It's so satisfying to be able to understand the concepts and theory debated: and that is thanks to Alan who can present a fiendishly complex mathematical subject into 'simple' language. 💯👏
The problem with inflation, which one would never get from these interviews, is that there isn't any proposed or evidenced mechanism for it. Essentially what Guth did was, upon wondering about why, for example, the temperature of the universe is so uniform (i.e. regions that are too far apart to exchange heat are nevertheless at the same temperature), realize that if the early universe went through a brief period of extreme, hyper-expansion (i.e inflation), it would account for the inexplicable uniformity. The problem is there's no evidence of or even a proposed mechanism for this. You may read about a hypothetical gauge particle called the inflaton which is the hypothetical mediator of the inflation force, but there's no evidence that such a particle exists or ever existed. It's really just a generalization of the observation of uniformity across the universe. Kuhn creates the impression that it stands on much firmer ground than it does. You should check out Sean Carroll's views on inflation. He's also a theoretical physicist and has been interviewed several times on CTT. He doesn't believe in eternal cosmic inflation. I think his views provide some important perspective on what the actual standing of Guth's inflation cosmology is amongst physicists.
Inflation is the result of the billionaires siphoning 99% of the world wealth into their control which relegates billions of people to suffering in horrifying squalor without a decent place to sleep, without nutrition, without a decent bathroom, without clean drinking water ... with nothing but torture and torment ... While billionaires collapse economies - they seize control of the real estate, mansions, high-rise buildings, shopping malls, thousands of homes ... on and on and on their evil goes.
The fact that dark matter doesn't interact with light means it existed before light and the big bang! It's pre-existing fluctuating density was the initial effect that pooled the primordial soup after the big bang. Inflation and the accelerating expansion we observe now are both merely illusions caused by an undiscovered force of nature we have yet to detect and understand! More than likely a force and/or field that can't be predicted by mathematics. Our greatest fault is our belief that zero is a number because it's not. In fact there is no such thing as zero but clearly its this that is directly related to our greatest unanswerable question, how can something come from nothing? How could the ultimate zero become the number one? It can't because there is no such thing as zero which means there is no such thing as nothing, there was always something and there will never be nothing!
U misunderstood. Big bang not only produce matter or particle, but also produce space and time. So it is impossible for matter exist without or before space and time. And yes, dark matter also produced by big bang.
This excerpt is too cool. As one who has tripped from being a steady state fan, I find his recitation delicious. Ha, ha, no matter how 'ya look at it, he's right..., somewhere...
It is the most fundamental question of all. Thank you to our host and guest of stature. Associated with that question: what “triggered” the Big Bang and why? And, obviously, what pré-his-history before that?
@@richburmond6761 I don't think you've watched enough of his episodes then. He's constantly trying to smuggle in deity where there's no evidence for one. He has the old "I don't like this idea so it can't be right", "this doesn't sit well with me regardless of the evidence" "I prefer a caring universe even in the lack of evidence" kinda attitude. Before visiting theist people first prove the deity to show its even relevant to the discussion.
When was this recorded? Guth's current thinking is that the universe is probably eternal into the past and has no beginning. He said it in so many words in an interview in Scientific American, and he pretty much said it in your video titled "Alan Guth - How Did the Universe Begin" which was posted before this one (although somehow both he and you look older in that video than in this video).
I wish we could go back to the solid state model. Simpler times. Taking it on a slightly different level--you wonder how much of our 'understanding of the universe' is just a reflection of our culture at the moment. It doesn't really matter to those of us living, a half-dozen decades or so of years and we're gone. Solid state, eternal inflation, it's just a bunch of words we created to describe something that has no real bearing on our lives. It's a story, a myth, of our time. We pretend it's some high learning, some great intelligence, but we're just spinning yarns with PhD book language.
Mathematics does not ‘prove’ anything. It is only a human-invented method of measurement. As such, it can only comply with whatever we pretend to ourselves is worthy of measuring.. spaceandmotion
Finally an honest answer. Yes, it did have a beginning but we don't know how. Even admits they say eternal but don't really mean eternal. Nobel prizes are not given for honesty is why he doesn't have one.
I'm pretty sure that his thinking has changed. He said in a Scientific American interview that his thinking is that the universe is eternal and there is thus no beginning to explain, and in another Closer to Truth video he said that his thinking is that entropy increases from some arbitrarily small value as the arrow of time goes both forward and backward.
