Need more Thomas? Watch the Q&A here: th-cam.com/video/dGIw2Dup3sg/w-d-xo.html Also - we want to hear from you! What lectures and topics do you want to watch on our channel? Let us know in the comments ⬇:
This lecture was absolutely brilliant. I was amazed how Dr. Hertog weaved together the work he did with Stephen Hawking across cosmology, quantum mechanics, Darwin, Newton and Hannah Arendt. Sheer genius.
The spookiness of entangled photons, JWST observing massive galaxies where they don't belong, holographic properties; the universe is a strange, mind-bending spacetime. Great lecture!
1. Time began with the first clock. What you are really concerned with is CHANGE, which does not need time units (or space units). 2. Incidentally, what this also means is that if you want to revisit the past, you need to go back in change, the physical property, and not time, the measuring system (just run your clock backwards for that). The Grandfather Paradox should have been a red flag that you were not thinking about time correctly in the first place. 3. This also holds true with the paradox 'something from nothing' (how the universe began). The paradox indicates that we are not thinking correctly about 'something' and 'nothing' yet.
I dont know if you will actually read this(I hope so), but I am amazed by your work with Stephen Hawkins and I am really trying as a layperson to grasp the essence of your top-down view of the universe, but more importantly, the evolutionary aspect you apply to it. Evolutionary pressures are incredibly powerful and I totally get how they might work, but from a cosmological viewpoint where are the eternal environmental pressures that create your evolving universe? You mention symmetry breaking which as far as I am aware is a completely defined process underpinned by the need for random mutations to introduce the selective element. Where does that come from in cosmology? When symmetry breaks why does this read to selective variation and ultimately what placed the proto-universe in such a high state of order that such breaking of symmetry could lead to so much complexity. When water freezes complexity diminishes, when it melts complexity increases but there is nothing to constrain that complexity (well I guess a cold surface will cause it to form a liquid which is somewhat more constrained and less random than a gas!) Sorry I am rambling, I would love to have some clarity though.
Thank you so much for your book, it's one of the best I've ever read. I'm just a fan of astronomy (it is not my profession), but I love it and I'm always looking forward to learn more. Your book taught me so much, from the beginning of astronomy to some of the most contemporary ideas. I feel so excited and motivated to continue learning more! and, of course, I eagerly wait for your next book!
A friend of mine just days ago informed me that the new consensus among theoretical physicists is that the universe conforms to holographic principles, that a holographic model best explains the evidence we have from quantum mechanics of how fundamental reality is structured and functions. I haven't yet independently discovered confirmation of this purported consensus, but beginning at 42:07, Dr. Hertog explicitly discusses a holographic conception explaining the universe and the perception of time within it, further adding that holography has been a dynamic focus of research and speculation in theoretical physics for some two decades now. Quite serendipitous to see and hear this right now!
Having read both of their books, and seen both of their RI lectures, I'd love to see Thomas Hertog and Laura Mersini-Houghton in the same room discussing their two theories of the origins of the universe(s) together. I find hers a bit more plausible, since Hertog's seems to me a bit too much like the anthropic principle, and it seems to rely on eliminating causality (at least causality with a chronological direction), but I would love to see them discuss/debate the issue together.
I love the concept of time and space being emergent from a one-dimensional dot existing at the Big Bang, and the idea that the universe looks "designed" the way evolved species look designed (through evolution), but I fail to grasp how this is putting humankind at the heart of cosmology. I also don't see why it should, as they say, the universe has no obligation towards us.
To your first statement , why do you think this is true ? It isn't , why do you think that it is .? Physically one dimensional physical object can never interact with the three dimensional object , with space . Either we will understand the Universe or we won't . We have have the obligation . Towards Ourselves .
Thanks for the wonderful fascinating lecture/video. I think of the possibility that actual design can be scattered throughout the Universe in a random way with various general or "local" order that also allows for anomalies, somewhat like each of us 8 billion humans: there's the basic order of the human body, and there are also anomalies, like being the tallest man or woman to live, etc.
The universe is fit for life only in very specific points where the conditions for life are present. We have a sample in our local system: a number of planets and only one (as far as we now) with those conditions. Watching the universe is like a cat watching its tail.
@@windowbreezes species like us are just conscious expressions of the universe. For all of the reasons we appreciate conscious understanding in our personal lives, the universe also appreciates that conscious understanding. It opens up entirely new dimensions of reality. The unconscious mind is forced to be a physicalist, but the conscious mind gets to be an idealist. Just as the cells in our body unify to make an organism with concrete goals and actions, we too play a similar role to the bigger picture of the universe.
I cant understand how we Can see it is for life… we do not see life anywhere but Earth .. if designed life would be everywhere... Lets say that one of the other "entities" of this universe thought like us - a red dwarf star - ohh but see the universe was designed for long lived red stars (which it actually could be because they are the most dominant). A good design is not one that is prone to failure it's one who is ensured to succeed. But great lecture even if it shows that scientist also struggle with dark reality of us just being what we are... a product of the universe not the goal of the universe...
There were provocative images and ideas in this lecture, but ultimately it did not flesh out those ideas, offer any testable predictions, or even offer any conjectural explanations. Does an observationally driven universe have more explanatory power than a single universe or a multiverse? What constitutes an observation?
I guess it was more about communication... Testable predictions won't be forgotten - we're in the thick of it by testing global temperature against predictions from some decades. Let's observe and write that new book...
I like the analogy with the tree, but their are many trees and there's also many galacty, so I agree many bangs all starting from the seed which is the blacksphere. Very good, now we're getting somewhere carry-on.
James web has put this entire lecture into question by observing light that is far beyond 13 billion years.. actually, whole galaxies that appear far beyond 14 billion light years away.. Modern science is in a crisis
Wonderful inspiring and uplifting lecture. The book is worth getting to give more details: I decided to listen to the audiobook over the last week or so which has been a brilliant experience. It comes with a PDF of the graphics so is ideal. Thanks for an excellent lecture and book.
