Paul Steinhardt - How Did Our Universe Begin?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 окт 2022
- Beginnings are momentous, the beginning of the universe especially so. How did the beginning of our universe happen? Cosmic inflation is the theory that an exponential expansion within the first tiny fraction of a second generated everything that we see, all the vast galaxies, stars and planets. What’s the evidence? What’s the meaning?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on the beginning of the universe: bit.ly/3Ft0b2f
Paul J. Steinhardt is the Albert Einstein Professor of Science at Princeton University and Director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University, where he is also on the faculty of both the Department of Physics and the Department of Astrophysical Sciences.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
These are my favorite videos on this channel. Anything that deals with WHY.... I can watch all day.
the Jews were created simultaneously with the big bang
This not really a "why", this is more a "how".
@@shenanigans3710 if you learn how....you'll eventually figure out why. If you ask why enough times you eventually end up deep in theoretical physics.
But I get what you're saying.
amazing conversation.
When I studied Stephen Hawking's theory, that the universe in one form or another always existed, and then studied that there were those back in history such as Plato and Aristotle that believed the same, at the age of 70, that was the end of my religious indoctrination. It all made sense, that if the universe always existed, there could not have been a creator, and it also made sense that suffering of all forms of life, was and is, natural.
I'm 83 now, and feel whole just as I am, and I realize that if I try to treat others with as much kindness as each situation in which I find myself allows, I will always feel better about myself. It's as simple as that.
“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” Stephen Hawking
Know that you are loved, fellow Earthling
@@Peace-Weaver shutup and stop spamming everyones comments Enough!
Wonderful! Makes a lot sense with what data we are given at this point in time.
I like listening to these theories and I'm not saying someone shouldn't be exploring them, but I can't help but think of Buddha's parable of the arrow. A man is hit with a poison arrow but refuses to receive treatment until his questions about the arrow and its origins are answered, and then he dies.
there is always someone else who can investigate about the arrow's origins.
The universe never began. It was always here.
i like this theory more that the one in this video :)
What's the annoying noise in the background? Why is the resolution of the video so low? Why does the camera keep moving around? Why are we here? What's it all about? Questions, questions.
Oh wow. This makes me recall a PBS Nova with Brian Greene and he explains membranes bouncing off each other but this here is a much better explanation and done so with mo graphics. 👏🏼 👏🏼
Human brains have a tendency to see things having beginnings and ends whereas this cyclic universe makes more sense, in that there is no beginning and the universe has always been here and will be here forever.
You're right as we're corporeal beings always ask questions begins with 'why, how, when, what..
When we have no answer we have to believe it has no beginning.
Theoretical physics and philosophy are merging again. "How did we come about?" is just as profound a question today as it was 500 years ago. I think this problem can be phrased as "What is infinity and how can we imagine something beyond infinity?". If we assume a creator, the same problem arise again "What's the creator?". It makes your head hurt.
Mind-blowing!
With great love and extra care
While interesting, it still doesn't address the questions "What was the beginning" other than - there is no beginning, the universe is infinite in time (in both directions).
If the universe is also infinite in spatial directions and always existed then the ultimate question is "Why? And could it have had different properties?"
Time Loop Geometry ruclips.net/video/jXJc5xDciXc/видео.html
Fantastic… I love it… The First time I heard this idea was on “Through The Wormhole,” with Morgan Freeman… The next day I had the artist on my wing, I was a Juvenile Justice Youth Counselor in my previous life, draw out what now I know to be “Wolfram Combinators,” but then, I just gave them a sketch and said manifest it and they did… A giant Universe painted on the community foyer wall, hahaha- they said we could paint our wing walls so we went all in, I bet management was like, sh@t, didn’t think of that, hahaha…. Then I had my guys paint 3D skyscrapers on my office wall… Now then- this “Membrane/Membranes” sound like Entanglement’s to me even when separated… The Gap between the Branes could be a “Well” that Collapses like a “51.84 Degree Slant on a Pyramid… This would Create a Concaveness that would meet that gap definition, even inside itself, but I have 100% Confirmed this Concept using my Vedic Digital Root Compressed Vortex Based Math… I have created 3D Pyramids on a flat substrate that literally falls in on itself while it is pushing (Tension/Pressure) whic when I do my numbers, Magic Appears… Literally! “5184-4815= 369
My Theory is 100% Confirmed With 100% Perfection…
Now, I am going to learn computer programming and electrical engineering, since I have discovered “PERFECTION” using my Imagination… I have discovered “The 369 Phi-Pi “432 Hz” Hydromagnetic-Sonoluminescent Atomic Universe built via Implosion Vortex Wave Dynamics, Compression and Radiation, from Pyramids popping into existence as 369 Electric Vortex Circuits, “Mobius Circuit”… This explanation makes the “Branes” that our brains perceive, well at least mine does due to “ZERO VORTEX WELLS”…
lol wtf did i just read
When did the membranes begin and where did they come from?
hahah exactly my question...