So, whatever happened to the issue with the age of the universe when we found stars and galaxies that were seemingly older than the universe itself? I asked my astronomy professor about this, and he said, " the universe is probably much older than the mainstream approximation, it depends on how you measure it." I am still confused. It is a fair doubt, that the mainstream science community seems to throw issues like that under the rug. 😔
You're confused. There were never "stars and galaxies" found to be older than the universe. There is precisely one star, colloquially referred to as "The Methuselah Star", whose age is uncertain, but its oldest possible age is older than the oldest possible age of the universe per current measurement techniques and estimates. In my experience, most cosmologists tend not to give very good explanations for this embarrassing indication that there is a deep problem with current age estimates; the universe can't have stars in it that are older than the universe. The standard 'answer' to this is to say "Ignore the age estimate range for the star that is older than the age estimate range of the universe", which is not a satisfactory answer at all. Obviously there's a fundamental flaw in current measurement techniques.
Shean, the "scientists" make it up as they go ... they've been exposed as lunatics because their IQ's are uploaded online by Psychologists, the GPA's of most "scientists" include C's in Chemistry, C's in Geology, C's in Physics, C's in Calculus, C's in Astronomy, etc., since most "scientists" do not graduate from highly-selective universities like Oxford and Cambridge, since most graduate from low level institutions with minimal entrance requirements - like in Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Georgia, Arkansas, Texas, Iowa ... you get the idea ... Astrophysicsts exposed themselves as idiots when they claimed the sun is the primary driver of climate change while the Arctic and the Antarctic were warming up faster than any other region on Earth ... even though they get the least amount of sun ... so how can they warm up faster than any other region if the sun is the primary driver of climate change and equatorial regions get the most sun? It gets worse ... since climate forecasts from the IPCC have been wrong - year after year after year - since forecasts from Al Gore's fake experts have been proven wrong, since "professor emeritus" Guy McPherson admits forecasts from his calculations were wrong, since Michael Mann was exposed as a fraud in court, since several geologists were exposed as frauds by federal investigators, since this includes the Director of the USGS, since NASA and NOAA have been exposed for withholding data, altering data and fabricating data ... won't be long before the gullible public clues in to what's going. Since the timeline for our broken and subducted tectonic plates is documented in historic records, theories of pangaea, continental drift and continental collision are exposed as preposterous nonsense, since the massive water erosion across the continents and islands is also detailed in historic documents, theories of ice ages are exposed as insanity, since the timeline for the stratified layers of the Grand Canyon are also documented in historic records, their claims of "millions of years ago" are obliterated, since the timeline for the Siberian and Deccan Traps is documented in old records, since the eruption of Yellowstone and dozens of other supervolcanoes are recorded in old records with the exact date - in different languages - by people more than 16,000 km apart - and then corroborated by observers who witnessed the on-going horror - since thousands of other eruptions of smaller volcanoes occurred that same night across five continents, since the timeline for our oceans, mountains and continents is also documented in old records - written in Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Latin, Greek, Arabic, He.brew, German, Russian, French, Dutch, etc., the "scientists" are exposed for the lunatics they are. Since the word "science" comes from the Latin meaning "knowledge" while "scientists" have mostly theories - or more accurately unsubstantiated claims, adolescent guessing games, and juvenile wild imaginings while they proudly brag about the noble course of "uncertainty", to realize the dumbed down, drugged up, poisoned, programmed and gullible "scientists" are mindless sock puppets lured into the sewers of hell where they're gasping for breath, deep down in the labyrinth of lies is to run for your life from those with the mind of schizophrenic child.
There so many theories that scientists ignoring., we currently don't understand time, gravity, black holes, big bang, vacuum, turbulence., etc and so many basic stuff.. World looks like so modern and advanced these days but it's not. We are way behind in science stuff on universal scale.
This universe is just one out of infinite universes. It is a small part of Existence. Existence has no beginning, no end, no creator. Existence is infinite.
