This kind of video sparks wonder in my mind in a way I recognize from when I was young and first started watching science videos (Sagan, Clarke, others). If adulthood is so often criticized for lacking the imagination and wonder of youth, I for one feel that effect countered when I follow along with newer ideas about origins. Now I can hardly go about my day without perceiving all that I see, as bound energy. Thanks, Arvin!
As I commented elsewhere, the “God of the Gaps” becomes inconceivably larger, as we reduce the scope and extent of human cognition…. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. A little humility goes a long way.
I'd find it even more comforting if certain self-centered members of our species could get that thought through their thick skulls. More and more, we learn that our little oasis of spacetime is minuscule, finite, fragile, and completely unimportant to anything outside of it. Could we maybe not burn it all up trying to prove who has the bigger d*ck?
I *think* I understand the topic. The end of inflation, "locally", is the moment our universe's bubble separates from the ongoing expansion to be a discete universe. Thank you for touching on the possibility that in these multiverses the local laws of physics could be radically different. Given the isolation of the various universes, it's not something we can know. As someone who isn't a theoretical cosmologist/astrophysicist I appreciate your ability to present vastly complicated topics at understandable levels for those of us who haven't made it our life's work.
Exactly what i wanted to say however probably wouldn't be able to express as accurately as you have done, given the fact that im not a native English speaker.
Their is no BUBBLE 😑the only reason why we say their is a bubble is because our telescopes are not powerful enough 😑space and time are infinite but as for the universe as a whole if it had a beginning it will end if the universe as whole had no beginning it won’t end 😑knowing the odds of a planet are 1 and their is only 1 universe the question is in a finite universe the odds increase in a infinite universe the odds decrease 😑
@@jettmthebluedragon No. according to physics, past a certain point, regions of the universe are causally disconnected from our region. It's not a matter of "our telescopes are not powerful enough", it's actually impossible for anything that happens outside a certain volume to have any effect on us, because it's receding away faster that the speed of light, which = the speed of causality. So in a sense they may as well be bubble universes, even though they aren't *literally*.
@@robokill387 also their are no bubble universes pal 😐their is only 1 😑you can’t just be dead and born the next unlike the universe that can 😐I know bubble universes is what you want but that’s false 😑also another thing I know it’s fake that’s Beacuse the laws of physics are set 😐their is no universe what’s the laws are different 😑the element water H20 will always be H20 😑and even so the universe is nothing but made of chemicals 😑and that’s what I don’t think you look deep into 😑even we are made of chemicals the universe is made of chemicals 😐I can make a theory of everything just using atoms and chemistry also I hate to say but the multiverse theory is fake 😑and to prove it 150 killed in South Korea during Halloween how many of them had plans to be moms or dads ?😐and you think their children are just living anyway ?😐sorry pal but that’s fake 😑I hate to say but I say based on the stuff that I’m learning and have learned we live in a determined universe 😐and what that means is a deterministic universe the laws of physics are set in store I know that may seem harsh but the universe does not care 😑I’m sorry but we are not living in a multiverse pal 😑and I have the evidence 😐also just beaacuse you say their should be a multiverse or whatever that does not mean it’s true 😑
This is legit the best inflationary multiverse explanation ever. The end of inflation, locally is the thing I was trying to understand and it was conveyed beautifully with the animation you showed ( and also giving analogy to the radioactive decay). Also, the point that the laws of physics can be completely different in all those pocket universe. Thanks for the video man, really appreciate it.
It is notable that this concept of "multiverse" is completely different from the continuous splitting of reality some have hypothesized takes place as all random possibilities occur in parallel with each other.
Yeah. This one seems more believable somehow, probably because it doesn’t necessitate that there’s a near-infinite number of copies of everything in existence
yes thank you for pointing that out.... I have Max Tegmark's book "Our Mathematical Universe" and that point should be made clearer ....I mean it is made but not distinctly enough... There's a quote in that book where Bryce Dewitt is sayin that he doesn't feel like He's being split into multiple versions of "himself" all the time ...and I think it's Hugh Everrett who comes back with the quip, well you don't feel like you are moving at 18.5 miles per second around the sun do you?....anyway it's a crazy concept and fun to imagine
You are having great content and explanation of things… I always wait for my SS check every second wensday in a month and your channel to post new video! I love it!!! Thank you very, very much!!!
It's insane to think that even 10 million years from now in a hyper-advanced human civilization, the top scientists may very still have no idea how the universe came into existence.
My current guess is that it's just always been there. Instead of "something coming from nothing" it's more like "nothingness can't exist". And the stuff that's always been there keeps morphing and shifting however it may feel like and writing laws of physics as it goes.
I think this is a truly beautiful concept - and one which is very well explained - thank you Arvin. It seems to me that, in a way, we have now combined the old 'solid state' theory of our universe with the 'big bang' theory. Brilliant!
Its just math and really really tiny and really really large numbers that you worship. That and clever wording and artist concepts. Cosmology is fine, because we can measure, this has no measurement nor rooting in anything. No longer science but philosophy.
Massive amount of other Universes may be the solution to "Fine Tuning" mistery. If the number of the Universes, both, those that currently exist, and those that have already disintegrated, was large enough - then there is no "divine plan", only the calculation of the probability, that in the end there was one (Ours) with physical constants arranged in such a way as to favor the long time existence and even the rise of life. Just simple process of evolution - many have to die, in order to finally come up with something that has a chance to survive. Excuse my English. Thank You for the video!
This video blew my mind, thanks. Everyday something new comes up as very smart people keep looking into the simplest, but deepest questions. Some time ago mankind used to believe Earth was flat... now, we can't even imagine what is beyond our deepest look at the sky.