*How Did Our Universe Begin?. No one knows and everyone keeps on guessing* .
No. Everyone keeps ignoring what the evidence and facts actually show .... because they don't believe God created the Universe less than 6000 years ago.
The Universe & Life ... are thermodynamic Systems.
A System is a Function ... with purpose, processes, properties, form & design ... made only by an intelligence.
All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions ... and originate from the SURROUNDING System which must provide the matter, energy, space, time, laws & intelligence to exist & to function.
See. We have always known that anything that is a Function can only be made by an intelligence ... and have known for over 120 years the origin of any thermodynamic System.
Most choose not to .... believe in the God of the Jews & Christiians and His 6 day creation and the 7th Day will belong to God ... in a world with a 7 day week. smh.
@@abelincoln8885 the evidence and facts actually show….NOT what you claimZ
@@therick363 lol. The Universe is a thermodynamic system ... is NOT a claim, but a fact.
@@abelincoln8885 wasn’t talking about that part
@@therick363 lol. That part ... proves the Universe & Life are Functions made by an intelligence.
Again. The Universe a NATURAL System ... that originates from the SURROUNDING .... unnatural System which must provide the matter, energy, space, time, laws & intelligence to exist & function.
The Surrounding system ... must be Unnatural ... otherwise it is a Thermodynamic System and must originate from the surrounding System.
Facts ... that everybody is ignoring because they don't believe God (intelligence) created the Universe( Function).
When was this originally aired on PBS? I wonder, because recent videos with Paul Steinhardt show he has abandoned this idea and strong theory/multiple universes but not the idea of a cyclic universe. His new idea relates to a concept called "slow inflation." I would like to learn more about how he made the transition from one view to another.
Great solution to Fermi’s Paradox- the cool aliens already jumped shipped to another brane.
I know that's true! The only aliens left in that smoking crater in my backyard are the nerds and misfits who could never get a girlfriend or boyfriend.
The infathomability of infinity predisposes one to believe a beginning is logical.
Infinity may be infathomable to you...
Paul....why don't you just say, I don't know. Now that would be an honest answer.
To concise: what is going on with double slit experience is related to cycle two (cycle one „so-called material world built within cycle two “)
too early to think about that, cycle two is very advanced science, better to focus on deeper understanding of the fundamentals of physics and leave the rest for future generations (multi-generations task)
It’s the cleaning lady mopping up the lab room.👍
That is my friend one of the biggest mysteries of our universe! I bet he/she was finished when they stopped filming. It's about observer 👍
Pail Steinhardt explores new theories. Better than a stalemate.
The Big Band theory of charlatans and pseudo scientists reminds the evolutionists' NEW explanation of the difference in human/primate heart anatomy - humans liked to toil and this led to changes in their heart structure. Primates were workshy and preserved their heart anatomy.
Could this guy Steinhardt inform us why there are stars older than bang?
It is the epitome of science.
If you want to disprove science, you have to use science.
That’s why creationism and intelligent design et al, are not science.
As a teenager, I (somehow) intuitively knew astrology wasn’t legitimate, but I couldn’t articulate exactly why.
I also was suspicious that “Big Foot” was a hoax, but again, I couldn’t intelligently demonstrate why.
After a few sessions of an Astronomy class and an Anthropology class respectively, my qualitative literacy and quantitative analysis was augmented tremendously, allowing me to express those findings and conclusions. 😃
@@readynowforever3676 creationist or intelligent design is not unscientific.
It is a theory that attempts to answer the question “why” the Big Bang occurred for our universe to occur.
Creationism or intelligent designer is the same as this theory proposed in this video. A theory to answer the question “why” by suggesting possibilities what might have caused the big band to occur.
Almost like our universe is occasionally re-for mated and updated with new data or no data. New beginning.
How do you get beyond speculation?
While it is true that there appear to be a lot of "branes" floating around; it is also true that all separation is fundamentally illusory.
It is still better that we have many theories some must have something right.
Not before we understand what gravity really is and what causes expansion of the Universe.