The universe is NOT one of infinite universes nor did it always exist. First, there is no such thing as infinity in material reality. It is an abstraction only. Consider, if you started counting now and continued on for gozillions of years, what would that last number be just before the next one was infinity? As you can see this is an idiotic notion that infinity can be reached by any entity or process of entities. If there were other universes created like Guth proposes, this happens in sequence, though there could easily be multiples at one time. But they could never achieve infinity in number...EVER. Look at the very expansion of the universe the expanse of which is claimed by many scientists to be infinite in its expanses. What is expansion? It is the progression or increase in value or number in quantifiable increments. How can this ever achieve infinity? For those who claim a bouncing or cyclical universe, which Guth does not....how could an infinite universe collapse to form a singularity to then expand again if it is infinite in scope? If you had an infinite number of rocks and took away a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, you would still have infinite rocks. An infinite universe could never collapse. In the cyclical universe theory in which it is proposed that the universe always existed and is just expanding and collapsing to expand and collapse again, ad infinitum, it is claimed that there is an infinite line of these iterations of the universe going back in time. Can this be? No. If there were an infinite like of them then this one in which we are, positing these notions, would be the segmentation of that infinite line. Were we to consider it for the sake of arguing the point, we would first have to admit that the theory depends foundationally on sequence, I.e., that this universe was preceded by one and that by another and so on for infinity which is what makes it “sequential”. Deny sequence and you deny this entire theory right off. If we look back down this line in the only way we can, backward in time, we would see the infinite line STILL being populated by these iterations of the universe BUT BACKWARD because as shown above, an infinite line or volume CANNOT BE FILLED BY QUANTIFIABLE ENTITIES, such as these universes. This again destroys the sequence and thus the theory. So, we know that the universe could not have always existed as proposed by those who embrace this theory. The includes Penrose’s theory which is cyclical but slightly different. An ever existing universe would almost have to be cyclical so this issues should be put to bed. As for Guth’s nonsense about the multi-verse, IF there were these pocket universes by means of the cause he proposed, we would see them now. He has claimed that were one sufficiently close we would so that is not speculation on my part. Consider, if these monopoles which produce the repulsive gravity existed, and they might, and were present in the volume of the mother universe which expanded to become the observable universe, EVEN if at the very boundary of that volume, were to have expanded in inflation to cause a new “pocket” universe, its center would be taken away in the expansion of our mother universe but it too would be expanding in kind and its boundary would remain for the most part, stationary in the mother universe as the pocket universe expanded. We see none of this which means that for the bulk of the time in which all of existence existed, this never happened. It would have had to have happened only after the bulk of the 14 billion years had passed. So how is it that when it is almost impossible that even one formed, that this guy thinks that there are infinite pocket universes (which he should know is not possible in any circumstance)” So I think you need to rethink your comment and position on this stuff.
@@Val2073 At least he tries to explain and use arguments. Unlike you who just blatantly made a claim - Nay, several blind claims about the physical and metaphysical, ignoring scientific data and philosophical rationality, and thrn called it a comment.
Infinity is abstract and impossible in time and space. Scientific data shows it most probably had a beginning. Scientific data (2nd law of thermodynamics) also shows that the universe is headed to an eventual end.
If universe is space yes off course there is beginning of universe is the dimension outside the space ... no there is no beginning.. because there is no time .. time is something special belongs to our space because has limited energy which is spending as time .. more energy we spend we spend more time .. so in universe there is no time .. but we can’t think non existent of time that’s why we can understand.. but when you think and believe if there is no time .. what is the beginning or ending ? Forget time than you will never ask this question.. because no time no beginning no end .. because endless energy ... as soon as energy used immediately replaced as if it’s not used at all ..
Isn't it obvious that the very beginnings of a physical universe began outside its physical reality, it is the one that is above it, with its own consciousness and laws defined as it pleases? The physical reality is a mere manifestation of it ( that includes consciousness and laws of physics as we know it, but is more of a subset/ subordinate to the actual non-physical reality ). And it is thus impossible to explain from this reality ( with physical examples and models ) as to why exactly things have started out of nothingness, and we can only hypothesize as of why it all started. Though my own opinion to this would be very simple - because it can and ultimately do whatever it pleases to do, and it is by and large beautiful.
No., I think universe don't have beginning. It's just exist and universe also don't have any end., the begging and ending., these are just terms in our consciousness. There is no such a thing like beginning and end in universal scale.
Since the timeline for the appearance of the stars is documented in numerous independent historic records, theories of the "scientific community" are exposed as idiotic nonsense - you're free to believe in the guessing games of imbeciles, morons and lunatics - or you can do the research - if or when you should ever develop a conscience.