And sir can you explain what exactly is energy is it just a number that we found that always remain constant that we derived from mathematical model or is it something more subtle much more deeper then we can imagine
It's best to think of energy as a physical thing. A lot of field theories such as electromagnetism and general relativity use the concept of fields storing energy and momentum. We can further utilize this idea when dealing with capacitors in circuits. I think of energy as a liquid stored inside the object, or field, even though that is definitely 100% wrong. It's a matter of preference, I believe
Very nice video, is the first time I read about this theory on how multiverses could be real. Like I said on the previous video, I first had a feeling my might like the idea of a multiverse because of saying, a universe has no edge. This video actually can show a universe bubble actually might have an edge and yes, even a center. Look at 7:47 in the video. We have many bubbles, but each bubble has a clear edge of THAT bubble, not of the space itself. Space itself that expand faster than the speed of light is fine. So the fabric of space itself might not have an edge, again, extremely hard to proof or disprove, bubbles within the space, the universe should in this case have an edge. It is just so complex so mindblowing, and the fun part is, we could have it ALL wrong also, haha. :) What is actually the most mindblowing is how huge the multiverse can be. Keep on working on those videos, Arvin, they are great to think and pounder on.
Man keep up the good work ❤️ Nothing thrills me more than physics but situation have made me to go for engineering! However right after my graduation I got into an accident and been partially disabled since then. And your videos are the only thing that still spark my soul ❤️❤️ thanks 🙏
It’s so mind blowing it’s difficult to wrap your head around. If there are multiple universes then those universes must be in some kind of common space bubble themselves what would that space called? Is it possible that there is more beyond that as well? Where does it end? Is it possible that those bubble universes are part of some bigger structure which we can’t even comprehend as yet?
Amazing. I saw a excelent vídeo from PBS spacetime about this subject, but I confess that it be a little abstract to me and i could not understand very well. But you did it. Now, i could understand much more. For sure, when i watch that vídeo again, I will understand much more. Thank you!
I really loved this video. I want to thank you for your inspirational videos. Not that it is your fault, but I see your perspectives more clearly when I view us/matter sinking into space which in turn creates space which affects all matter, from the direction and speed of a pitcher's curveball, to the insulating characteristics of earth to the cold of space, including the expansion of the universe. It is easier for me to envision our physical matter universe, the way you explain it, when I see space created additionally to the expansion of the universe. Like digging a whole in space and magnifying time dilation. Again, thank you for your time and efforts.
If Eternal Inflation is true, and the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is also true, then there would be an infinite number of multiverses, and within each multiverse, there are an infinite number of universes. Mind blown.
In high school i have done ample half-life calculations, but with out ever wondering which “half” is decaying! I wish I had asked my teacher that question. Thanks Arvin for introducing me to quantum-uncertainty!
Hey Arvin, thank you for such an amazing presentation. I always enjoy watching your videos where you make complex science so simple. I have a thought, on which I'd like to know what you'd say. When a bubble is formed, it moves apart from one another or the space between them expands making these bubbles move apart. So, is there any chance if at all these bubbles collide with prior bubble or not? Also, if at all these collide, what would be the outcome? Will it cease to exist or could it be, that there can be a possibility for an worm hole to exist.
To me, The Many Worlds Interpretation was always the best explanation. To me, it is the best way to bridge General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. To paraphrase Einstein, I just cannot accept that "God plays dice with the 'universe' ".
I have always heard that particle colliders can reproduce the energy levels of the very early universe. How can this be if *all of the energy* was in a small space in the early universe? How can just a fraction of the energy in our particle colliders come anywhere near that much energy? For instance, a Google search says that there is 10^53 kg of mass in the observable universe. To get energy I multiply by c^2 which gives me 3x10^61 Joules, which then converted to eV is 1.9x10^80 eV. But in the video at 11:33 it says the energy at the Big Bang is 10^24 eV. Are my calculations incorrect? Edit: it occurs to me, too, that the number should be even larger than what I calculated since not all the energy at the big bang would be in the form of mass.
Can you please do a video regarding the “Great Attractor” I heard about it somewhere and wonder how it all plays a role in this expansion, hurts my brain!!
Looks good Arvin. Got me thinking, if the fundamental constant of light speed is allowed to vary between inflation collapsed universes, would they inevitably overtake or overlap each other?
Do you mean if speed of light is different in the space between universe, then could we detect them? Unlikely since the speed of light would not change in our universe, but I will add the caveat that we would need to understand the overarching laws of physics that is constant in the multiverse. It is possible that there is some loophole there that allows this kind of communication. Or, as I pointed out in the video, Wormholes may be able to connect two different universes - but again, this is a stretch is unlikely to be realistic.
If you go faster than the speed of light (at least in our universe), then you will go backwards in time. Let's hope that it's not the case for the other universes
I meant if "c" varied by universe, and it is faster than inflation speed in one of them, could that one overtake and envelope other universes with slower than inflation c constant?
At 10:34 you had said that we will never be able to detect a different universe directly. Maybe that's not the case because what if a part of eternal inflating field stopped inflating which have many universes in it. Since, that part is no longer inflating,we can probably transfer information throughout that big bubble that contains multiple small bubbles.
@@harrkev bro my point is that what if a part between two universes stopped inflating? Then we can technically share information as the gap between us isn't expanding anymore allowing transfer of information.
@@Anonymous-df8it and maybe i am wrong with the time as time can be a stubborn illusion. And we thought its real because we give importance to only physical nature of reality. There must be other aspects of our universe's reality which are beyond time.
If the Inflation stopped at different places at different times, creating many such bubble universes, can 2 or more bubble universes form so close that they collide ? The consequences will be really interesting (possibly dangerous too)
The answer to that is yes. It's possible for two universes to form so close (and the distance between them would have to be microscopic) that they collide. There are a few patterns in the cosmic background radiation that might be the result of a collision, but they're currently only at about a 95% statistical significance, which is not high enough for a new discovery in cosmology.
If we cannot glean information from outside of the observable universe, how did we determine or reach the idea that this is the average inflation rate (and therefore leading to the idea of multiple universes)
By looking at the expansion rates of objects we can observe, and extrapolating that to assume other parts of the universe we observe, likely behave the same way. Light, or electromagnetic energy, is our central medium of existence. There could be places between universes, where electromagnetism is limited. Gravity causes such an effect, and lenses light around massive stellar objects. To consider the influence of dark matter, the mysterious gravitational pull from unseen matter, this is a possible explanation.
