can see the cosmic microwave background.
The cosmic microwave background is esentually the remnance from the big bang, the beginning of time and space.
Hopefully i'm correct so far?
It is often then questioned, what's beyound that, could there be other galaxies and stars.
Now if i'm understanding things correctly, there can't be a great deal beyound that other than more information on the steps of the beginning of the big bang, so no more stars or galaxies right?
When the james web looks back then it should see much futher back in time and that means, closer to when it all began at which point, no galaxies or stars would have formed.
So does this mean that all we see or all that we eventually see as we look back is all that there is?
If the infinite regress is too apologetic, what about the second law of thermodynamics?
Why did the universe begin?
Why the Laws of Physics?
Only When there is a Creator can this Question be answered.
All linked to Consciousness, The Mind, and Self-Awareness.
To Experience Multitudes of Feelings and Emotions . Taste, Beauty, Enjoyment, which includes negative emotions like suffering and pain because both are inseparable. No One can understand Beauty and Joy without understanding Ugliness and Pain.
And now on to “who” created your “creator”?
What else can create an entire universe in a second? Big bang = computer boot. Universe = simulation.
❤ Very good 👍🏼
Martin Rees's description of the first millisecond sounds like a seed springing into life.
It is.
Nonsensical if two things that interacted created existence , then they had to exist. Religion is stupid.
@@Mr.Witness Define religion.
an evolving universe has beginning?
energy of inflation continues outside area cosmological constant expansion in universe?
From big bang to the eventual heat death of the universe - and perhaps a perpetual rinse and repeat - what really fry’s my brain is what is the universe expanding into?
@Scientific Irfan that is exactly what i have been saying for a long time. i think we are expanding into a 4th spatial dimension. it is a simple concept, but explains many things, including why the singularity is not a part of our universe
Can someone explain to me what George Smoot is talking about around 16:20 when he's referring to 'acoustic waves' both around the sun and at the beginning of the universe? Obviously, as we're talking about space, he's not referring to sound waves in the sense that I understand them.
The final point is: The small imperfections in the CMWB, shows us these were once very tiny imperfections in the very small beginning, that [not said: through gravity/ dark matter] created galaxies
@j2ealish created large scale things, like galaxies
@j2ealish I forgot to say, "yada yada yada. "
@j2ealish I decided you are trolling, so I answered with an appropriate answer. It's too much for me to type on my phone keyboard, if you are not
Yes.
I've heard a number of top physicists refer to the rewinding of the expansion of the universe where everything ultimately comes together in a very small space, some say a microscopic space. So, the expansion over the ensuing 13.7 billion years would seem to me to leave a large open/vacant space where we all began and from which we are all leaving. But, I've never heard of any observation of that huge empty space from which we are all fleeing. Wonder why that is?
Does time also rewind in your rewinding universe?
...and would we notice that reverse?
@@Graewulfe So, everything is moving away from the starting point, that means that the point of origin would have been vacated. Therefore the point of origin would be empty. Can we locate the empty area from which it all began? If not, the hypothesis must be faulty.
@@Graewulfe So if the center point is expanding, there should be nothing expanding into the center point. Accordingly, the vast 13.7 billions years of expansion away from the center poitn should leave a large empty space where it all began.
@@Graewulfe Logically inconsistent, isn't it? The central point is that we've been told for ages that you could "rewind" the movie of the expansion of the universe since the big bang and everything, all galaxies would go back to their starting point and that point would be very tiny, some say atomic size others say size of a baseball or so. Now, if all that's true, wouldn't the 13.7 billion years of expansion leave a big empty space in the very center? If not, I give up!!
@@Graewulfe
A loaf of bread with currents in it ,that are all moving away from each other as the bread (universe) is expanding.
It did not have a beginning. Because if the universe is infinite, it would take an infinite amount of time for it to become infinite. So it cant have any beginning, because 13 billion years is not enough to achieve infinity.
If it is finite, then it can have a beginning, but it has to begin from something, which is already there. But then how did that something begin ? Or has something actually existed forever, and ever, and ever. And then got really bored and began to build an universe from his own self.
To me, this sounds a bit like god, but it doesnt actually solve the problem because why doesnt he have a beginning ? He just exists like that for no reason, other than to create a universe, which cant just exist like that for no reason.
But if the universe is made from god, then it is also eternal and infinite, as it is just a different state of an omnipresent god. So the universe still does not have a beginning, because it is god incarnated or materialised in the universe.
But if god is not material, then the universe cannot be material either. It is an illusion of matter and the universe doesnt exist.
So in this case the universe still doesnt have a beginning because it does not exist.
But if the universe exists, and it is material, then an imaterial god cannot exist as a prime material for the universe. So in this case the universe exists on its own forever and has no beginning what so ever. I think thats were I started, but its also where I ended.
If we did pop out of nothing it is theoretically possible for that to happen again at any random time and point, such as my garden tomorrow at 12.06?
It would be like one flower opening from another, which come to think of it is sort of what happens.