Can't it be that the universe has been expanding and will be expanding for ever? And that it follows that there was NO contraction and therefore NO BIG BANG?
@@b.g.5869 you are correct. Sorry I didn't mean to say that. I meant to say if the universe has been expanding forever then if you extrapolate into the past, you will never reach tge point of the big bang since you can extrapolate into the past forever
@@PAULsteki It sounds like you're describing the "steady state" model of cosmology. This idea was popular in the 50s, but the discovery of the cosmic microwave background ruled out this as a possibility. We know beyond any reasonable doubt that our observable universe had an incredibly hot and dense early epoch, because a steady-state universe wouldn't have such a CMB, much less one as uniform as the one we observe. Inflationary cosmology can "save" the steady-state model in a way. It does this by making the steady state one of inflation in the greater universe --which can be thought of as a uniform, possibly infinite, rapidly expanding space. When this state of rapid expansion ends in a region of the greater universe, a hot big bang happens in that region. This model of inflationary cosmology is, of course, entirely hypothetical. We need far better measurements of the CMB to have a chance of confirming or refuting such models, not to mention a physical mechanism for inflation itself.
Considering that there are pocket universes going forward in time, and our observable universe is part of one such pocket universe; can pocket universes be extrapolated backward in time, with our pocket universe coming out of a previous pocket universe?
Math not necessary. Just ask Yourself, if You can imagine that something arises from absolutely nothing. For me, the beginning and the end, are just a change of the previous state.
@@SquizzMe The thing to realize here is that 'nothing' might not be a valid concept. That there always was something. For instance, quantum fields may be eternal.
And of course there is no need to question *"how"* the blind and mindless processes of gravity and thermodynamics were somehow able to cause chaotically dispersed quantum particles to magically coalesce into an unfathomably ordered setting from which life and consciousness could then effloresce from the fabric of that setting. No mystery there, right?
@@jhwheuer Okay then, without appealing to materialism's religious-like "faith" in the magically manifested "laws" of nature, how about you "fill the gap" for us as to how, again, the blind and mindless processes of gravity and thermodynamics were not only able to serendipitously create the perfect source of bio-driving energy and light (a sun), but also create an accompanying orb that has been meticulously equipped with every possible prerequisite ingredient necessary to awaken us into existence? _______
@@rolandmccarthy1780 Just the fact that "lack of knowledge" is never sound as an argument in favour or against anything. It's just a sort of belief that one day one will have facts which he is lacking now.
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. I refer to it as the genesis particle.
Mathematics does not ‘prove’ anything. It is only a human-invented method of measurement. As such, it can only comply with whatever we pretend to ourselves is worthy of measuring..
the chances are we are inside a black hole that exists in another outer universe to our own little bubble, the alternative is a star in a much older perhaps eternal universe went bang and gave us our own little bubble universe, one amongst many.
in the beginning was the wood, in the beckoning was the weird and in the bargaining was the wyrd. history is a load of old bollocks and with regard to inflation - generally speaking - the cost of living is always rising
Emptiness isn't the same as nothingness. But the entire universe compressed to a dimensionless point (a mathematical singularity) wouldn't be 'emptiness' or 'nothingness', and that's not what physicists think ever existed anyway. It's called an error in the equation, a "singularity", which simply means that taken to their logical conclusion, the current equations of physics lead to division by zero, which is the equivalent of a compilation error occurring when you try to compile a software program, indicating a logical error somewhere. The singularity isn't something that actually ever existed; it indicates a fundamental error somewhere in the equations.
@@b.g.5869 . Reason I asked about mathematical solution . Compression is not complete because some how dark matter exists. Maybe the size of Universe is beyond our limited understanding the mechanics involved?.
@@ajg3768 Dark Matter has nothing to do with 'compression of matter'. Dark Matter is a type of matter currently known only from it's gravitational effects. It apparently doesn't have charge. It doesn't present any difficulties so far as imagining all of the universe compressed in a tiny volume. Regarding the singularity, the point again which many people miss is that the singularity isn't physical. It's literally just a mathematical error that our current equations eventually entail. It means there's something wrong. A lot of viewers have this misunderstanding that physicists claim in the beginning, everything was compressed in a singularity. That's _not_ what they're saying. Basically, the equations break down at scales smaller than about 10 to the power of -35 meters (0.000000000000000000000000000000000035 meters). That's super small but it's not a singularity. A singularity is a dimensionless point of infinite density. It's not something that ever actually existed; it's a mathematical artifact that comes out of the equations if you apply them beyond the scope where they are physically meaningful.