Thanks for such a nice video. But I have one fundamental question. We say there might be multiverses in empty space. But what about the space, is it infinite? Does this empty void used to exist as it is forever? Can we say that space is just as it is nothing can define its existence? I hope you can also make one video about this metaphysical question.
Cosmologists love infinities. So, if the multiverse exists, then there logically must have been an infinite number of them in the past, and an infinite number of them in the future. Given that it is expanding very, very fast, and started an infinite amount of time ago, then these infinities are the only option. If you exclude a creator, then you exclude a first cause, so everything pretty much has to go on forever, leading to infinite everything. But don't worry. The odds are that you are a Boltzman brain, and will be dead in a few seconds. Look it up. It makes NO sense, but logically must be true given that everything is infinite.
Can it be possible that inflation is 'the' mechanism that produces the locality principle? I mean, before inflation, every point in the space was connected, hence they were close to each other. When the localization process started, many of those links broke so that only the local links survived, hence the universe seemed like it was inflated. This explains the source of energy for inflation, too.
@@michaelfried3123 No sir, its not rubbish. It is a new theory. Let me give you a link: ruclips.net/video/IC1mvWOZUBE/видео.html or you can search for George Musser....
What causes the bubble to stop to rapidly inflate and to just expand? Could that be gravity? What I am thinking is, when the bubble appears as a single point in the inflating "multiverse inflation field", maybe it just keeps inflating _with_ it. Until something happens, i.e. gravity emerges - which then slows down the inflation. Similar to how gravity keeps galaxies together while the universe still expands.
The standard theory (simplified greatly) says that the inflation field was in a false vacuum at very high temperatures. It quantum tunneled to the true vacuum. This released the energy in the field and resulted in inflation.
Wow. That theory has a lot going for it and patches a lot of holes in BBT. My immediate first question is then: how does this relate to the condensation of matter - does this also explain that? Does the energy come from the "freezing" of the inflation field? As in, the energy which was powering the expansion gets dumped into our spacetime as that expansion halted locally - like how slamming the breaks on a vehicle transforms the kinetic energy into heat and other forms. Or are there other candidates for that energy from somewhere else?
@@michaelfried3123 I’m inclined to agree, but I wouldn’t put it in such harsh terms. I’m still trying to understand the connection (if there is one) between this concept and the ontological domain of science. As Brian Greene has observed, our brains evolved within the bubble of our universe, and even our greatest minds cannot comprehend quantum mechanics.
@@michaelfried3123 science is a philosophy. So I don't understand what is your point. I guess you could present an argument, instead of only making a statement. But do you have a good enough understanding of science and philosophy to do this.
Once again, an absolute wonder to gain knowledge via Arvin! Question, Arvin: if space is expanding faster than the light, does it mean speed of light is not the speed limit of the Universe? Wouldn't this--I don't know if it's fact or theory--may change many assumptions we now have even towards Quantum Theory itself!
@@ArvinAsh Am I to understand that this concept has a connection to science? It doesn’t seem that way to me, assuming science is constrained by what is observable, measurable, demonstrable, and verifiable. I’m not trying to be difficult. Just trying to reasonably constrain the ontological domain of science.
Great video Arvin, does that mean there may be other bubble universes that permit the existence of monopoles? And the thing that always gets me with constant creation theories is where does all the energy come from?
Multiverse populated with various stages of expansion leaves the possibility of bubble edges temporarily nearby each other. Expansion zones between may temporarily reverse.
This is of the usual brilliant standard of this channel. I have two very naive questions. One is what determines the point at which one "universe" becomes separare from another. Iget that the space is expanding but is there some "frontier" at some point? (I did say these questions were simple!) Secondly is there still room for the Everett many worlds interpretation of QM, within each universe? Worlds within worlds eh?
Thank you. Great questions! Like radio active decay, where the bubbles form would be completely random. We wouldn't be able to predict it in advance. Yes, Everett interpretation could still hold. And indeed they would be worlds within worlds as you pointed out. Sounds crazy, but that's what the equations seem to be telling us!
I think that theoretical physicists say that there are about 5 different types of Parallel Universes. One type proposed by Hugh Everett is Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. If not true scientifically, I believe it to be true philosophically or de facto. What interests me and many others is, is this Universe infinite? I would say yes. that beyond Our Observable Universe , the Universe probably goes on infinitely. As a Thought Experiment ask yourself: If you could be located at our 'present Edge of the Universe' what would you see? I think you would see another Observable Universe very similar to what we see from here!
@@ArvinAsh Thanks Arvin. I suppose I was really asking about what happens after they form ie given they are separate in space at what point doers one universe "blend into" the other if you see what I mean. Or perhaps that is a meaningless question as there can be no communication between universes because of the speed of light limitation?
Very interesting concept. I’m just wondering, does the creation of these bubbles cost any energy in a way? Or does the energy in those bubble universes come from pure energy ultimately from the ‘first’ big bang? In that case, wouldn’t the total amount of energy be drained by the creation of the bubble universes and eventually run out? So not infinite universes right?
The total net energy for the universe is zero. The “negative” energy of gravity exactly offsets the other positive energies (mass and energy). Creating a new universe therefore doesn’t cost any energy. Alan Guth referred to it as the “ultimate free lunch.”
@@Rob02138 Gravity could not exist in the early universe as mas could not exist, either. Matter has mass - but matter means structured and condensed energy. It cannot exist over certain limits of temperature. And the temperature of the early Universe just after the Big Bang was above that limit. So one cannot speak about negative energy (the existence of which is only a theory not a fact, by the way) when there is no matter and then there is no mass, either.
Enlil below has an interesting point, but the "free lunch" idea although I like it myself, is not necessarily true. It is not accepted by all physicists. But Energy conservation, on a untiversal and multiverse scale may not actually be conserved. I will have a video on that in the near future.
The Inflation theory was created to explain the smoothness of the energy distribution we see in the universe, but why would we expect the universe before inflation to be unevenly distributed? It seems just as likely that the universe could have started out very smooth and therefore not need inflation.
Great way of explaining what I have tried to understand for the last few years. You know, instead of "What is north of the North Pole" and so on. I really enjoy watching and learning, keep it going Mr. Ash! Great stuff!