We are getting closer it is sure. But ultimate question why, we will never know!?
because of entropy i guess...
how many dimensions for branes?
When it is convenient for them, physicists explain the "non-forceful" nature of gravity by the example of the movement of test bodies from the equator to the pole, where geodesic lines close. However, for some reason, this comparison is not brought to an end: south of the south or north of the north pole is the equator, where geodesic lines diverge. Hence, all sorts of cyclical models originate, in which history repeats itself nevertheless - with further time increase! Further, when it is convenient for them, the "non-forceful" nature of gravity is explained by the example of free fall of bodies. But there is no cyclicity here: geodesics close in the center of the gravitating body and that's it. (Born also noted that here is one of the fundamental differences between local and global Lorentz systems, and that a complete theory of gravity is required.) By the way, the feature at the beginning of time, both in closed and open models, has a similar character. The difference is that cyclic models slow down the search for the root cause of the beginning of the universe, where gravity is not necessarily "powerless".
P.S. The starting point of physics is the idea of inertia, but "The knowledge of the straightness of the movement of a body left to itself does not follow from experience. On the contrary!" (Einstein). The fundamental difference between inertia forces and ordinary forces of interaction of bodies is that for inertia forces it is impossible to specify the action of which specific bodies on a material point they describe, they cannot be confused with the Dalembert force of inertia, and they are always external forces. (Newton's first law is not a special case of Newton's second law.) GR reduced gravity to inertia by generalizing the first law: the free movement of test bodies occurs along geodesic lines, but the theory did not find out anything new about the nature of the cause of inertia forces. "... the complete geometrization established by GR introduces a hierarchized cosmos on the plane, indicating indirectly the presence of an elusive source." (Tonnelat). It seems that this source of external (external) inertia forces is an "absolute vacuum" - instead of Newtonian "absolute space", which "... as a cause, does not satisfy the need for a causal explanation." (Born). Finally, the search for the root cause became possible after Friedmann spoke for the first time in a scientific way about the "creation of the world", and even then there was an opportunity to abandon the a priori nature of the law (more precisely, the axiom) of inertia, and build physics on a more reliable basis.
Quote from Lawrence: "We use these kinds of 'brain' to discover those kinds of 'brane'." So what is the brain which is giving us this discovery of the branes? What we refer to with the word 'brain' points to an appearance in our experience, an appearance in consciousness. If we use the word 'brain' without being aware of what the brain is as this appearance in consciousness, we keep ourselves and our understanding limited by always starting with unquestioned assumptions that are only partially true. Always we are dealing with these contents of consciousness that depend on the coherence of consciousness. If our way of observing, thinking and knowing is dependent on the coherence of our consciousness, then we need to ask the question: what is a method or way that will allow a radical transformation of consciousness into a radically more coherent state (configuration). We know through structure yet we don't ask the question: "What might it mean to know structure itself instead of only knowing through structures?"
I like Sir Roger Penrose CCC theory.
Me too.
Theoretical scientists are the only ones who can propose 99,99% probably wrong ideas for decades and look cool in the process.
It is possible when cientistas picture Universe though arrogance cinism.
Dream job.. like weathermen they get paid to guess, now that's living the dream!
Come on Francesco, that's a rather smug comment considering the remarkable success theoretical physicists have had in describing our reality in great detail. How many spiritualists have described our reality, as in the case of special relativity, in such detail? They play a very important role in furthering human understanding.
@@johnyharris It looks like theoritical physicist come up with tons of wrong predictions. And no 95% or of the universe we do not know what it is.
@@johnyharris i assume that a spiritualist was not much interested in special relativity... But mine was not an assault to the profession, because when dealing with the fundamental questions is obvious that 99.9% of their theories are/were wrong. As philosophers were probably wrong through centuries... I cant stop thinking that OFTEN they fall in love with their own theory that give them work. books, funds, interviews... Its had to determine were science end and ego starts. The problem is that if i am a plumber and i work on a method of fixing tubes that is wrong i will be out of work in one year.... They can profess for decades ideas (that were lately proven wrong) and they continue happily to work like nothing happened
All this has no value better to focus on connecting both levels (subatomic and cosmological levels) that could take up to hundreds of years of continuous hard work , both quantum action (Planck’s work) and Einstein‘s work still need a lot of improvement to reach deeper understanding of space and time, actually the main problem is not with time.
Human empirical reasoning remains thus far at an epistemological standstill when faced with finding ratiocinative answers to such ultimate cosmological questions...which for some people then necessitates the imaginative use of metaphysics or theological 'faith' ...