@@ajg3768 Of course it's a force; the cosmological constant, and possibly a separate force associated with inflation as well. There's no such thing physically as a singularity; that's why it's called a singularity. It just means 1/0; it's a physically meaningless mathematical abstraction.
True. In the final analysis, regardless of what theory prevails, the universe (or multiverse if you accept eternal cosmic inflation) is just another word for "all that exists", aka "everything", and logically, there can be no 'beginning' to 'everything' because the only way for that to be possible would be for there to have been a time when there was literally, actually 'nothing'; but _actual_ 'nothingness' by definition is _not_ a thing and cannot _actually_ exist (if _it_ existed, whatever _it_ was, it wasn't 'nothing'). It's the same as saying "There was once a time when there was no time, and at this time, the only thing that existed was not a thing and was non-existent" etc. It's the epitome of incoherency. This is a concept that a lot of people can't get their heads around; they seem to think of 'nothing' as a minimalist sort of 'something' that actually existed at one point (like empty space or some such, which of course would not be 'nothing' etc). In some sense there necessarily was always 'something'.
Mathematics does not ‘prove’ anything. It is only a human-invented method of measurement. As such, it can only comply with whatever we pretend to ourselves is worthy of measuring..
@@realestateunplugged6129 “Mathematics does not ‘prove’ anything. It is only a human-invented method of measurement. As such, it can only comply with whatever we pretend to ourselves is worthy of measuring..” - Deduction from Necessity
Mathematics does not ‘prove’ anything. It is only a human-invented method of measurement. As such, it can only comply with whatever we pretend to ourselves is worthy of measuring..
@@baraskparas9559 Truth is pretty harsh most of the time, which explains why we like to avoid it so much.. Our only real problem is that we cannot exist without it..
@@fluentpiffle Maths describes relationships in physics and indeed economics but most senior physicists accept that it doesn't explain what is behind or at the root of the relationship. In other words without a theory of everything the math doesn't outline the cause of the relationship that the math describes and may therefore be inadequate or even erroneous. An example is the strong nuclear force which is supposed to only work at very small subatomic distances. It is much more likely to be the same force as the other 3 but so strong because of the inverse square law.
“Have a beginning?” 🤷🏾♂️ don’t know but to imagine or visualizing 100 BILLION galaxies, including our Milky Way, to be here FOREVER, before & after us, IS hard to imagine in our chimp minds.
Self indeed once seen few particals colied in the sky prob 2 after that a dark cloud came with some spinning small in it and the cloud even moved and some big in it and IT went home nowhere not even few minutes and still think IT looks some how like the univers with bilion years in it
the universe always existed it keeps expanding and contracting their have been eighty cycles so far it will conract again and expand again ancient hindu religion states this fact 2000 years ago
If SPIRAL a start, and the universe attained mature size and density w/in 4/(365)5781 a fraction of history. At the end of the hyper cosmic expansion(cosmic inflation) epoch. (So cosmic expansion/inflation ended at equilibrium between the repulsive force/s and gravity..) 5781 years ago. still pretty old. see Pearlman vs Hubble in SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model.
Is it possible that inflation goes on infinitely backwards and forwards in time from information bits of matter that themselves extend infinitely from whatever source?
I'm not sure what you're trying to articulate with the latter half of your comment, but the truth about inflation is that we know too little about it to really say anything for certain. There are models of it that extend infinitely in time, but there are also models that don't. We really have no idea what the nature of the greater inflationary universe is, its very existence is hypothetical.
Materialists mock Source, creator -- Supreme Good(God). Yet science over time, reveals the nature, laws, metaphysics, physics, photon(Spirit), light, mind(cosmos) of this inevitable quality(God); love, light, spirit, law; thus there is form, from order, out from quality in quantum(quantity; cosmos). What is this law that brings forth order, so tranforming things into shape, giving each thing from micro to macro, the individual characteristics. Fools say science does not prove God. Truth is sience is in God; nothing is outside of God. Everything science reveals is qualities of God and understanding of the Supreme.