I love your videos in general, but my favorites are the ones describing quantum mechanics. Could it be possible that you do a video describing electron dynamics of third generation solar cells vs first generation, and another comparing electron dynamics of lithium ion batteries to solid state batteries Thanks for your videos
I found your channel and your work is great, you got a new subscriber from Italy. Ps: thank you for the english subtitles, is a great help for 'not mother tongue' like me, grazie !
@@ny3793 I'm aware of that. The consensus opinion isn't always the correct one in the end. I'm not saying it's definitely wrong though, just that I'd bet a small amount of money that it is.
The fact the fundamental constants of the universe are so inelegant always makes me think that we will never truly understand the universe until we can somehow make them elegant. The answers are in math that we haven’t yet discovered.
In that infinity of universes there are, with probability one, infinitely many realizations of ourselves suffering the reality of existence. A nightmare indeed.
The way to get your head around any of this is to comprehend that the physical world itself is just the equivalent of a flat panel TV, only 3d and very convincing. The math and geometry that create and host our 3 D world is where they multiverses exist just as when you have a DVD movie the opening credits, early scenes, middle and ending scenes are all on the disc already, its just the laser that makes its way through the Data and brings the scenes to life with motion and sound. For for our universe replace the laser with consciousness.
How do we know that the expansion was exponential? All the models I've seen don't seem to be exponential but could possibly be logarithmic. As it seems the expansion stopped being exponential at some point, so during exponential expansion what was the doubling time? And when did it stop? Or are we in a period of exponential expansion with a very large doubling time?
Very informative and easy explained video on this mindboggeling topic! Thank you. I do have a question though... How does this theory relate to the discoveries of JWST, which seem to find too many, too big galaxies in the early universe? Our inflation started 13.8B years ago, and those galaxies were around from before that? If so, I can sleep sound again... 🙈
These galaxies would not be before that time frame. They may be found further away than 13.8 billion light years, but this is because space has expanded exponentially during that time. The visible universe is actually about 92 billion light years wide.
@@ArvinAsh Oh, ok. Not that I could grasp my head around that information, but ok... 🤭 So what does that mean? Is the calculation of "our beginning" 13.8B years ago, wrong? How does the JWST findings reject the Big Bang Theory, but still "allow" the Eternal Inflation Theory? If the galaxies found 13.3B years ago, being too many and too big, doesnt that affect the EIT aswell?
So the universe was born, exponentially expanded, slowed down, then sped up again? And considering the enormous amount of time it has to continue accelerating, won't it eventually reach that initial speed?
That's not it. The base state is constant exponential inflation. At various points it stops as the field moves from a to c on the graph overcoming b. I believe it's quantum tunneling that allowed point B to be overcome and move to C on the graph. For 10-³⁶seconds inflation continued exponentially in our bubble the stopped. However because of quantum imperfections in the field some parts will continue on in exponential inflation which will spawn more bubbles and more inflation field in-between the bubbles.
This kind of video sparks wonder in my mind in a way I recognize from when I was young and first started watching science videos (Sagan, Clarke, others). If adulthood is so often criticized for lacking the imagination and wonder of youth, I for one feel that effect countered when I follow along with newer ideas about origins. Now I can hardly go about my day without perceiving all that I see, as bound energy. Thanks, Arvin!
"We are perhaps even more insignificant than we ever imagined"
I find that strangely comforting.
Yes indeed, hopefully the rest of the multiverse is better off than us.
As I commented elsewhere, the “God of the Gaps” becomes inconceivably larger, as we reduce the scope and extent of human cognition…. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. A little humility goes a long way.
I'd find it even more comforting if certain self-centered members of our species could get that thought through their thick skulls.
More and more, we learn that our little oasis of spacetime is minuscule, finite, fragile, and completely unimportant to anything outside of it. Could we maybe not burn it all up trying to prove who has the bigger d*ck?
because that means we're not lonely? or have a place to move to? lol
@@MendTheWorld It's still just physics.
I *think* I understand the topic. The end of inflation, "locally", is the moment our universe's bubble separates from the ongoing expansion to be a discete universe.
Thank you for touching on the possibility that in these multiverses the local laws of physics could be radically different. Given the isolation of the various universes, it's not something we can know.
As someone who isn't a theoretical cosmologist/astrophysicist I appreciate your ability to present vastly complicated topics at understandable levels for those of us who haven't made it our life's work.
Exactly what i wanted to say however probably wouldn't be able to express as accurately as you have done, given the fact that im not a native English speaker.
Their is no BUBBLE 😑the only reason why we say their is a bubble is because our telescopes are not powerful enough 😑space and time are infinite but as for the universe as a whole if it had a beginning it will end if the universe as whole had no beginning it won’t end 😑knowing the odds of a planet are 1 and their is only 1 universe the question is in a finite universe the odds increase in a infinite universe the odds decrease 😑
@@jettmthebluedragon No. according to physics, past a certain point, regions of the universe are causally disconnected from our region. It's not a matter of "our telescopes are not powerful enough", it's actually impossible for anything that happens outside a certain volume to have any effect on us, because it's receding away faster that the speed of light, which = the speed of causality. So in a sense they may as well be bubble universes, even though they aren't *literally*.
@@robokill387 ooh really ?😐you say fater then the speed of light not explain why they collide 😐
@@robokill387 also their are no bubble universes pal 😐their is only 1 😑you can’t just be dead and born the next unlike the universe that can 😐I know bubble universes is what you want but that’s false 😑also another thing I know it’s fake that’s Beacuse the laws of physics are set 😐their is no universe what’s the laws are different 😑the element water H20 will always be H20 😑and even so the universe is nothing but made of chemicals 😑and that’s what I don’t think you look deep into 😑even we are made of chemicals the universe is made of chemicals 😐I can make a theory of everything just using atoms and chemistry also I hate to say but the multiverse theory is fake 😑and to prove it 150 killed in South Korea during Halloween how many of them had plans to be moms or dads ?😐and you think their children are just living anyway ?😐sorry pal but that’s fake 😑I hate to say but I say based on the stuff that I’m learning and have learned we live in a determined universe 😐and what that means is a deterministic universe the laws of physics are set in store I know that may seem harsh but the universe does not care 😑I’m sorry but we are not living in a multiverse pal 😑and I have the evidence 😐also just beaacuse you say their should be a multiverse or whatever that does not mean it’s true 😑
This is legit the best inflationary multiverse explanation ever. The end of inflation, locally is the thing I was trying to understand and it was conveyed beautifully with the animation you showed ( and also giving analogy to the radioactive decay). Also, the point that the laws of physics can be completely different in all those pocket universe. Thanks for the video man, really appreciate it.