At least the physicist Sir Arthur Eddington had the intellectual integrity to simply admit that that we humans don't know who or what 'created the universe/multiverse'
Eddington instead made the honest statement: Something Unknown is doing We Don't Know What..........
Covered all the questions a lay person might have about the theory. One question: Is what he described the same as cyclical universe that his collaborators Anna Ijjas et al are working on?
Cyclical great one day I’ll be back
I think we have an "Insane" problem here. We need to understand that as Human Beings we in a certain way have become pathetically obsessed with the Idea of reaching to the "Ultimate" Truth. From ancient times this has been our actual REALITY, which is nothing but chasing this notion that Ultimate Reason for Creation of this Universe exist, as if this notion MUST be there for this Universe to run in such a Systematic way.
It is just nothing but our incapacity to Comprehend and Accept the Idea that the Universe may not have any Reason Or System, but may be just a smooth and simple flow of existence. Scientists, Philosophers, Theologians all have chased this Idea and almost felt a compulsion to come up with an All Inclusive Explanation of the Reason of our existence.
We feel finite if we can't find it out, we feel alienated if we accept that Universe is a Magic, because our senses provoke us to be focussed on our past and future, as this deep insecurity of the fallibility of experiencing the present becomes meaningless for us.
Our brain could not accept meaninglessness as it immediately experiences an unbearable lightness of being, a torment that we could not tolerate.
And that is why we invented Mathematics or discovered the same in some subaltern language.
It's all cyclical, epic and cataclysmic, creation is ultimately an eternal dance, play and drama, the majestic Lila of the eastern spirituality.
Hello. Direct experiment does not confirm the constancy of the speed of light. The error is reduced if the Michelson-Morley experiment uses light with a wavelength of "cm" and determines the speed of the train in the train, relative to the DGF - the Dominant gravitational field of the Earth. Thus, Einstein's mental experience can be realized.
branes exist in future, present and past?
in space - time, are there areas where time becomes completely space, and where space becomes completely time?
do branes have energy?
Steven Weinberg said: “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.”
This was hardest understand I failed. What this means?
I believe this might be an old interview, these ideas have already been abandoned
If you look hard enough, there is a theory around the corner.
What they postulating for is incorrect, there are two cycles: so-called physical world created within cycle two)
It is too early to think about cycle two „could take 800-2000 years.
now they have to focus on deeper understanding of the fundamentals of physics such as space.
I reluctantly have to chime in on this one. Everything that exists is comprised of information, reacts to external information, and produces new information. This is the primary function of "Existence."
We can regress the universe to a point of infinite gravity and density called a singularity, but that's not the end of our journey. We can regress even further to a geometric singularity (logical structure) in the form of a mathematical point.
Everything in existence moves from simplicity to complexity, so if we follow this universal pattern, then logic dictates that Big Bang's singularity is _not_ the origin of "Existence."
if we keep on going , what's the possible bedrock u expect ?
What kind of information comprises matter?
I guess there is information about whatever matter/energy exists, but I don't think it is correct to say matter is comprised of information.
@@ManiBalajiC *"if we keep on going , what's the possible bedrock u expect ?"*
... Excellent question! The furthest back one can regress while still adhering to logic is the juxtaposition of Existence and Nonexistence. Both must be present for either condition to be comprehensible.
Everything in existence moves from “simplicity to complexity “.
That’s only true up to now . As the universe ages it will expand and die a slow heat death . A state of thermodynamic equilibrium of maximum entropy with no complexity . Even black holes eventually evaporate. An entire universe consisting of only a near vacuum. Zero complex structures
@@tonyatkinson2210 Correct, Tony!
11:20 - critical issue: what caused the first inequality, how the symmetry was broken?? By what?
Quantum fluctuations ?
@@tonyatkinson2210
There must have been something before the fluctuations, that caused/allow them, right?
@@jareknowak8712 I think quantum fluctuations are uncaused . Like how virtual particles popping in and out of existence is uncaused
‘An infinite past with a finite future’
Fuctuations caused by the initial singularity.
Absolutely amazing 👏 the clapping of 2 hands could start a baby universe? Just like the brains CLAPPING making our HOME the universe we live in amazing 👏
- Branes clapping (ie: membranes)
@@ericfan9149 my mistake
The universe is the sum total of all Space, Time, energy and transition. As such, it is neccessary for the universe to have no beginning and no end.
Human has a beginning and an end. Human is just a very very very small part of the universe.
The universe is eternal.