Time is a concept of consciousness relative to existence by the perimeters of gravity which is an idea of ratio to a constant in life. Where the definition of 1 is defined.
NIce. Watching, deciding whether or not to submit my (2nd) paper on the same topic to the same journal. My paper explains this via the fractal. My first paper addressed quantum.
As a dabbler in philosophy and an appreciative spectator of the working of physicists, I have been amused often stumbling across a physicist depreciating philosophy wholesale as obsolete or irrelevant. I mean not calling out bad philosophy or proclaiming the limits of philosophy but dismissing the notion of philosophy. In reality, philosophizing is at least a minor portion of the process of doing physics. So that portion of the project may as well be done consciously and well. Your talk was refreshing in that I infer from the change in perspective a sort of detente that will serve physics investigation well.
There is no philosophy in physics. There is, however, some physics in philosophy... just not enough to make philosophers intelligent. You are a great example of that dynamic.
@@mrfranksan Propositional logic comes from observation of the behavior of classical objects, Frank. It's the most primitive piece of physics. ;-) Do I have a superior mind? Maybe, maybe not. What I do have is a superior ability to pay attention in school. ;-)
I wish someone would explain why we are so sure that the cosmic background radiation is the afterglow of the big bang event, it seems like there could be any number of explanations for such a background radiation... but it is always held up as a sort of proof of the big bang, but I can never find an actual explanation why that is?
Thomas does a great job of outlining the latest scientific perspectives and their genesis in this engaging talk.. In my humble opinion, one BIG question here is whether or not OUR Big Bang is just one in a potentially infinite series . Peace.
we do not differ from a desk, a chair, a plant, or a falling down glass. we just have been lying to ourselves for so long, the change is exciting but the road is destructive.
13:50 Almost all peoples have myths about the beginning of the universe, but the first scientist who spoke about the "creation of the world" (literally) is Alexander Friedmann, who, with his solution of Einstein's equations, gave a scientific explanation to this phenomenon. Moreover, without any astronomical observations, he was able in his article (1922) to theoretically estimate the age of the Universe: about 10 billion years. (!) Friedmann's student Gamov also calculated (1948) this value as 1-10K without astronomical data, that is, before the detection of the relic radiation. (!) P.S. Hawking, unlike his students, knew about Friedman's work, and as a sign of respect visited his grave when he was in St. Petersburg.
No idea if this in any way relates to your overall theory, re evolution of laws, but I've thought that maybe when that singular force/space fractured, possibly there are only certain combinations or relationships between the products of that fracturing- the forces, particles, dimensions, particles which are compatible with each other and if 'G' were a bit too high, either something else would shift, or the effect of the other constants etc. would force it to it's present value. Maybe things could have worked out differently, but always in a combination that resulted in a Universe, much like ours, with me in it.
Its interesting that ot was a priest who did the calculations that took the beginning of time back to the big bang. Its even more interesting that while mamy people have concerns about evolition particularly of humans they don't share the same concern about the even more profound implications of the big bang.
if we mixed with quantum physic past and futur are in entanglement if you change the futur you change the past and if you change the past you change the futur
This quantum beginning of theory of the universe is fascinating as may be in tandem with my theory of universe beginning somewhere like on earth's surface but via interaction with quanta from light oscillates back and forth between classical and quantum states in a relationship at infinitely fast equilibrium. What this means is that the universe could either start classical or quantum ; suggesting retrocausal relationship and even alignment with the Sir Penrose's cyclic universe and leaving some room for further thought to subsequently garner some kind of scientific unanimityt!
Bohr's view on cosmology creates a paradox in that things are not real until they are observed. The chicken an egg problem. Great talk, got me thinking.
Which he is wrong . Things were real before his existence , or any beingings existence . Observation of the Universe has no part in bringing the Universe into existence . The Universe was already there . It was never not . Space is infinite . There is no paradox . Chicken came before the egg . An egg can not create its self
I’ve often thought that thinking of time as the fourth dimension was out of order since without time movement is impossible and without the possibility of movement there is no reason to define space.
Energy propels movement, hence the possibility of dark energy. Time is a consequence of the dispersement of energy. If nothing moved, there'd be 0 energy and 0 time.
@My Homie, L.E. Munoz That's kind of a minimal response and not really relative to this exactly. Energy and physicality are different states altogether.
If we give up the assukmption life is common, and we are the first in our observable univere, are there more outside our obserable universe, what would be the odds. Currenly we only have a sample of one. But if there are more universes, what would be the chnage of life in them, and could we even know or communicate,as we can't even know anything outside our own observable universe?
Great lecture. One clarification. Einstein did not belive in gravitation waves. It was Prof. Trautman who proved gravitation waves from Eintsteins equasion. Generally Einstein was wrong not only about quantum phisics but also did not believe black wholes could exist
If our universe has been finely tuned like a Galapagos finch out of all the possibilities, I’m curious what factors have influenced it most. Gravity? Entropy? Energy? The general direction it’s headed might tell us what it’s accomplishing. Where it’s headed. We see things like the Fibonacci numbers over and over, but it’s not so much purposeful design as a natural pattern that rose to the top because it’s efficient for growth. So it doesn’t surprise me there’s lots of tidy math. Or maybe there is no direction, beyond everything that can happen has/will happen. Maybe defining everything that’s possible is necessary to jump to a higher dimension. Jump outside of the box of time. There, time travel and eternal existence outside of time would become possible. A quantum Wikipedia defining all of existence, that’s a stepping stone to something infinite, everlasting, and self-designing
As far as I understand the theory (having read Thomas Hertogs book) - it is supposed to be quantum observation that acts as the selector. So all histories of the universe happen at once, but when a quantum observation is made the space of possible pasts is pruned. The history that we live in today has therefore been selected for by quantum observation and it is laws and behaviours that produce the most observations that live on in the universe now. This is supposed to explain why the natural laws are specifically as they are and also our biophillic universe- there’s also a suggestion that it leads to conciousness or that conciousness is the ultimate wave function collapser (this seems like a bit too much to me but you be the judge reader)
We can't go back to the actual moment of singularity as all of our math breaks down into infinities, time comes to a complete stop and energy levels go to infinities as the singularity becomes infinitely small. We can work back to trillionths of a second after the event began, can see evidence of it in the CMB, and by using our known laws of physics, but it's impossible to predict that no laws of physics existed because you can only use the laws of physics themselves as a baseline. What you're really asking is if something existed before the big bang, ie the laws of physics themselves, like some sort of stage for the big bang to play out on. That's impossible to answer as space and time itself began at the moment of the big bang. You can't go back any further than the big bang singularity any more than you could go more north if you were stood on the north pole. North becomes meaningless when you are stood on it as it's relative direction goes to zero. North only emerges as a direction when you're stood somewhere else. Likewise the universe began at the moment of the singularity. The singularity is like the north poll at zero. There is no "before" for the laws of physics to come from, because that's where spacetime itself emerges. Our models show that physics can account for everything right after the moment of the big bang, before which all things go to infinities, like north goes to zero when you're stood on it.