It is notable that this concept of "multiverse" is completely different from the continuous splitting of reality some have hypothesized takes place as all random possibilities occur in parallel with each other.
The continuous spliting of reality will happen again and again because there is an infinite amount of universes due to eternal inflation
But equally as idiotic.
Yeah. This one seems more believable somehow, probably because it doesn’t necessitate that there’s a near-infinite number of copies of everything in existence
yes thank you for pointing that out.... I have Max Tegmark's book "Our Mathematical Universe" and that point should be made clearer ....I mean it is made but not distinctly enough... There's a quote in that book where Bryce Dewitt is sayin that he doesn't feel like He's being split into multiple versions of "himself" all the time ...and I think it's Hugh Everrett who comes back with the quip, well you don't feel like you are moving at 18.5 miles per second around the sun do you?....anyway it's a crazy concept and fun to imagine
I believe you are referring to the Many Worlds hypothesis.
Another amazing video!!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Man that is the best multiverse explanation I've seen.
Thank you so much for this video Arvin and this video is so informative
Arvin, it's so amazing the way you presented. Always one step ahead!
You are having great content and explanation of things…
I always wait for my SS check every second wensday in a month and your channel to post new video! I love it!!! Thank you very, very much!!!
It's insane to think that even 10 million years from now in a hyper-advanced human civilization, the top scientists may very still have no idea how the universe came into existence.
Yeah. But at least there is reasonable chance that Cyberpunk will be ready by then.
My current guess is that it's just always been there. Instead of "something coming from nothing" it's more like "nothingness can't exist". And the stuff that's always been there keeps morphing and shifting however it may feel like and writing laws of physics as it goes.
10 million years from now, there will still be unanswered questions.
lol humans won't make is another 10,000 years let alone 10 million
In 10 million years, we'll probably have evolved into something beyond homosapien, possibly more than once.
Thank you for posting -- your voice is extremely clear and enjoyable to hear.!!
I think this is a truly beautiful concept - and one which is very well explained - thank you Arvin. It seems to me that, in a way, we have now combined the old 'solid state' theory of our universe with the 'big bang' theory. Brilliant!
Its just math and really really tiny and really really large numbers that you worship. That and clever wording and artist concepts. Cosmology is fine, because we can measure, this has no measurement nor rooting in anything. No longer science but philosophy.
@@GeneoftheWorld So?
Massive amount of other Universes may be the solution to "Fine Tuning" mistery.
If the number of the Universes, both, those that currently exist, and those that have already disintegrated, was large enough - then there is no "divine plan", only the calculation of the probability, that in the end there was one (Ours) with physical constants arranged in such a way as to favor the long time existence and even the rise of life.
Just simple process of evolution - many have to die, in order to finally come up with something that has a chance to survive.
Excuse my English.
Thank You for the video!
Great video, as always! Thanks!
This video blew my mind, thanks. Everyday something new comes up as very smart people keep looking into the simplest, but deepest questions. Some time ago mankind used to believe Earth was flat... now, we can't even imagine what is beyond our deepest look at the sky.
Some believed, many didnt. arguments for the earth being round goes away back to antiquity.
And sir can you explain what exactly is energy is it just a number that we found that always remain constant that we derived from mathematical model or is it something more subtle much more deeper then we can imagine
Energy is just a number, a difference between two states that can lead to equilibrizing action.
up
Energy is the potential to do work. As long as there is a gradient of stuff, there can be work done
@mario kong
I blocked you since you lack YT etiquette.
It's best to think of energy as a physical thing. A lot of field theories such as electromagnetism and general relativity use the concept of fields storing energy and momentum. We can further utilize this idea when dealing with capacitors in circuits. I think of energy as a liquid stored inside the object, or field, even though that is definitely 100% wrong. It's a matter of preference, I believe
Each time a new video drops, it's like Christmas morning. Such a joy to watch!
I listen to a lot of science communicators. You and Sean Carrol are by far the best. Thanks for the awesome content!
Very nice video, is the first time I read about this theory on how multiverses could be real.
Like I said on the previous video, I first had a feeling my might like the idea of a multiverse because of saying, a universe has no edge.
This video actually can show a universe bubble actually might have an edge and yes, even a center.
Look at 7:47 in the video.
We have many bubbles, but each bubble has a clear edge of THAT bubble, not of the space itself. Space itself that expand faster than the speed of light is fine. So the fabric of space itself might not have an edge, again, extremely hard to proof or disprove, bubbles within the space, the universe should in this case have an edge.
It is just so complex so mindblowing, and the fun part is, we could have it ALL wrong also, haha. :)
What is actually the most mindblowing is how huge the multiverse can be.
Keep on working on those videos, Arvin, they are great to think and pounder on.
Man keep up the good work ❤️
Nothing thrills me more than physics but situation have made me to go for engineering! However right after my graduation I got into an accident and been partially disabled since then. And your videos are the only thing that still spark my soul ❤️❤️
thanks 🙏
Welcome to the club. Economics made me go into engineering as well, but physics was my first love.
@@ArvinAsh Engineering made me go into geology. 😆.
To each his own path! 😉
Thanks for another great video, Arvin!
This explanation of the multiverse just "clicked" in my head. Thanks for the video!
You communicate this stuff so clearly, thank you.
Brilliant - 20 min narrative summarising hours of lectures on the subject
It’s so mind blowing it’s difficult to wrap your head around. If there are multiple universes then those universes must be in some kind of common space bubble themselves what would that space called? Is it possible that there is more beyond that as well? Where does it end? Is it possible that those bubble universes are part of some bigger structure which we can’t even comprehend as yet?