I'm wondering, if accepted that the radius of the universe is the same wherever you may look at it from, how come it's not infinite then?
Cause scientists can't measure it. They will NEVER even be able to measure anything moving away from us faster than than light speed.
In all of science its still agreed it only understands < 4% of the mass in the universe we measure currently from what we can observe.
I've thought the same. Unless it's shaped like a Taurus and you just end up back where you started. It would have to be unimaginably big though....since we can measure the flatness of space/time and it appears to be flat.
The Universe has never been infinite ... but only in the mind of Atheists.
The Universe is an isolated THERMODYNAMIC system, ... with finite matter & energy, fixed laws of nature ... and increasing entropy.
An infinite Universe would mean reversible thermodynamic processes .. which would produce CONSTANT entropy.
And most importantly .... All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions and originate from the SURROUNDING System which must provide the matter, energy, space, laws & intelligence to exist & to function.
Only an intelligence ... makes, maintains, improves, operates, uses or fine tunes abstract & physical Functions.
A Function ... is simply a SYSTEM ..... that has set purpose, form, properties, processes & design which are all INFORMATION that every function possesses to exist & function.
A quantum particle, field, or force ... are functions ... with purpose, form, properties (information).
Information is an abstract construct ... that can only come from the Mind of an Intelligence.
Again. All thermodynamic Systems ... are functions ... and originate from the surrounding System which must provide the matter, energy, space, time, laws & intelligence to exist & to function.
This is why the Universe is not and never was infinite.
God(intelligence) created a Natural System (Universe) in an Unnatural System(Surrounding System) less than 6 000 years ago over 4 days starting with Day 1 with the Space(of the Universe), Earth, and very bright Light (matter & energy of the Universe).
We don't know that it is not infinite. It very well could be. The stuff we have learned about the universe in the 67 years since I started kindergarten can fill volumes of encyclopedias. Gives you the idea that there is a lot more to learn yet.
They don’t know, simply because the current understanding of space and time is incorrect thus the concept of beginning and end.
this sentence: “even Einstein didn’t scratch the surface regarding space and time thus gravity” is real.
they don’t know, and their guessing has no real value!
How do you KNOW it is incorrect? Saying that requires knowledge.
BS. We know the Universe is a Thermodynamic System.
All thermodynamic Systems .... are FUNCTIONS ... and originate from the surrounding System which mist provide the matter, energy, space time, laws & INTELLIGENCE to exist & to function.
Only an intelligence makes, maintains, improves, operates, uses & fine tunes an abstract or physical Function.
Universal Functions is the Hypothesis for Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy and any Machine Analogy used to prove "Intelligent Design."
The Function, Intelligence & Mind Categories ... prove everything is a Function made by an intelligence .... and the Mind of Man is natural (brain) & unnatural (soul) just as Genesis revealed 3400 years ago when God of the Jews & Christians created Man in His likeness with a .... body & soul.
Because Entanglement has to do with the current incomplete understanding of both space and time nothing more.
and because many of them don’t recognise that some constants have to do with so-called infinity, ….. etc
they are unable to define something means the lack of deep understanding for instance space and time.
they are unable to connect both quantum mechanics and GR because the current understanding of space and time thus gravity is incorrect.
to concise: former scientists did a good job but incomplete.
No chance to make progress without deeper understanding of the fundamentals of physics.
The guessing does have value, even if wrong. With all hard problems we have to start somewhere, and gradually come... dare I say... closer and closer to truth.
@@zimpoooooo An intelligence has a mind, nature & free will ... to think, believe, say & do whatever he/she wants with the facts & evidence.
The Universe is an isolated thermodynamic System ... with finite matter & energy, fixed laws of nature .. and increasing entropy This is an irrefutable fact.
And all thermodynamic Systems... are functions ... and originate from the SURROUNDING System which must provide the matter, energy, space, time, laws and INTELLIGENCE to exist & to function.
Only an intelligence makes & improves Functions. This is another irrefutable fact .... that most freely choose to ignore because they don't believe God(intelligence) created the Universe(Function) less than 6 000 years ago.
When the simulation started
when you say this might happen after every x number of years... it doesnt make sense because time itself is not absolute... so x number of years based on which location ?
Ours .
@@tonyatkinson2210 i believe time exists only when matter does ... so how is it possible to put a time on this event in the first place when the matter has not been created till the event has occurred.. these kind of claims seem too superficial... just say every trillion or some large number of years and done .. this stuff is not reasonable
🤔…..once again we grapple with the incomprehensible idea of infinity.