Good lecture That the big bang event (and it's consequences) that we perceive, is the only one, is as improbable to me as myself being the universe's only sentient being. Everything I see, hear feel, taste and smell, just might be an elaborate illusion. But that is very improbable. That reality and existence is presently hard to understand, just means more work to be done.
Hi - super interesting point! I think that we can’t say anything about the probability- by definition we cannot know about anything outside our experience/universe so how could we calculate a probability? However you’re right to draw the parallel- I think it’s that they are equally pointless. There’s no point in living as if you are the only sentient being because it would make life meaningless and it doesn’t seem to really help. Similarly there’s no point to believing in the multiverse because it effectively shuts down further science we could do - it doesn’t add anything or help.
It is interesting that Thomas jumped- while talking about the evidence of the expansion of the universe- to 1965 the discovery of Microwave background radiation without saying a word about Hubble discovery in 1929!
The concept of the universe originating from a quantum fluctuation seems at odds with the observed low entropy state of the early universe. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy, or disorder, tends to increase over time in a closed system. This implies that the universe should have started in a high-entropy, highly disordered state if it emerged from a random, chaotic quantum fluctuation. However, the early universe was characterized by an extremely low entropy, indicating a highly ordered state. This contradiction suggests that the simplistic idea of a universe born from a quantum fluctuation does not align with the fundamental principles of thermodynamics and our current understanding of entropy in the context of cosmic evolution.🤔
The universe did emerge from a highly disordered state: the CMB is almost perfectly thermal, homogeneous and isotropic. The total amount of "physical information" in there is just about enough to calculate half a dozen parameters. I don't know why you think that a thermal background is "ordered". The current universe is highly ordered in vast sections that have very little matter and radiation and very small domains that have a lot. What does "the ordering" is gravity in conjunction with the expansion, i.e. the creation of ever more spacetime. At the end the universe does not behave like a closed system. That's just a misunderstanding of the term "closed system".
It’s not hard to believe that our observable universe is the product of the formation of a black hole. It seems like the most logical explanation and I feel it best explains the infinite nature of the multiverse. Black hole = universe = more black holes = more universes.
Indeed , time is not a true dimension , as is breadth , depth and length and space . All are not effected by time . But they all effect time . Without breadth , depth and length and space and physical objects three dimensionally , time would not exist .
I think time can evolve different "phases". That is, outside of a universe the temporal state is different from the temporal state inside of a universe and yet also causally dependent on the greater external frame universes are generically embedded in....
One would like to think that Royal Institution has pockets deep enough to treat its lecturers and online viewers with respect and not disrupt the lectures with ads
Just base on very logic of physics, the expansion should have a balance stage where all the conditions will be balance. Or settle into a stable bond of existence.
Upon what can we agree that time is ? Movement , measured . Any objection ? Can time , in and of its self , change the movement of a physical thing ? NO .
No one knows how or even if consciousness evolved. It may be that reason the observer affects quantum physics experiments is consciousness is the background of the universe.
im sure hertog is an amazing physicist and im sure a million times more intelligent than i, however i believe he is mistaken about his beliefs on Anaximander being the first philosopher to try to describe the laws of nature, as someone who has spent a great deal of time studying the Milesian school, I would have to say it goes back to his teacher Thales. Anaximander's philosophy is LITERALLY a direct response to Thales. Thales is the first philosopher at least that I'm aware of that tried to establish first principles and describe the way the universe worked through natural means. Perhaps someone is more well read that I am and can explain why I am wrong in my thinking
So according to Leimatre's notes, the Universe was only 4 billion years old in 1936? Edwin Hubble discovered cosmological redshift in 1929. So that was the rough age calculated from that! Impressive. So Tomas Hertog worked with Stephen Hawking on what was then called the no boundary proposal?
I'm really surprised this video hasn't earned a spot on @TheRoyalInstitution page. On the Origin of Time is a paradigm-shattering book, or should I say a symmetry-breaking book, maybe just the next big happy accident that changes everything.
Origin of time ; time zones . The origin of time is movement , duration , measured . Duration would continue anyway , happen anyway , measured or not . Truism .
To answer professor hawking; I believe the answer, would have been the reason the universe looks as if they were intelligently designed, is due to the fact that the Higgs is not nessicarly fundamental. If the higgs is not fundamental, then the previous “aeons”, maybe not have the same physics, it would look more uniform potentially, until the universe in Which the Higgs finally created a sort of chirality by causing complex structure to form. The complex structures would radiate outward in three dimensions generating “time” but due to the complex structures, it’s chiral.
I find nothing about the Universe that leads me to think the Universe is intelligently designed .
3 หลายเดือนก่อน
This theory sounds very interesting, but it stays very much on a surface level. Does anyone here own the book and can tell me in how much detail it goes? Is it worth buying?