I think it's called 'The Bulk'
Amazing. I saw a excelent vídeo from PBS spacetime about this subject, but I confess that it be a little abstract to me and i could not understand very well. But you did it. Now, i could understand much more. For sure, when i watch that vídeo again, I will understand much more. Thank you!
I really loved this video. I want to thank you for your inspirational videos. Not that it is your fault, but I see your perspectives more clearly when I view us/matter sinking into space which in turn creates space which affects all matter, from the direction and speed of a pitcher's curveball, to the insulating characteristics of earth to the cold of space, including the expansion of the universe. It is easier for me to envision our physical matter universe, the way you explain it, when I see space created additionally to the expansion of the universe. Like digging a whole in space and magnifying time dilation. Again, thank you for your time and efforts.
Thank you I have been trying to find the theory for this idea for ever!!!!
If Eternal Inflation is true, and the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is also true, then there would be an infinite number of multiverses, and within each multiverse, there are an infinite number of universes. Mind blown.
Yes
No. Just a singularity. Stop lying
Another great video Arvin
In high school i have done ample half-life calculations, but with out ever wondering which “half” is decaying! I wish I had asked my teacher that question. Thanks Arvin for introducing me to quantum-uncertainty!
AMMAZING VIDEO ASH!!👍👍👍👍
Hey Arvin, thank you for such an amazing presentation. I always enjoy watching your videos where you make complex science so simple.
I have a thought, on which I'd like to know what you'd say. When a bubble is formed, it moves apart from one another or the space between them expands making these bubbles move apart. So, is there any chance if at all these bubbles collide with prior bubble or not? Also, if at all these collide, what would be the outcome? Will it cease to exist or could it be, that there can be a possibility for an worm hole to exist.
Thanks Arvin great video
To me, The Many Worlds Interpretation was always the best explanation. To me, it is the best way to bridge General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.
To paraphrase Einstein, I just cannot accept that "God plays dice with the 'universe' ".
great video like always! loved it!!!
This video is more significant than we ever imagined
very interesting, arvin
I have always heard that particle colliders can reproduce the energy levels of the very early universe. How can this be if *all of the energy* was in a small space in the early universe? How can just a fraction of the energy in our particle colliders come anywhere near that much energy?
For instance, a Google search says that there is 10^53 kg of mass in the observable universe. To get energy I multiply by c^2 which gives me 3x10^61 Joules, which then converted to eV is 1.9x10^80 eV.
But in the video at 11:33 it says the energy at the Big Bang is 10^24 eV.
Are my calculations incorrect?
Edit: it occurs to me, too, that the number should be even larger than what I calculated since not all the energy at the big bang would be in the form of mass.
Average energy over a given area, not the total energy
Yes calculations are incorrect try using a formula to make you understand
I thought this channel got closed... Did not received notification from youtube for past 2months... Good to see your channel still on 🙏
Others have said the same thing. Not sure why you're not receiving notifications.
This timeline from copernico until today was awesome!
Keep Up the good Work Arvin💪
In the end, we'll never know!
I never thought about this. Very interesting, thank you
Can you please do a video regarding the “Great Attractor” I heard about it somewhere and wonder how it all plays a role in this expansion, hurts my brain!!
A beautiful illustration of multiuniverse can be see in the last scene of the movie "Men in Black I". Fascinating indeed.
Hey! I bet you are the best explainer in science category. Thank you for the great works!
May I suggest some video ideas?
Of course, anytime.
Have learned a thing today!
Looks good Arvin. Got me thinking, if the fundamental constant of light speed is allowed to vary between inflation collapsed universes, would they inevitably overtake or overlap each other?
Do you mean if speed of light is different in the space between universe, then could we detect them? Unlikely since the speed of light would not change in our universe, but I will add the caveat that we would need to understand the overarching laws of physics that is constant in the multiverse. It is possible that there is some loophole there that allows this kind of communication. Or, as I pointed out in the video, Wormholes may be able to connect two different universes - but again, this is a stretch is unlikely to be realistic.
@@ArvinAsh I think the gravity is the clue for all the mysterious of the universe
If you go faster than the speed of light (at least in our universe), then you will go backwards in time. Let's hope that it's not the case for the other universes
I meant if "c" varied by universe, and it is faster than inflation speed in one of them, could that one overtake and envelope other universes with slower than inflation c constant?
@@Thezombiekiller06 you get that inside event horizons. Might there be universes inside event horizons/black holes?
At 10:34 you had said that we will never be able to detect a different universe directly.
Maybe that's not the case because what if a part of eternal inflating field stopped inflating which have many universes in it. Since, that part is no longer inflating,we can probably transfer information throughout that big bubble that contains multiple small bubbles.
But if it is still expanding at the speed of light, then everything outside the bubble is expanding faster than you can send any information.
@@harrkev bro my point is that what if a part between two universes stopped inflating?
Then we can technically share information as the gap between us isn't expanding anymore allowing transfer of information.
@@baldevsinghjadon1601 Yes, but then you'll just have one big universe.
@@Anonymous-df8it not necessarily because these parts which stopped inflating are created at different times so each of them is a individual universe.
@@Anonymous-df8it and maybe i am wrong with the time as time can be a stubborn illusion. And we thought its real because we give importance to only physical nature of reality. There must be other aspects of our universe's reality which are beyond time.
If the Inflation stopped at different places at different times, creating many such bubble universes, can 2 or more bubble universes form so close that they collide ? The consequences will be really interesting (possibly dangerous too)
The answer to that is yes. It's possible for two universes to form so close (and the distance between them would have to be microscopic) that they collide. There are a few patterns in the cosmic background radiation that might be the result of a collision, but they're currently only at about a 95% statistical significance, which is not high enough for a new discovery in cosmology.
How awesome is this video ❤️
If we cannot glean information from outside of the observable universe, how did we determine or reach the idea that this is the average inflation rate (and therefore leading to the idea of multiple universes)
Arvin has entered the realm of philosophical rubbish if you ask me...