I bet that room smells of old books and mahogany
It couldn't leave well enough alone, it just had to start something...
All these are wild guesses which create more questions than these try to answer.
Something shlt us out and here we are
They want to add other dimensions while they don’t understand space! what is the relationship between dimension and space!
former scientists got their titles through their valuable achievements (real achievements)
agree ... same feeling .. first just understand space, for all i know they dont even agree on what time is ! look at the debates out there
We just don't know the answer to that. Maybe the question is the problem.
Constants: one of the main roles of some constants has to do with so-called infinity.
Still a lot of work to do and better to rely on future generations (invest in them, because patching techniques will never work anymore „current physics reached its Limits „) !
Why is someone putting together an IKEA desk in the background?
Who was the Parents of our Universe ?
Yes, we don't know what happened beyond a certain point in time. We may never know.
Doesn't his model lean more in the direction of us being an accident of chance ? Or does it form a new intelligence in each new cycle ? 🤔
Wow ! Speculation is fun !
@@realitycheck1231
Cyclical doesn't mean that they will a copy of the last one. It means a new beginning with every new version.
And their is nothing that says that every cycle will have the same out come.
@@realitycheck1231
😎👍
0:15 '...there was a beginning, there was a Big Bang...' Is the Big Bang NECESSARY the beginning of the universe in time. Is it not POSSIBLE that the BB was something like a what physicists call a phrase shift, a rapid change from one state to another?
Phase gravity lhc
Yeah but why does anything exist at all. It doesn't make any sense.
There are two levels of Why question; How? (which is for science), and From what intent? which requires a pre-existing mind. Since the universe is a prerequisite for the existence of a mind, the only meaningful Why questions about the universe are How questions.
I think the universe never begun, and or ever has a end to it.
It's the moment you have been looking for, to determine of what a beginning would look like.
Because the moment always starts with it's end back to where the moment can be the moment in the moment for the moment.
(The start of the universe = this exact moment)
{"Nothing" more "nothing" less}
A quote from the stage play Axis of Beginning: “The only thing real about the Big Bang is that the theory acknowledges that the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang is based on data supported by probabilities, massive, burdensome lifesavers, full of what-ifs that need continuous maintenance, keeping the idea afloat. Such as the flatness problem, the horizon problem, and the mono-pole problem. All in all, that’s a lot of dark stuff to sweep under the cosmic rug and still call the universe clean.”
According to Quran, space and matter came from one unit, both were one unit and they will go back being one unit and go big bang again.
In with a bang, out with a whimper.....
Obviously Many have Considered the Creation of the Universe from a Science Point of View.
But Immediately You have the Definition Problem of :- What is the Universe ?.
Sure You can Add in what we See and Experience but You Still have the Unknown Full Details which Provide the Universe Definition.
Hence making the Science Pursuit of Universe Creation Very Very Difficult.
Another Interesting Science Consideration to How the Universe is Created is the Enormous Amounts of Absolute Cold. Which is Slightly Counter to the Big Bang Thinking Supported by the High Heat Sources, Mostly Stars. Theoretically the Heat of the Stars is Caused by the Initial Big Bang Heat.
Given there is Far More Cold than Heat. Given Cold is the Absense of Heat. Perhaps the Ratio of Cold Space to Hot or Warm Space is a Worthy Calculation. A Calculation which Should Match the Big Bang Period of 14 Billion Years. Therefore Providing More or Less Proof of the BB Theory.
Very Difficult Science Topic.
You can't have a verse (uni or multi) without speech or one who speaks...
Now how close is this to the truth?
farther than truth is what it is
@@sohamjoshi9527 truth in this ‘curled dimension’ metaphor, is just infinitesimally close by but on an unreachable brane
Considering the big bang theory of the birth of our Universe and considering some views on the existance of other universes than our own, Metaverse, are their any Theories/Hypothesis what effect the big bang would have had on the other universes.
I don't think it had a beginning. Since Planck Time is the shortest interval of time possible, the universe could not have had an actual beginning but rather simply existed at the very first Planck Time. No t = 0. Only t = first Planck Time. Also the primordial universe could have been some kind of particle with a gargantuan mass, in an infinite vacuum, that became unstable and decayed releasing all the energy and matter that resulted in the Big Bang.
How do you know Planck time is the shortest interval of time possible ?