I’ve just read the book. A very clear account of the history and philosophy of fundamental physics and cosmology . Well worth buying. Three cheers for Lemaître, the Jesuit priest whose ‘hesitating’ universe model exactly matches the current understanding and who foresaw that Quantum Mechanics had to be incorporated into Cosmology to account for the very early universe.
3 หลายเดือนก่อน
@@liam137153 So it does not explain the model of the "time North pole" in detail? What a shame. Thanks for the reply!
It is interesting that he said that, as we head back towards the Big Bang, time becomes imaginary, or time turns into space. Perhaps that is the true meaning of "eternity"? And perhaps, that is where, as Stephen Hawking himself said, "we would know the mind of God" (who is, of course, outside of time).
Do colliding gravitational waves interfere like regular waves? I could see how it could be both ways...waves cross and momentarily compliment or interfere with each other. But in this case, it's not waves in the medium.... It is the medium in three dimensions and there is no surface. How do you model that? Like pressure waves deep under water?
@@schmetterling4477 I don't have a problem modeling anything that you can record the data on. My question was more on how can you collect the data. For example, underwater tsunamis are recorded at the surface of the ocean. Not in the medium but outside of the medium. Gravity waves are in the medium we are in the gravity waves, we are not riding on them.
@@josephshawa Gravitational waves are modifying the distances between objects. Space seems to compress and expand. LIGO uses a large laser interferometer to measure the change in the length of two interferometer arms that are perpendicular to each other. After general relativity was discovered theoretical physicists were discussing for decades if the effects of general relativity would cancel each other out, so that these waves would be unobservable. Those who said that such cancellation would not happen were correct and these waves are observable, even though it takes quite an experimental effort to do so.
Time itself cannot have a beginning because a beginning is something that happens in time, time is not something that happens in a beginning. If you begin your day at 5 am with being awakened by the sound of an alarm clock, the beginning of your day happens in a time between 4:59 am and 5:01 am, 5:00 am does not happen simply because you wake-up and begin your day. If you forget to set your alarm and continue to sleep, 5 am will still happen. When the explanations of physical science defy common-sense, then it is these explanations that must be judged as absurd, no less than one would judge by common-sense the absurdity of some ancient myth !
15:00 This middle curve which supposedly represents our universe reminds me of the penguins who separate from their family and walk toward the mountains, i.e. certain death, in the Werner Herzog doc Encounters At The End Of The World
Should one wish to believe in the many world interpretation, be assured that many of those individual universes will become self aware, as we are just beginning to do.
accretion for planets and for amino acids stewed in the seas... time delineations, if you know how it manifests then youll know the approx. time delineations... but how may i ask did the earth get so wet with H2O? it couldnt be when the earth began some 4 bill ago, it must have been paspermia?
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Need more Thomas? Watch the Q&A here: th-cam.com/video/dGIw2Dup3sg/w-d-xo.html
Also - we want to hear from you! What lectures and topics do you want to watch on our channel? Let us know in the comments ⬇:
I want to see more on the chemistry of relatively unknown elements.
Also, some topics on material science.
@@kennethemmanuel3065, If you wish to study real science, then read this: verifying the origin of everything. It is outstanding.
Need DETAILED TIMESTAMPS... AN HOUR x MANY is A LOT!!!!
I mean for now it all really looks like an absolute waste. Won't watch.
Quoting Richard Wagner and Darwin. Jesus... Such a megalow level
I like this fellow Thomas. An intelligent humble human explaining a difficult obscure subject.
Thank you Tomas.
This lecture was absolutely brilliant. I was amazed how Dr. Hertog weaved together the work he did with Stephen Hawking across cosmology, quantum mechanics, Darwin, Newton and Hannah Arendt. Sheer genius.
Yes, exactly. Excellent lecture.
A REAL sciencetist does not close his mind to new ideas or theoris, he surches for the truth no matter what.
The spookiness of entangled photons, JWST observing massive galaxies where they don't belong, holographic properties; the universe is a strange, mind-bending spacetime. Great lecture!
Brilliant lecture. A new perspective for me, but one I look forward to testing and see being tested in future decades. Bravo.
Thank you, Dr. Hertog, for all of your contributions to the advancement of science
Great lecture. Thank you Ri for posting these- lifesavers for inquiring minds! Gratitude
👍
1. Time began with the first clock. What you are really concerned with is CHANGE, which does not need time units (or space units).
2. Incidentally, what this also means is that if you want to revisit the past, you need to go back in change, the physical property, and not time, the measuring system (just run your clock backwards for that). The Grandfather Paradox should have been a red flag that you were not thinking about time correctly in the first place.
3. This also holds true with the paradox 'something from nothing' (how the universe began). The paradox indicates that we are not thinking correctly about 'something' and 'nothing' yet.
I dont know if you will actually read this(I hope so), but I am amazed by your work with Stephen Hawkins and I am really trying as a layperson to grasp the essence of your top-down view of the universe, but more importantly, the evolutionary aspect you apply to it. Evolutionary pressures are incredibly powerful and I totally get how they might work, but from a cosmological viewpoint where are the eternal environmental pressures that create your evolving universe? You mention symmetry breaking which as far as I am aware is a completely defined process underpinned by the need for random mutations to introduce the selective element. Where does that come from in cosmology? When symmetry breaks why does this read to selective variation and ultimately what placed the proto-universe in such a high state of order that such breaking of symmetry could lead to so much complexity. When water freezes complexity diminishes, when it melts complexity increases but there is nothing to constrain that complexity (well I guess a cold surface will cause it to form a liquid which is somewhat more constrained and less random than a gas!) Sorry I am rambling, I would love to have some clarity though.
The Universe is not evolving , we are . Humans are Evolving . For the better I hope .
Nice to SEE him give a lecture! Just today, I listened to a podcast interview with him on "France Culture"!
Thank you so much for your book, it's one of the best I've ever read. I'm just a fan of astronomy (it is not my profession), but I love it and I'm always looking forward to learn more. Your book taught me so much, from the beginning of astronomy to some of the most contemporary ideas. I feel so excited and motivated to continue learning more! and, of course, I eagerly wait for your next book!