If the inflation theory is correct and if the space expanded exponentially for a limited duration, then the size of the visible+invisible universe should still be fixed. Also the entire matter could not have been contained in the plank volume but rather it is likely that when then inflation stopped, the the curved space-time got flatter and flatter..not really sure though what could have created the primordial soup.. another bizzare thing is that most videos on TH-cam call this premordial soup as some mixture of hot gases..this isn't possible if matter didn't exist then..it couldn't have been plasma either..
Tesla said that in order to understand the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration. This is how I understood where the galactic redshift is coming from. It is extremely simple and doesnt require any unnnecesary asumptions about the physical world, or metaphysical non-sense such as 'space itself expands', 'particles are waves' and so on. It is because the light waves loose energy as they travel millions and millions of years through different mediums of space. Based on the EM wave equation E=hf, since h=constant, any loss in energy of the light wave equals to a drop in frequency. And since redlight has the lowest frequency of visible light, this means *a redshift appears naturally as the wave looses energy*.
How exactly does a light wave loose energy over millions or billions of years and all the galactic and intergalactic mediums it has to pass until it reaches us is not that hard to imagine. Now imagine how a space expands way faster than the speed of light and streches the imaginary photon particle-wave, as the alternative.
It is insane to even conceive that something like this is possible, as the light particle will be unable to move in such a space that expands faster than light can move. A space that expands is absurd on its own, since space is not a physical thing and cant have physical properties, but a space that expands faster than light is borderline insane, because it is obvious that any light particle would be continuously pushed away by such a space, not streched, and will be forever traped in that expanding space. (the photons would have to exceed the speed of light in order to escape and get to us, so light would have to travel faster than light).
And those star trek galaxies will not be able to communicate in any way with our galaxy (via light waves, microwaves, radio waves), because the space between them would be expanding faster than photons can travel in space.
And since those galaxies are moving away from us at speeds exceding light speed, they would break the speed limit for causality. So it would be physically impossible to have a cause there and an effect here. They would be completely disconnected from us and might as well be in a completely different universe.
New science is becoming sci fi. New theories to get money.
In my beginning is my end; in my end is my beginning. Universe as a singularity is absolute infinity. But that infinity can be measured by equations.
First - the Big Bang was not the creation of the universe, it was our local universe changing its form, from a singularity to the present state.
Second - We don't know if our local Big Bang event is all there is to The Universe.
No baseless hint of a suggestion/claim that "god did it" in this episode? I may have to start watching these again, you certainly seem to get the top minds to interview and best understand reality.
Have believed since my early twenties, over fifty years ago, that the sum total amount of mass and energy in the universe--not just our visible universe--is zero. If so, no issues exist about something from nothing--nothing is the constant. Time is an outgrowth of local observation only.
Hmmmm it's the ultimate question in a way! And not the universe but what they mean by the universe! And at the end of the day, the question really is, did we have a beginning? Or always have we been...and always will we be... So how is this truth possible? Now that's a question??? You can not solve this riddle without glimpsing something utterly impersonal, something utterly unfathomable...
The universe, however it began- was created? It did not come out of nothing..
It did not create itself, n it didn’t exist- certainly..
then what is left ? It must have a creator…!
If u think about that …
U can see… how big an idea it’s …
Then…. The q’n really becomes hu- who? Created this magnificent “universe”:s …
The 'Parents-Principle', is a Eternal Principle, which means that all and any Life-Unit, is born from Parents, our Local Universe is No exception.
We know that physical bodies, is changing, gets renewed untill it is Not usefull any longer.
We also know that Life-Units is born from closely related 'species',
for planets it is a variation, and they dont need closely related parents as We do.
It has a beginning and it has an end
The universe is just one element of "Existence" expressed through multidimensionality. The beginning (origin point) of the universe must be evaluated like we would with anything else. Let's use Henry Ford's Model-T as an example.
*Henry Ford's Model-T:*
*(1)* Conceives the Model-T
*(2)* Works out mathematical schematics for a Model-T
*(3)* Produces a prototype Model-T
*(4)* Produces a Model-T
*Q:* "Which numbered line represents the absolute origin point for the Model-T invented by Henry Ford?"
The answer is.......we DON'T KNOW!
The universe is just infinitely younger and our minds can't comprehend that. I don't think we understand the vastness of time relative to space. Its like trying to understand, in a relative way, the fact that infinity exists between 0 and 1, whilst also outside of 0 to 1; for example 1 through a thousand. For applications in everyday life, this is inconsequential but for the meaning of time and space could be crucial. That is my abstract thought on the subject. I am on board with the scientific model currently accepted. Now, time to watch and hope I need not remove a foot from my mouth. 😂 Much love all.
I think it's the distortion of balance or first law of thermodynamics
This question and the question of is the universe actually exists and not our consciousness just dreaming it are two things that might never be answered
So just ignore what consciousness tells us?
I can never understand if the Universe is much larger than the current "observable" universe and we look at the most distant galaxies we can see and run everything backwards we conclude the universe is 13.8 billion years old but what about the universe so distant we can't see it? How long for it to get back to the point of origin? It seems to me we could only conclude the Universe has a minimum age of 13.8 bil/yrs and the true or maximum age would be unknown.