I prefer Penrose's theory of eons and singularum infinitum as more plausible, more down to earth reasoning. Plus this theory has a philosophical support in Sartre philosophy of existence, which states that existence precedes ontology (equally remarkable statement as Penrose's). Now, if we remove time from consideration, as we should, all we have is this medusae-like structure of energy. Something that eastern philosophies preached for centuries: their concept of Saṃsāra is closely associated with the belief that the person continues to be born and reborn in various realms and forms. And the law of big numbers: sooner or later an eon will be spawned in which consciousness will emerge. I believe this also has support in theorems of general topology that explain the nature of weakly perfect spaces: Theorem 1: In the class of generally ordered spaces, weakly perfect spaces are one and the only real generalization of perfectness. Theorem 2: The existence of weakly perfect spaces that are not perfect is almost a rule.
This is an old clip from a PBS TV show that has been on and off the air since the year 2000, 21 years ago. Of course Guth was paid for his appearance, but it wouldn't have come out of Kuhn's pocket. Are you under the impression that these are new interviews, or that this is Kuhn's personal RUclips channel? The only videos that are new (or relatively new at least) and produced exclusively for RUclips are the so-called "Closer To Truth: Chats" series, in which you see a clearly MUCH older Kuhn perform roughly hour long Zoom interviews with a single guest. All the others are anywhere from 3 to 21 years old and were made for TV, not RUclips.
I witnessed the beginning if u want to see meditate and instead of clearing your mind ask and keep repeating SHOW ME WHAT IVE FORGOTTEN eventually it will make sense and you should see
No one knows for sure, but I think the universe started as a seed. I love walking through a maize field in its various stages of growth, and wonder how something so tall and so intricate can arise from such a tiny beginning, then ultimately it ages and starts to sag. We are like the the amoeba, on the bacteria, on the insect, on the fly on just one of the corns on one of the cobs. I think there are more.
No. First of all all indications are that there was not a previous universe. But if there was, a star from the previous universe could not survive a 'Big Crunch'. The short and unsatisfactory answer is simply that the ages for the so-called 'Methuselah Star' and the universe are estimates with a significant +/- range of error, so there is a broad range within the estimates in which the star is not older than the universe. This is obviously a very hand waving and unsatisfactory answer but unless and until the reason for the error is understood, that's the best explanation available.
THIS SCIENCE/THEORY=MYTH, NO PROOF/EVIDENCE. THE ETERNAL FACT HERE: DARK IS DARK, NOTHING CREATE NO THING. ONLY LIGHT/ENERGY OF GOD CAN CREATE SOME/EVERYTHING FROM NOTHING. YHWH IS THE ETERNAL SPIRIT, WHO THINK/DESIGN EVERYTHING & MAKING ALL TO BE EXIST/SEEN. IF YOU SAID YOU ARE FROM DARK, YOU GO INTO TOTAL DARK IN HELL. IF YOU BEGIN WITH GOD/JESUS, YOU LIVE FOREVER IN HIS ETERNAL LIGHT/BLESSING! 🙏
MULTIPLE UNIVERSES PROVE GODYHWH! because it reveal/teach that other dimension/time is exist, so God is Exist/Dwell in His own Dimension/Time that can't be seen/reach by human. it also prove Eternity & the Unlimited Power of Endless God, huge universes with no limit BUT still in He's in Control & He can make all those things to be perished forever by His Fire. NOTHING TOO BIG FOR YHWH! & it prove, Existance Without Life/Souls means Nothing, so LIFE & EARTH are exist by design & have purpose for GOD/LOGOS/REASON! & it prove that atheist/scientist are too limited, God is Bigger than science/brain/human! 😉👍 .. GOD/TRUTH IS NOT RELIGIONS. RELIGION & SCIENCE ARE NOT GOD! GOD/TRUTH IS YHWH=YESHUA THE CREATOR & FINISHER OF CREATION! 🙏 ATHEIST CANNOT ERASE JESUS/GOD! JESUS/GOD IS SAVIOUR & FOREVER, HUMAN/SCIENTIST DIE & FORGOTTEN! 💀 WE LIVE& BELIEVE IN GOD/YHWH, WE CANNOT BELIEVE IN HUMAN/SCIENTIST! 😵 .. BIBLE SAID: MATERIAL FROM MATERIAL. HUMAN/FLESH FROM DUST. BUT THEIR IMAGE & SOUL WERE FROM GOD/SPIRIT. & YOU CAN'T CHANGE/AGAINST THAT FACT. Darkness/Nothing cannot create Anything! LOGOS/LIGTH is God Spirit, Power/Energy who create & design Everything/Existance. Material back to Nothing, BUT your Dark Soul will be judged by GOD Spirit/Light=JESUS! DARKNESS BE SEPERATED FROM LIGHT. HOLYFIRE SEPERATE HELL FROM HEAVEN. .. you don't want to find True God=JESUS. you want another gods & you deny The True God. God didn't impressed by your will/effort. you ask atheist & scientist who don't know about God/Jesus at all. you reject Christian scientist & theologian, so you have rejected God/Jesus since long time ago. sure you won't find God Who Save you from Eternal Death! God is not about particle & energy, everything perished. GOD is Spirit & Eternal, Saviour for your soul! but you think you're only material like animal/ape! you've heard/known everything, nothing hidden for you anymore, & you'll got what you want, there'll be No God in Hell where you go! 😢
Only in your imagination, God of the bible is just superstition and nothing more, thats why you need faith because you have no proof, if you had proof you wouldn't need faith.