By looking at the expansion rates of objects we can observe, and extrapolating that to assume other parts of the universe we observe, likely behave the same way. Light, or electromagnetic energy, is our central medium of existence. There could be places between universes, where electromagnetism is limited. Gravity causes such an effect, and lenses light around massive stellar objects.
To consider the influence of dark matter, the mysterious gravitational pull from unseen matter, this is a possible explanation.
Excellent video! Thank you.
Thanks for such a nice video. But I have one fundamental question. We say there might be multiverses in empty space. But what about the space, is it infinite? Does this empty void used to exist as it is forever? Can we say that space is just as it is nothing can define its existence? I hope you can also make one video about this metaphysical question.
Cosmologists love infinities. So, if the multiverse exists, then there logically must have been an infinite number of them in the past, and an infinite number of them in the future. Given that it is expanding very, very fast, and started an infinite amount of time ago, then these infinities are the only option. If you exclude a creator, then you exclude a first cause, so everything pretty much has to go on forever, leading to infinite everything.
But don't worry. The odds are that you are a Boltzman brain, and will be dead in a few seconds. Look it up. It makes NO sense, but logically must be true given that everything is infinite.
This was really deep and informative 👍🏾👍🏾
Can it be possible that inflation is 'the' mechanism that produces the locality principle? I mean, before inflation, every point in the space was connected, hence they were close to each other. When the localization process started, many of those links broke so that only the local links survived, hence the universe seemed like it was inflated. This explains the source of energy for inflation, too.
Arvin has gone over to the philosophical rubbish camp now...sad.
@@michaelfried3123 No sir, its not rubbish. It is a new theory. Let me give you a link: ruclips.net/video/IC1mvWOZUBE/видео.html or you can search for George Musser....
beautiful explanation, thank you
Of course there was no beginning and there will never be an end...
"The more insignificant that we ever imagine " Wow.
What causes the bubble to stop to rapidly inflate and to just expand? Could that be gravity? What I am thinking is, when the bubble appears as a single point in the inflating "multiverse inflation field", maybe it just keeps inflating _with_ it. Until something happens, i.e. gravity emerges - which then slows down the inflation. Similar to how gravity keeps galaxies together while the universe still expands.
The standard theory (simplified greatly) says that the inflation field was in a false vacuum at very high temperatures. It quantum tunneled to the true vacuum. This released the energy in the field and resulted in inflation.
Enjoyed that. Be well.
Wow. That theory has a lot going for it and patches a lot of holes in BBT. My immediate first question is then: how does this relate to the condensation of matter - does this also explain that? Does the energy come from the "freezing" of the inflation field? As in, the energy which was powering the expansion gets dumped into our spacetime as that expansion halted locally - like how slamming the breaks on a vehicle transforms the kinetic energy into heat and other forms. Or are there other candidates for that energy from somewhere else?
Good question. The first video explains that better here: ruclips.net/video/q5dy-NtVeF0/видео.html
@@ArvinAsh philosophical rubbish. let's get back to real science please...
@@michaelfried3123 I’m inclined to agree, but I wouldn’t put it in such harsh terms. I’m still trying to understand the connection (if there is one) between this concept and the ontological domain of science.
As Brian Greene has observed, our brains evolved within the bubble of our universe, and even our greatest minds cannot comprehend quantum mechanics.
@@MendTheWorld I don't think I was harsh.
@@michaelfried3123 science is a philosophy. So I don't understand what is your point. I guess you could present an argument, instead of only making a statement. But do you have a good enough understanding of science and philosophy to do this.
Great video.
Once again, an absolute wonder to gain knowledge via Arvin!
Question, Arvin: if space is expanding faster than the light, does it mean speed of light is not the speed limit of the Universe? Wouldn't this--I don't know if it's fact or theory--may change many assumptions we now have even towards Quantum Theory itself!
Speed of light is the upper limit WITHIN spacetime, but it is not the maximum limit of the universe or the multiverse.
@@ArvinAsh Am I to understand that this concept has a connection to science? It doesn’t seem that way to me, assuming science is constrained by what is observable, measurable, demonstrable, and verifiable. I’m not trying to be difficult. Just trying to reasonably constrain the ontological domain of science.
Great video Arvin, does that mean there may be other bubble universes that permit the existence of monopoles? And the thing that always gets me with constant creation theories is where does all the energy come from?
Makes sense space is infinite... Dark energy is perhaps thermodynamic, everything is just cooling off to reach an equilibrium.
Multiverse populated with various stages of expansion leaves the possibility of bubble edges temporarily nearby each other. Expansion zones between may temporarily reverse.
If 9:10 happen around two bubbles, with enough time 7:25 will happen also since inflation has stopped. Is that right? Great video!
Good stuff
This is of the usual brilliant standard of this channel. I have two very naive questions. One is what determines the point at which one "universe" becomes separare from another. Iget that the space is expanding but is there some "frontier" at some point? (I did say these questions were simple!)
Secondly is there still room for the Everett many worlds interpretation of QM, within each universe? Worlds within worlds eh?
Thank you. Great questions! Like radio active decay, where the bubbles form would be completely random. We wouldn't be able to predict it in advance. Yes, Everett interpretation could still hold. And indeed they would be worlds within worlds as you pointed out. Sounds crazy, but that's what the equations seem to be telling us!
I think that theoretical physicists say that there are about 5 different types of Parallel Universes. One type proposed by Hugh Everett is Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. If not true scientifically, I believe it to be true philosophically or de facto. What interests me and many others is, is this Universe infinite? I would say yes. that beyond Our Observable Universe , the Universe probably goes on infinitely. As a Thought Experiment ask yourself: If you could be located at our 'present Edge of the Universe' what would you see? I think you would see another Observable Universe very similar to what we see from here!
@@ArvinAsh Thanks Arvin. I suppose I was really asking about what happens after they form ie given they are separate in space at what point doers one universe "blend into" the other if you see what I mean. Or perhaps that is a meaningless question as there can be no communication between universes because of the speed of light limitation?
@@martifingers There is no blending. Each is isolated from another. However, they probably would share some of the same overarching laws of physics.
Hi Arvin. Greatly appreciated work and effort
I would really like it if you made a video about solving the bohr atomic radii
Thanks!