By that I mean : that may be true in the universe since the Big Bang , but we have no idea whether physics and the laws were even remotely similar at or “before “ t = 0
@@tonyatkinson2210 The intriguing thing, according to Heisemberg principle, is that at less than Planck Time the energy of any quantum particle can be infinite (or take any arbitrary value), which somehow resembles the concept of a point with "infinite" density (or undefined density) resulting for Einstein equations extrapolation when t approaches zero.
This doesn't tell us if smaller than Planck time exists or not, but it means you could not tell the difference anyway , because before Planck time nothing could have a defined value or limited.
But of course this is with the physics we have, which are not even defined at the big bang moment, only afterwards, so who knows. That's what I said "intriguing" and not "true ".
The problem is that most scientists are sticking to the 100years old theory of how the universe started but not this one from the video and I like that. The theory that the universe came from nothing is false. Spacetime is a dimension where an object can exist even if the quantum vacuum presupposes spacetime. If there is no spacetime nothing can exist so spacetime is the fundamental base where something can pop into existence. So we have spacetime then we have Heisenberg uncertainty principle that a vacuum is never completely empty, but instead buzzes with so-called virtual particles or quantum fluctuations or excitations that constantly wink into and out of existence and those virtual particles can become real in certain conditions that can be experimentally observed and they act as very real. Then we have that quantum energy is a special case of zero point energy that exists throughout the entire universe at each and every point in space; it can also be experimentally observed in various phenomena. So where do those particles and energy come from? According to string theory, one of the leading physics models of the last half century, the universe operates with 10 dimensions. For the math to work on quantum gravity theory, there have to be more than four dimensions in our universe. So the conclusion is that our universe operates in higher dimensions and it has no start or end, is cyclical and has stages or phases. Paul Steinhart has very interesting ideas about membrane theory but I like Roger Penrose's simple idea that the universe is the same state at the start and at the end when all matter decays and the last black hole evaporates and just photons buzz around.
Humans have a tendency to complicate things. Direct observation will reveal the nature of reality. It’s simply beautiful. 😉
Yep ... and no gods observed...
lol i know right... what membranes ? where did they come from ? why do they collide ? what the hell is being talked about here.. if it cannot be observed i might as well hypothesize about 100 random things that could be happening and tell that we just cannot observe it but its true.
By that logic earth being flat would be the reality.
@@abcdefg91111 you know earth is round because it is verifiable through observable evidence...
@@sohamjoshi9527
Very little of modern physics relies on observation . It relies on inferences from data
Many of the things scientists investigate do not interact with human perceptual systems or produce perceptual experiences of them.
Terms like ‘observation’ and don’t occur nearly as much in science anymore . In their place, working scientists tend to talk about data instead .
Back paddling at doctorate level
The problem with this universe is that there is a birth/ death cycle which had to had a beginning and it will have an end because of it. So there being absence of space and time and stuff before the big bang and there being a end to the universe at some point makes perfect sence that is why plenty of physisists support it. Also expectation is that we never will be able to explore what was there before the big bang we only can speculate and that is exactly what this guy does..he will probably also explore the idea that there is no end to the universe either i guess..
I do not tnink you understood it, what is your other option? A creator? The god of a abraham?
@@AtheistCook ...with a universe being born (and dying at some point) the most simple explanation is it is a one unique thing that will never happen again. Would show that we know very little.......
He's telling a story that makes Genesis far more plausible. Moreover, where did membranes come from? He presupposes an eternal membrane that collapses at 'its' convenience? Then he says the membranes are close but then some sense infinitely far away! What????? Come on, really.
hilarious right... this is top science entertainment
Only problem is : we know genesis isn’t true . Demonstrably so .
molten fire magnesium led and a v8 core tiomen time of africa babylon
The thing about this question is,. Nothing on this planet needs to know the answer for its survival.
We could just stop, say we don't know, then carry on like we have been.
However, it's something religions have incorporated into their version of reality.
A bit spaced out
And some scientists insist in the failed string theory... these ideas that cant possibly be proven are not theories, they are beliefs...
The universe you are incarnated in is not "your" universe. You don't get your own universe of creation till you reach the god levels of consciousness. Till then, you play the game of souls in the universe of the god you are most resonant with, in terms of the local experiment you are part of, or in a temporary time out parallel universe where you don't do what you would have done to muck up your god's games
The only chance for mankind to survive is reaching cycle two through science (it is real „does exist „)
that could take up to thousands of years, the human’s life span is too short, it is the job of multi-generations, it is not the job of one generation to solve all scientific problems !
the job of each generation is to do his best and leave the flag for next generation.
Right now it’s better to avoid hallucinations and focus on deeper understanding of the fundamentals of physics.