@@jollygreen9377 nobody knows how the universe started, but saying I don't know therefore God, is God of the gaps The universe ( time and space) physical reality is uncaused and eternal, is uncreated and indestructible, is neither created nor destroyed A cause exists before its effect ,an effect exists after its cause. Without time and space there is no before and after, there is no cause and affect, there is no event A then an event B, without time and space there is no change in the state of affairs, there is no temporal relationship, there is no sequence of events, no temporal succession. That's just one of many theory's If there is a God that created the entire universe and all of it's laws of physics, does God follow Gods own laws? Or can God supersede his own laws such as travelling faster than the speed of light and thus being in two different places at the same time, there are new stars and planets all the time, so to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt you must provide mechanism. ........what is Gods mechanism There may well be a creator of some kind but definitely not the God of the bible, there could be multi universe,our universe could have expanded off a dying universe and when our universe ends another expands off ours in a cycle eternally, energy is eternal it can't be created nor destroyed .There could be a primeval atom, something we know nothing about, a spark of some kind , it only takes a piece of( inflationary vacuum ) the size of a kilogram to start a big bang event and quantum theory permit this to start from NOTHING.
This guy just mixes up everything and it is EASY to see that he doesn't have a clue of knowing what he is saying. Decaying increasing inflation and vise versa, throwing a little bit of half life in the mix, and voila, that is how energy and matter comes into existence ! Expansion or inflation, which are really the same word, is an ACTION on existing matter and not what can create matter OR ENERGY. In fact either of those 2 processes use up energy, and therefore CANNOT create it. The bottom line is this. THEY HAVE NO CLUE WHERE OR HOW ENERGY AND MATTER CAME FROM
I witnessed the beginning if u want to see meditate and instead of clearing your mind ask and keep repeating SHOW ME WHAT IVE FORGOTTEN eventually it will make sense and you should see
Without doubt. Our universe was created by AlMighty Allah(The God) so it has beginning. It was His Will. Only with His Perfect Knowledgeable and by His Powerful able to create the universe as Signs for His special creations Human beings which He shall equip them with intelligent faculty to be His vicegerent, who will be entrusted to sustain the earth on His behalf, to know, appreciate and acknowledge Him as the Only God worthy to be worshiped. Obviously materialism’s shall deny and called Him as ‘God of the gap’. They promised that ‘scientists” who stands the true “Gods of the gaps” of their shall in time explain everything. They may well do BUT by certainty “their gods” will never ever able to create even a single ‘quark’ out of nothing. That shall reduce their so called ‘knowledge’ to only ‘information’! Among them then may come up with excuses that ‘the universe has eternally came to existent naturally by itself. This is only a brute claimed - the naturalists have neither scientific evident nor testimonial from the first mind/person to prove their claims. Unintelligible empty claims that blinds matter from sub-particles/waves can designed, made laws and arranged themselves into the harmonic universes and ultimately to intelligently conscious human beings (whom do not themselves and the pathways they have gone through from particle to their present day existence!) In truth The Almighty Creator - the God has introduced Himself from onset humanity on earth that He is the One the Creator of the universe and the Mankind whom going to be His vicegerent on earth. It has since been followed His appointed Prophets and Messengers and the revelation of the Books of Revelation until the final one The Prophet Muhammad SAW and alQuran. Now the alQuran is the proof in His Words in Human language - Arabic and the universe is His creative language as the Signs of the undeniable Existence of the AlMighty Creator of our universe.