I think you mean this video? ruclips.net/video/fP2TAw7NnVU/видео.html
Very interesting concept. I’m just wondering, does the creation of these bubbles cost any energy in a way? Or does the energy in those bubble universes come from pure energy ultimately from the ‘first’ big bang? In that case, wouldn’t the total amount of energy be drained by the creation of the bubble universes and eventually run out? So not infinite universes right?
The total net energy for the universe is zero. The “negative” energy of gravity exactly offsets the other positive energies (mass and energy). Creating a new universe therefore doesn’t cost any energy. Alan Guth referred to it as the “ultimate free lunch.”
Very awesome to see this comment. Thank you 🙂
@@Rob02138 Hey, is that you? Jk.. nice comment Love the name.. En Lil=In air,
Annunaki Anu=skyfather na=on Ki=Earth
@@Rob02138 Gravity could not exist in the early universe as mas could not exist, either. Matter has mass - but matter means structured and condensed energy. It cannot exist over certain limits of temperature. And the temperature of the early Universe just after the Big Bang was above that limit. So one cannot speak about negative energy (the existence of which is only a theory not a fact, by the way) when there is no matter and then there is no mass, either.
Enlil below has an interesting point, but the "free lunch" idea although I like it myself, is not necessarily true. It is not accepted by all physicists. But Energy conservation, on a untiversal and multiverse scale may not actually be conserved. I will have a video on that in the near future.
Arvin I'm waiting for the video about ion thrusters
Great video! As a fellow lover of big questions, multiverse is as "big" as it gets.
Indeed!
Maybe,
@David - please, where did you get the 'I Stand With UKRAINE' badge thing? I try to debate the Russian propaganda trolls & would like 1 myself
@@alwaysdisputin9930 Hi, I just found it with a Google Image search and took a screenshot.
@@David-di5bo Thanks. Glory to Ukraine!
The Inflation theory was created to explain the smoothness of the energy distribution we see in the universe, but why would we expect the universe before inflation to be unevenly distributed? It seems just as likely that the universe could have started out very smooth and therefore not need inflation.
Great way of explaining what I have tried to understand for the last few years. You know, instead of "What is north of the North Pole" and so on. I really enjoy watching and learning, keep it going Mr. Ash! Great stuff!
I love your videos in general, but my favorites are the ones describing quantum mechanics. Could it be possible that you do a video describing electron dynamics of third generation solar cells vs first generation, and another comparing electron dynamics of lithium ion batteries to solid state batteries
Thanks for your videos
I found your channel and your work is great, you got a new subscriber from Italy.
Ps: thank you for the english subtitles, is a great help for 'not mother tongue' like me, grazie !
yes
Seems pretty unlikely. I'm doubtful inflation even existed in the first place though.
Scientific consensus says it’s correct
@@ny3793 I'm aware of that. The consensus opinion isn't always the correct one in the end. I'm not saying it's definitely wrong though, just that I'd bet a small amount of money that it is.
The fact the fundamental constants of the universe are so inelegant always makes me think that we will never truly understand the universe until we can somehow make them elegant. The answers are in math that we haven’t yet discovered.
I think you meant to title that "The multiverse HAS to be real"
Well, everything in science is always under scrutiny, so I nor anyone else should make that kind of absolute declaration. But I get what you mean.
@@ArvinAsh It's just that it seems the odds are stacked in favour of there being a multiverse. Any other conclusion is too much of a coincidence IMO.
In that infinity of universes there are, with probability one, infinitely many realizations of ourselves suffering the reality of existence. A nightmare indeed.
I thank you very much for your work
The way to get your head around any of this is to comprehend that the physical world itself is just the equivalent of a flat panel TV, only 3d and very convincing. The math and geometry that create and host our 3 D world is where they multiverses exist just as when you have a DVD movie the opening credits, early scenes, middle and ending scenes are all on the disc already, its just the laser that makes its way through the Data and brings the scenes to life with motion and sound. For for our universe replace the laser with consciousness.
Exactly how I've been picturing reality. Thanks.
This stuff is fascinating 🤯
Excellent!!!.
Good video
This decay idea is fun. Thank you!!
Best ever video on this subject!
How do we know that the expansion was exponential? All the models I've seen don't seem to be exponential but could possibly be logarithmic.
As it seems the expansion stopped being exponential at some point, so during exponential expansion what was the doubling time? And when did it stop? Or are we in a period of exponential expansion with a very large doubling time?
Thank you.
Arvin You are So Cool and these contents are well Organized ,Thank you for generating sparks in this curious Mind 💖 🔥
Very informative and easy explained video on this mindboggeling topic! Thank you. I do have a question though... How does this theory relate to the discoveries of JWST, which seem to find too many, too big galaxies in the early universe? Our inflation started 13.8B years ago, and those galaxies were around from before that? If so, I can sleep sound again... 🙈
These galaxies would not be before that time frame. They may be found further away than 13.8 billion light years, but this is because space has expanded exponentially during that time. The visible universe is actually about 92 billion light years wide.
@@ArvinAsh Oh, ok. Not that I could grasp my head around that information, but ok... 🤭 So what does that mean? Is the calculation of "our beginning" 13.8B years ago, wrong? How does the JWST findings reject the Big Bang Theory, but still "allow" the Eternal Inflation Theory? If the galaxies found 13.3B years ago, being too many and too big, doesnt that affect the EIT aswell?
So the universe was born, exponentially expanded, slowed down, then sped up again? And considering the enormous amount of time it has to continue accelerating, won't it eventually reach that initial speed?
That's not it. The base state is constant exponential inflation. At various points it stops as the field moves from a to c on the graph overcoming b. I believe it's quantum tunneling that allowed point B to be overcome and move to C on the graph. For 10-³⁶seconds inflation continued exponentially in our bubble the stopped. However because of quantum imperfections in the field some parts will continue on in exponential inflation which will spawn more bubbles and more inflation field in-between the bubbles.
this hypothesis basically says the multiverse consists of other unknown dimensions that behave like dark energy.
Mindblowing. Thanks.
AMAZING!