A friend of mine just days ago informed me that the new consensus among theoretical physicists is that the universe conforms to holographic principles, that a holographic model best explains the evidence we have from quantum mechanics of how fundamental reality is structured and functions. I haven't yet independently discovered confirmation of this purported consensus, but beginning at 42:07, Dr. Hertog explicitly discusses a holographic conception explaining the universe and the perception of time within it, further adding that holography has been a dynamic focus of research and speculation in theoretical physics for some two decades now. Quite serendipitous to see and hear this right now!
I had the pleasure of attending a live lecture of Thomas Hertog. Very interesting, just like this talk.
Having read both of their books, and seen both of their RI lectures, I'd love to see Thomas Hertog and Laura Mersini-Houghton in the same room discussing their two theories of the origins of the universe(s) together. I find hers a bit more plausible, since Hertog's seems to me a bit too much like the anthropic principle, and it seems to rely on eliminating causality (at least causality with a chronological direction), but I would love to see them discuss/debate the issue together.
I love the concept of time and space being emergent from a one-dimensional dot existing at the Big Bang, and the idea that the universe looks "designed" the way evolved species look designed (through evolution), but I fail to grasp how this is putting humankind at the heart of cosmology. I also don't see why it should, as they say, the universe has no obligation towards us.
To your first statement , why do you think this is true ? It isn't , why do you think that it is .? Physically one dimensional physical object can never interact with the three dimensional object , with space .
Either we will understand the Universe or we won't .
We have have the obligation . Towards Ourselves .
I word it a little differently (since I am not a cosmologist): God doesn't know who you are, nor should s/he.
Thanks for the wonderful fascinating lecture/video. I think of the possibility that actual design can be scattered throughout the Universe in a random way with various general or "local" order that also allows for anomalies, somewhat like each of us 8 billion humans: there's the basic order of the human body, and there are also anomalies, like being the tallest man or woman to live, etc.
Definitely was designed. Had to be. It is necessary.
@@davehomme4628
The universe is fit for life only in very specific points where the conditions for life are present. We have a sample in our local system: a number of planets and only one (as far as we now) with those conditions.
Watching the universe is like a cat watching its tail.
This is an exceptionally good lecture. It touches on the most important thing about science: how do we know what we know?
@@windowbreezes
Created?
@@windowbreezes species like us are just conscious expressions of the universe. For all of the reasons we appreciate conscious understanding in our personal lives, the universe also appreciates that conscious understanding. It opens up entirely new dimensions of reality. The unconscious mind is forced to be a physicalist, but the conscious mind gets to be an idealist. Just as the cells in our body unify to make an organism with concrete goals and actions, we too play a similar role to the bigger picture of the universe.
That's more an epistemological question.
@@windowbreezes I think you're looking for biology, mate. Try Robert Sapolsky's classes at Stanford here on youtube. Pretty mind blowing as well!
@@liamcarter7597
HUMANITIES existence will always matter . To us .
Dr. Hertog, this was thought provoking and informative. Thank you very much.
Thank you for providing us with plenty to think about an ponder on. The royal institute are a beauty
Light is the Constance that bridge logic and emotion together in the concept of life, living, being to communicate in consciousness to share.
I cant understand how we Can see it is for life… we do not see life anywhere but Earth .. if designed life would be everywhere...
Lets say that one of the other "entities" of this universe thought like us - a red dwarf star - ohh but see the universe was designed for long lived red stars (which it actually could be because they are the most dominant).
A good design is not one that is prone to failure it's one who is ensured to succeed.
But great lecture even if it shows that scientist also struggle with dark reality of us just being what we are... a product of the universe not the goal of the universe...
There were provocative images and ideas in this lecture, but ultimately it did not flesh out those ideas, offer any testable predictions, or even offer any conjectural explanations. Does an observationally driven universe have more explanatory power than a single universe or a multiverse? What constitutes an observation?
I guess it was more about communication... Testable predictions won't be forgotten - we're in the thick of it by testing global temperature against predictions from some decades. Let's observe and write that new book...
I like the analogy with the tree, but their are many trees and there's also many galacty, so I agree many bangs all starting from the seed which is the blacksphere. Very good, now we're getting somewhere carry-on.
James web has put this entire lecture into question by observing light that is far beyond 13 billion years.. actually, whole galaxies that appear far beyond 14 billion light years away..
Modern science is in a crisis
@@unusualkmc What about the problem Hubble constant , is there really a crisis on tht front ,may I ask ? ✌️🏼
Wonderful inspiring and uplifting lecture. The book is worth getting to give more details: I decided to listen to the audiobook over the last week or so which has been a brilliant experience. It comes with a PDF of the graphics so is ideal. Thanks for an excellent lecture and book.
Time is a concept of consciousness relative to existence by the perimeters of gravity which is an idea of ratio to a constant in life. Where the definition of 1 is defined.
NIce. Watching, deciding whether or not to submit my (2nd) paper on the same topic to the same journal. My paper explains this via the fractal. My first paper addressed quantum.
Yeah, which journal?
How about an intro to the arguments presented in your paper..?
Why, of course you should.
@@fractalnomics Excellent, thank you.
Fractal and Quantum . Quantum creates the Fractal .
As a dabbler in philosophy and an appreciative spectator of the working of physicists, I have been amused often stumbling across a physicist depreciating philosophy wholesale as obsolete or irrelevant. I mean not calling out bad philosophy or proclaiming the limits of philosophy but dismissing the notion of philosophy. In reality, philosophizing is at least a minor portion of the process of doing physics. So that portion of the project may as well be done consciously and well.
Your talk was refreshing in that I infer from the change in perspective a sort of detente that will serve physics investigation well.
There is no philosophy in physics. There is, however, some physics in philosophy... just not enough to make philosophers intelligent. You are a great example of that dynamic.
@@schmetterling4477 The scientific method was forged in philosophy, my friend. Early naturalists called themselves philosophers.