Reaching cycle two means the ability of mankind to survive even during catastrophic cosmological events such as supernova, meteor collides with the planet earth, ….etc
reaching cycle two means very advanced technology
still too early for such a thing, even just thinking about that.
Do you value your life? Do you find meaning? Is there a purpose/end goal to all this? 2 minutes of mind-blowing truths:
ruclips.net/video/UYOmtucwafA/видео.html
It is impossible to explain where all this " energy " came from....so it seems.
Maybe there isn’t one . Maybe it’s just a brute fact that energy is fundamental to reality .
I teed it’s one of the most difficult things to investigate. It could be that we will never know with certainty and only have educated guesses.
There are two cycles for sure (100% correct) so their postulates have no real value (wasting of time)
the current understanding of space and time is not only incomplete rather …..
The multiverse is a hypothetical question that will never be proven by direct testing . String theory is also a hypothesis that cannot be proven by direct testing. Paraphrasing Dr. Einstein, “if you can’t explain it to a seven year old...”.
We don’t know that for sure . Other universes might interact is one way against ours
@@tonyatkinson2210 such claims demand careful testing. Testing that cannot be done.
@@robertrmckerrow1111 yet . If they get better fleshed out mathematically we might be able to make some testable predictions. All I’m saying is : we don’t know enough to rule anything out
@@tonyatkinson2210
Mathematics by itself is not proof of either hypothesis. A hypothesis doesn’t advance until it can be tested.
We cannot go outside of our own universe. How long do you think it will take before we can? Even if the multi-verse was contained within our own universe it remains out of our reach, how long will it be until we can travel and test that other verse?
String theory proposes things much smaller than quarks. Using mathematics to calculate how much power it would take beyond what we have now in atom smashing collider’s, when do you think we will advance this hypothesis of string theory?
Please don’t tell me it’s just a matter of time and money. Mainly because that’s what everyone in science says.
If there is one thing I know for dang sure is that math tells a story. The only question is, is that story believable or not and, is it attainable? If it is still a hypothesis, there is only ‘faith’. If it can’t be tested and falsified it’s not true. It remains a hypothesis and a story.
In other words we don't know
Baha’u’llah says, “The universe hath neither beginning nor ending.” He has set aside the elaborate theories and exhaustive opinions of scientists and material philosophers by the simple statement, “There is no beginning, no ending.” The theologians and religionists advance plausible proofs that the creation of the universe dates back six thousand years; the scientists bring forth indisputable facts and say, “No! These evidences indicate ten, twenty, fifty thousand years ago,” etc. There are endless discussions pro and con. Baha’u’llah sets aside these discussions by one word and statement. He says, “The divine sovereignty hath no beginning and no ending.” By this announcement and its demonstration He has established a standard of agreement among those who reflect upon this question of divine sovereignty; He has brought reconciliation and peace in this war of opinion and discussion.
Briefly, there were many universal cycles preceding this one in which we are living. They were consummated, completed and their traces obliterated. The divine and creative purpose in them was the evolution of spiritual man, just as it is in this cycle. The circle of existence is the same circle; it returns. The tree of life has ever borne the same heavenly fruit. - Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 220.
What was before then, math that was unsustainable
Sustainable blossom into physics
But then that makes it part of the universe....
...
...odd
The universe beginning with music 🎶 then the lord spoken the 3 words let there be light 🕯️ the lord music will play in the wind before he Return back home we still 0.7 we have way more too go for the end of time there are levels on earth we only on 0.7 level 10,0000000000 we still have left too go big homie
Technically that's four words.
Those in religion are determined to believe that the universe was created. Example ... When in 1927 the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître created the Big Bang theory, it followed that the Big Bang theory would be enmeshed with the idea that the universe was created by a god, as Stephen Hawking learned when he visited the pope. ... "In 1985, I attended a conference on cosmology at the Vatican in Rome. The gathering of scientists had an audience with Pope John Paul II. He told us that it was okay to study the workings of the universe, but we should not ask questions about its origin, for that was the work of God." Stephen Hawking
How did the universe begin? assumes the universe began---- that nature, that reality began. Now if you accept the idea of the Big Bang, must you necessarily also accept that the BB was the beginning of the universe? And if you accept that the universe did have a beginning and that a God initiated the event, must you also accept that that God was the Christian conception of God?
He is saying what he believe. Not widely accepted theory.
Widely accepted theory is cosmological constant is 0.0000....125 zeros and 1.
That's it.
We have no idea what's next.