If the universe does not have a beginning (becuase it has existed always on one form or the other) then the present is not possible, becuase the line of time to our left (the past) would be infinetely long, which then means that the present can never be reached...but then again some physicists believe that time does not exists and that we live in an ever branching fractal of possibilities that each on itself is the present and that it is brain that allucinates the passage of time.
I feel like time would have to be real in order for there to be even the _illusion_ of time passing.
@@BugRib what if reality was a DVD? The DVD does not have time itself....all is there, but we play it on certain orther that makes It look like It goes from beggining to end...
Further, Einstein's block universe hints that all exists at the same time (past, present, future) as coordinates in space time...
@@Codigoduro1 then we are still not talking about the DVD but rather the video player itself. What the DVD is inserted into just becomes the universe in question. Sure the DVD is being run in a straight line but how is the universe bound to do so?
Oh, that theory of that ever branching fractal of possibilities is interesting. Where can I find more info please??
I was today thinking that I have only my memory of my history and who knows I could even switch spontaneously from history line and I would never know. (sorry Descartes)
@@jean-pierredevent970 there is a video of Max tegmark talking about it on in channel.
Confer Edward Harrison's distinction twixt 'universe' and 'Universe' in his "Cosmology - 2nd edition"...♾️🤗
I certainly don't consider the multiverse a "discovery" per se as it's hypothetical and unobservable, at least for the foreseeable future.
The laws of the Universe were there prior the Universe? That would indicate that our Universe exists in some sort of bigger space where the laws of physics propagate to everything within it, including our Universe and possibly many other Universes?
So many good sources but what about the conformal cyclic cosmology theory of Sir Roger Penrose? No wonder you always only get closer to truth yet never at truth..
There is one fact that Gauss considered sufficient reason to doubt the multitude of geometries he had discovered were not ripe enough to publish, and I am exact agree meant with his conclusions. His underlying consideration is euclidian SPACE has no element of necessity. It does not satisfy the necessity of the scientific method.
If one wants to use mathematics to construct a theory consistent with the "Scientific Methods," then necessity is the prime consideration that must be the first consideration. This is why mathematics is not compatible with the Scientific Method, and a mathematician does not use this consideration, which is why they are not scientists.
The above consideration is almost always ignored by people calling themselves Physicists, which results in the so-called sciences being ignorant of the irrational results that provide the sciences.
The fact we have ignored provides all mathematics, and it has been coined irrationality, apply.
The irrationality is contained in Euclid's first assumption, which he and others except for Gauss and myself I have found no trace of. Although Paul Dirac made all the relevant points with each of his students. He suggested they not waste their time on the current notions of QM. Instead, he suggested they spend their time finding a new, simpler, and more straightforward, elegant representation.
Excuse the pun, but it seems unavoidable, "pointless absurdity" takes place at the onset:
Euclid began his exposition by listing 23 definitions in Book 1 of the 'Elements.' This is the first reason stated by Euclid. Just stop and realize A point is not "a picture of a point." No one can see a point. FOR,
1. A point is that which has no part
Here is Gauss's response to Bessel.
Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 …
The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such.
My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth)
that is characteristic of the latter;
We must, in humility, admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.
.
At the big bang, did attractive gravity start alongside repulsive gravity during inflation? Could attractive gravity begin from the higher temperature / lower entropy of hot dense state at end of inflation?
If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It's not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it."
"So it could be that this universe is merely the science fair project of a kid in another universe," Shostak added. "I don't know how that affects your theological leanings, but it is something to consider."
Filippenko stressed that such statements are not attacks on the existence of God. Saying the Big Bang - a massive expansion 13.7 billion years ago that blew space up like a gigantic balloon - could have occurred without God is a far cry from saying that God doesn't exist, he said.
"I don't think you can use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God," Filippenko said.
'Why are there laws of physics?'" he said. "And you could say, 'Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes, maybe more than one.'"
But that answer just continues to kick the can down the road, because you still need to explain where the divine creator came from. The process leads to a never-ending chain that always leaves you short of the ultimate answer, Filippenko said.
The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve.
"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."
It doesn't matter.
Good Stephen Stills song
You really should read Halton Arp's book Seeing Red.
'The problem with modern cosmogony is that they all suffer from the same paradox. Quantum fluctuations, quantum tunneling and Hawking's notion that the law of gravity caused the universe to emerge, and other such theories require time and space to function. They always forget to discuss this. If on the other hand there was, let's say a quantum vacuum and space and time "before" the singularity, what evidence is there for example anything has ever been observed emerging from a quantum vacuum other than a virtual particle which emerges and then quickly disappears? Hawking's claim that because there are laws such as gravity the universe creates itself, suffers from a couple problems. It assumes that natural laws have the power to create while laws require a human mind to discover these laws but they no ability to bring anything into existence. otherwise we should have observed this in nature. Secondly, in our space and time we have never seen the laws of nature bring anything into existence.