@@mrfranksan Why are you telling me that you don't know where propositional logic comes from, Frank? Are you that desperate to appear uneducated? ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Wow. So tell me. Where does propositional logic come from? I infer you must have a superior source to mine of your knowledge.
@@mrfranksan Propositional logic comes from observation of the behavior of classical objects, Frank. It's the most primitive piece of physics. ;-)
Do I have a superior mind? Maybe, maybe not. What I do have is a superior ability to pay attention in school. ;-)
I wish someone would explain why we are so sure that the cosmic background radiation is the afterglow of the big bang event, it seems like there could be any number of explanations for such a background radiation... but it is always held up as a sort of proof of the big bang, but I can never find an actual explanation why that is?
What other explanations?😊
@@RJay121
Plasma Universe and Electric Universe .
Thomas does a great job of outlining the latest scientific perspectives and their genesis in this engaging talk.. In my humble opinion, one BIG question here is whether or not OUR Big Bang is just one in a potentially infinite series . Peace.
lol infinite series is a nonsensical notion
@@crtpo1809
The Cosmic Web .
The Cosmic Web .
@@philharmer198 The Avengers.
@@crtpo1809 Why?
10 youtube ads allowed in a 52 mins talk, really? necessary? the origin of time is wasted by those ads ….
Auto-generated subs are horrible. You'd think RI, with its history and reputation for science communication would spring for a transcriptionist.
we do not differ from a desk, a chair, a plant, or a falling down glass. we just have been lying to ourselves for so long, the change is exciting but the road is destructive.
13:50 Almost all peoples have myths about the beginning of the universe, but the first scientist who spoke about the "creation of the world" (literally) is Alexander Friedmann, who, with his solution of Einstein's equations, gave a scientific explanation to this phenomenon. Moreover, without any astronomical observations, he was able in his article (1922) to theoretically estimate the age of the Universe: about 10 billion years. (!)
Friedmann's student Gamov also calculated (1948) this value as 1-10K without astronomical data, that is, before the detection of the relic radiation. (!)
P.S. Hawking, unlike his students, knew about Friedman's work, and as a sign of respect visited his grave when he was in St. Petersburg.
No idea if this in any way relates to your overall theory, re evolution of laws, but I've thought that maybe when that singular force/space fractured, possibly there are only certain combinations or relationships between the products of that fracturing- the forces, particles, dimensions, particles which are compatible with each other and if 'G' were a bit too high, either something else would shift, or the effect of the other constants etc. would force it to it's present value. Maybe things could have worked out differently, but always in a combination that resulted in a Universe, much like ours, with me in it.
If quantum theory directs that observation effects outcomes, what was 'observing' before life?
when do we get to the headline topic? I get the the tree rings. I was looking more for a non casual explanation.
If I knew Stephen Hawking, I would always name drop him as my protege. It would be fun
Its interesting that ot was a priest who did the calculations that took the beginning of time back to the big bang. Its even more interesting that while mamy people have concerns about evolition particularly of humans they don't share the same concern about the even more profound implications of the big bang.
if we mixed with quantum physic past and futur are in entanglement if you change the futur you change the past and if you change the past you change the futur
This quantum beginning of theory of the universe is fascinating as may be in tandem with my theory of universe beginning somewhere like on earth's surface but via interaction with quanta from light oscillates back and forth between classical and quantum states in a relationship at infinitely fast equilibrium. What this means is that the universe could either start classical or quantum ; suggesting retrocausal relationship and even alignment with the Sir Penrose's cyclic universe and leaving some room for further thought to subsequently garner some kind of scientific unanimityt!
Bohr's view on cosmology creates a paradox in that things are not real until they are observed. The chicken an egg problem. Great talk, got me thinking.
Which he is wrong . Things were real before his existence , or any beingings existence . Observation of the Universe has no part in bringing the Universe into existence . The Universe was already there . It was never not . Space is infinite .
There is no paradox .
Chicken came before the egg . An egg can not create its self
@@philharmer198 and who created the chicken?
@@unusualkmc
Evolution .
14:00 It is the very first time someone reference the very first time.
I’ve often thought that thinking of time as the fourth dimension was out of order since without time movement is impossible and without the possibility of movement there is no reason to define space.
Complete unmoving would be undetectable and indistinguishable from non existence.
Energy propels movement, hence the possibility of dark energy. Time is a consequence of the dispersement of energy.
If nothing moved, there'd be 0 energy and 0 time.
That's why it's considered space-time. They are not separate
@My Homie, L.E. Munoz That's kind of a minimal response and not really relative to this exactly. Energy and physicality are different states altogether.
But if there were a fourth physical dimension, let’s call it ‘u’, would you need time to have movement in that (as seen from our xyz universe)?
The surprising uprase of Hanna Arendt at the end of the lecture obeys to a condition imposed by the organizers. This is how science works.
Thank you for posting, dont forget Thales of Miletus as well. Find the Joy of the day, and make that Eternal.
If we give up the assukmption life is common, and we are the first in our observable univere, are there more outside our obserable universe, what would be the odds. Currenly we only have a sample of one. But if there are more universes, what would be the chnage of life in them, and could we even know or communicate,as we can't even know anything outside our own observable universe?
Great lecture. One clarification. Einstein did not belive in gravitation waves. It was Prof. Trautman who proved gravitation waves from Eintsteins equasion. Generally Einstein was wrong not only about quantum phisics but also did not believe black wholes could exist
If our universe has been finely tuned like a Galapagos finch out of all the possibilities, I’m curious what factors have influenced it most. Gravity? Entropy? Energy? The general direction it’s headed might tell us what it’s accomplishing. Where it’s headed. We see things like the Fibonacci numbers over and over, but it’s not so much purposeful design as a natural pattern that rose to the top because it’s efficient for growth. So it doesn’t surprise me there’s lots of tidy math. Or maybe there is no direction, beyond everything that can happen has/will happen. Maybe defining everything that’s possible is necessary to jump to a higher dimension. Jump outside of the box of time. There, time travel and eternal existence outside of time would become possible. A quantum Wikipedia defining all of existence, that’s a stepping stone to something infinite, everlasting, and self-designing
As far as I understand the theory (having read Thomas Hertogs book) - it is supposed to be quantum observation that acts as the selector. So all histories of the universe happen at once, but when a quantum observation is made the space of possible pasts is pruned. The history that we live in today has therefore been selected for by quantum observation and it is laws and behaviours that produce the most observations that live on in the universe now.
This is supposed to explain why the natural laws are specifically as they are and also our biophillic universe- there’s also a suggestion that it leads to conciousness or that conciousness is the ultimate wave function collapser (this seems like a bit too much to me but you be the judge reader)
Did the laws of physics exist at the moment of the Big Bang, are they emergent, did they pre-exist?
We can't go back to the actual moment of singularity as all of our math breaks down into infinities, time comes to a complete stop and energy levels go to infinities as the singularity becomes infinitely small. We can work back to trillionths of a second after the event began, can see evidence of it in the CMB, and by using our known laws of physics, but it's impossible to predict that no laws of physics existed because you can only use the laws of physics themselves as a baseline.
What you're really asking is if something existed before the big bang, ie the laws of physics themselves, like some sort of stage for the big bang to play out on. That's impossible to answer as space and time itself began at the moment of the big bang.
You can't go back any further than the big bang singularity any more than you could go more north if you were stood on the north pole. North becomes meaningless when you are stood on it as it's relative direction goes to zero. North only emerges as a direction when you're stood somewhere else. Likewise the universe began at the moment of the singularity. The singularity is like the north poll at zero. There is no "before" for the laws of physics to come from, because that's where spacetime itself emerges. Our models show that physics can account for everything right after the moment of the big bang, before which all things go to infinities, like north goes to zero when you're stood on it.
No, they did not pre-exist. Without nuclei no nuclear force can act, without light no speed of it can be defined.
@@NeonVisual Thank you
Good lecture
That the big bang event (and it's consequences) that we perceive, is the only one, is as improbable to me as myself being the universe's only sentient being.
Everything I see, hear feel, taste and smell, just might be an elaborate illusion. But that is very improbable. That reality and existence is presently hard to understand, just means more work to be done.
Hi - super interesting point!
I think that we can’t say anything about the probability- by definition we cannot know about anything outside our experience/universe so how could we calculate a probability?
However you’re right to draw the parallel- I think it’s that they are equally pointless. There’s no point in living as if you are the only sentient being because it would make life meaningless and it doesn’t seem to really help. Similarly there’s no point to believing in the multiverse because it effectively shuts down further science we could do - it doesn’t add anything or help.
Awesome one, thanks 🌾🌠
It is interesting that Thomas jumped- while talking about the evidence of the expansion of the universe- to 1965 the discovery of Microwave background radiation without saying a word about Hubble discovery in 1929!
We imagine a view from outside the universe but we feel what it is to be inside it. Which is more true?
The concept of the universe originating from a quantum fluctuation seems at odds with the observed low entropy state of the early universe. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy, or disorder, tends to increase over time in a closed system. This implies that the universe should have started in a high-entropy, highly disordered state if it emerged from a random, chaotic quantum fluctuation. However, the early universe was characterized by an extremely low entropy, indicating a highly ordered state. This contradiction suggests that the simplistic idea of a universe born from a quantum fluctuation does not align with the fundamental principles of thermodynamics and our current understanding of entropy in the context of cosmic evolution.🤔
The universe did emerge from a highly disordered state: the CMB is almost perfectly thermal, homogeneous and isotropic. The total amount of "physical information" in there is just about enough to calculate half a dozen parameters. I don't know why you think that a thermal background is "ordered". The current universe is highly ordered in vast sections that have very little matter and radiation and very small domains that have a lot. What does "the ordering" is gravity in conjunction with the expansion, i.e. the creation of ever more spacetime. At the end the universe does not behave like a closed system. That's just a misunderstanding of the term "closed system".
It’s not hard to believe that our observable universe is the product of the formation of a black hole. It seems like the most logical explanation and I feel it best explains the infinite nature of the multiverse. Black hole = universe = more black holes = more universes.
But the black holes we can see in the Universe have finite mass & hawking radiation means they evaporate over time.
This guy is brilliant. Thank you for coming out. 😂😂
Really great to see a full house!
Albert Einstein made contributions to physics. His brother Frank made well he made a monster.
Space is not about design . Space is about , Room . Three dimensionally . With space .
Time is a lable measurement. Not an existing thing.
Indeed , time is not a true dimension , as is breadth , depth and length and space . All are not effected by time . But they all effect time . Without breadth , depth and length and space and physical objects three dimensionally , time would not exist .
Bloody excellent. ❤❤
I think time can evolve different "phases". That is, outside of a universe the temporal state is different from the temporal state inside of a universe and yet also causally dependent on the greater external frame universes are generically embedded in....
One would like to think that Royal Institution has pockets deep enough to treat its lecturers and online viewers with respect and not disrupt the lectures with ads
And they do, but TH-cam does not. TH-cam wants to harass you with commercials to buy a subscription.
Just base on very logic of physics, the expansion should have a balance stage where all the conditions will be balance. Or settle into a stable bond of existence.
Good audio team 👍
Until 45:00 ish w distracting background music on max
Upon what can we agree that time is ? Movement , measured . Any objection ? Can time , in and of its self , change the movement of a physical thing ? NO .
What's doing the 'observing' in the earliest stages?
No one knows how or even if consciousness evolved. It may be that reason the observer affects quantum physics experiments is consciousness is the background of the universe.
im sure hertog is an amazing physicist and im sure a million times more intelligent than i, however i believe he is mistaken about his beliefs on Anaximander being the first philosopher to try to describe the laws of nature, as someone who has spent a great deal of time studying the Milesian school, I would have to say it goes back to his teacher Thales. Anaximander's philosophy is LITERALLY a direct response to Thales. Thales is the first philosopher at least that I'm aware of that tried to establish first principles and describe the way the universe worked through natural means. Perhaps someone is more well read that I am and can explain why I am wrong in my thinking
So according to Leimatre's notes, the Universe was only 4 billion years old in 1936? Edwin Hubble discovered cosmological redshift in 1929. So that was the rough age calculated from that! Impressive. So Tomas Hertog worked with Stephen Hawking on what was then called the no boundary proposal?
I'm really surprised this video hasn't earned a spot on @TheRoyalInstitution page. On the Origin of Time is a paradigm-shattering book, or should I say a symmetry-breaking book, maybe just the next big happy accident that changes everything.
Origin of time ; time zones . The origin of time is movement , duration , measured . Duration would continue anyway , happen anyway , measured or not . Truism .
To answer professor hawking; I believe the answer, would have been the reason the universe looks as if they were intelligently designed, is due to the fact that the Higgs is not nessicarly fundamental. If the higgs is not fundamental, then the previous “aeons”, maybe not have the same physics, it would look more uniform potentially, until the universe in Which the Higgs finally created a sort of chirality by causing complex structure to form. The complex structures would radiate outward in three dimensions generating “time” but due to the complex structures, it’s chiral.
Explain Space . Space is about room .
I find nothing about the Universe that leads me to think the Universe is intelligently designed .
This theory sounds very interesting, but it stays very much on a surface level. Does anyone here own the book and can tell me in how much detail it goes? Is it worth buying?
I’ve just read the book. A very clear account of the history and philosophy of fundamental physics and cosmology . Well worth buying. Three cheers for Lemaître, the Jesuit priest whose ‘hesitating’ universe model exactly matches the current understanding and who foresaw that Quantum Mechanics had to be incorporated into Cosmology to account for the very early universe.
@@liam137153 So it does not explain the model of the "time North pole" in detail? What a shame. Thanks for the reply!
The no boundary proposal is carefully discussed.
I hope TH-cam still exists in 2095, and if it does, I hope I can read this message.
April 25th, 2023
Love to watch lectures on time pls pulish/invite carlo rovelli in this regard also
We've got a lecture from Carlo right here: th-cam.com/video/-6rWqJhDv7M/w-d-xo.html but of course we'd love to have him back to speak again!
It is interesting that he said that, as we head back towards the Big Bang, time becomes imaginary, or time turns into space. Perhaps that is the true meaning of "eternity"? And perhaps, that is where, as Stephen Hawking himself said, "we would know the mind of God" (who is, of course, outside of time).
lol
Is the mind of god for us or against us ? Humans .
@@philharmer198 "What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Romans 8:31)
@@gary.h.turner our selves . And god . What god holds our existence above themselves ?
Good one! Stop fawning over Hawking, Einstein, et al.
Origin of time , measured movement of things . Not the cause of the movements of physical things . If you think otherwise let me know .
Do colliding gravitational waves interfere like regular waves? I could see how it could be both ways...waves cross and momentarily compliment or interfere with each other. But in this case, it's not waves in the medium.... It is the medium in three dimensions and there is no surface. How do you model that? Like pressure waves deep under water?
We model that with calculus. You had it in high school, remember? :-)
@@schmetterling4477 I don't have a problem modeling anything that you can record the data on. My question was more on how can you collect the data. For example, underwater tsunamis are recorded at the surface of the ocean. Not in the medium but outside of the medium. Gravity waves are in the medium we are in the gravity waves, we are not riding on them.
@@josephshawa Gravitational waves are modifying the distances between objects. Space seems to compress and expand. LIGO uses a large laser interferometer to measure the change in the length of two interferometer arms that are perpendicular to each other. After general relativity was discovered theoretical physicists were discussing for decades if the effects of general relativity would cancel each other out, so that these waves would be unobservable. Those who said that such cancellation would not happen were correct and these waves are observable, even though it takes quite an experimental effort to do so.
Time itself cannot have a beginning because a beginning is something that happens in time, time is not something that happens in a beginning. If you begin your day at 5 am with being awakened by the sound of an alarm clock, the beginning of your day happens in a time between 4:59 am and 5:01 am, 5:00 am does not happen simply because you wake-up and begin your day. If you forget to set your alarm and continue to sleep, 5 am will still happen. When the explanations of physical science defy common-sense, then it is these explanations that must be judged as absurd, no less than one would judge by common-sense the absurdity of some ancient myth !
15:00 This middle curve which supposedly represents our universe reminds me of the penguins who separate from their family and walk toward the mountains, i.e. certain death, in the Werner Herzog doc Encounters At The End Of The World
Great talk. Fun to listen to.
textbook performance Michael
If Toto Wolff became a scientist rather than an F1 Team Principal :D
Good job. This matched exactly as my mind.
He just like me Fr
Exceptional and excellent
Entanglement suggest that everything @ this moment is connected to the Infiniton (Big Bang) ?
Multi-verses includes our Universe + Anti-verse as a set of infinite probables?
Sending EM pulse to the point of Creation is so mind boggling throwed off..., but doable.
Should one wish to believe in the many world interpretation, be assured that many of those individual universes will become self aware, as we are just beginning to do.
Why would one wish to believe in nonsense? :-)
@@schmetterling4477 Religions had a pretty good run.
Anyone know what that violin piece is from that little audio enhanced section at the end?
Is it entropy a measurement of how big is the universe?
accretion for planets and for amino acids stewed in the seas...
time delineations, if you know how it manifests then youll know the approx. time delineations... but how may i ask did the earth get so wet with H2O? it couldnt be when the earth began some 4 bill ago, it must have been paspermia?
1:18 - I refuse to believe Stephen Hawking would put that nonsensical comma in the second sentence.
Beginning as a concept though just doesn't work. In formal reasoning I mean. How do you reconcile this?
Tom riddles diary was one of the 10 or 11 evilest rings in the world. What a fascinating analogy.
Where is the link to the recently discovered film... thanks
I really enjoyed that. Thankyou so much for sharing 😊.
Cool