EXPANDING UNIVERSE. IN HOLY QUR'AN ALMIGHTY ALLAH THE MASTER CREATOR Who can claim 1350 years ago that the universe is expanding? والسماء بنينها بايد و انا لموسعون o " And the heaven We built it with power, and indeed, We are the expander " (And We it is Who make the vast extent, thereof ) (Qur'an, 51:47) Until 1931, physicist Albert Einstein believed that the universe was static. An urban legend attributes this change of perspective to when American astronomer Edwin Hubble showed Einstein his observations of redshift in the light emitted by far away nebulae - today known as galaxies. After Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, Einstein called the cosmological constant his "greatest blunder." At around the same time, larger telescopes were being built that were able to accurately measure the spectra, or the intensity of light as a function of wavelength, of faint objects. It is clearly mentioned in Holy Qur'an : " And the heaven We constructed with power, and indeed, We are the expander " (Qur'an, 51:47) Almighty Allah is the Master Creator of the whole universe.He says: Should He not know what He created? And He is the Subtile, the Aware. The knowledge of scientists is very limited and poor to understand the universe! But theirs constant efforts to understand the universe is highly admirable and they are praiseworthy indeed. DR.MOHAMMAD LAEEQUE NADVI Ph.D. (Arabic Lit.) M.A. Arabic Lit.+Islamic Studies) Director Amena Institute of Islamic Studies & Analysis A Global & Universal Institute Donate to promote this Institute SBI A/C30029616117 Kolkata,Park Circus Branch nadvilaeeque@gmail.com Thanks
I like how professor Alan is so humble.
Iam so excited to hear thia discussion , thank you so much for sharing .
Yes he is a rarity.
@@akumar7366 Who are you thanking?
@@b.g.5869 Both of the participants .
Big bang is interesting..an explosion with creative intentions. Interesting.
It's so satisfying to be able to understand the concepts and theory debated: and that is thanks to Alan who can present a fiendishly complex mathematical subject into 'simple' language. 💯👏
The problem with inflation, which one would never get from these interviews, is that there isn't any proposed or evidenced mechanism for it.
Essentially what Guth did was, upon wondering about why, for example, the temperature of the universe is so uniform (i.e. regions that are too far apart to exchange heat are nevertheless at the same temperature), realize that if the early universe went through a brief period of extreme, hyper-expansion (i.e
inflation), it would account for the inexplicable uniformity.
The problem is there's no evidence of or even a proposed mechanism for this.
You may read about a hypothetical gauge particle called the inflaton which is the hypothetical mediator of the inflation force, but there's no evidence that such a particle exists or ever existed.
It's really just a generalization of the observation of uniformity across the universe.
Kuhn creates the impression that it stands on much firmer ground than it does.
You should check out Sean Carroll's views on inflation. He's also a theoretical physicist and has been interviewed several times on CTT. He doesn't believe in eternal cosmic inflation.
I think his views provide some important perspective on what the actual standing of Guth's inflation cosmology is amongst physicists.
Inflation is the result of the billionaires siphoning 99% of the world wealth into their control which relegates billions of people to suffering in horrifying squalor without a decent place to sleep, without nutrition, without a decent bathroom, without clean drinking water ... with nothing but torture and torment ...
While billionaires collapse economies - they seize control of the real estate, mansions, high-rise buildings, shopping malls, thousands of homes ... on and on and on their evil goes.
I never knew Stephen King was an expert in cosmology.
Thats not king.
I think he knows that.
He's not.
The fact that dark matter doesn't interact with light means it existed before light and the big bang! It's pre-existing fluctuating density was the initial effect that pooled the primordial soup after the big bang. Inflation and the accelerating expansion we observe now are both merely illusions caused by an undiscovered force of nature we have yet to detect and understand! More than likely a force and/or field that can't be predicted by mathematics. Our greatest fault is our belief that zero is a number because it's not. In fact there is no such thing as zero but clearly its this that is directly related to our greatest unanswerable question, how can something come from nothing? How could the ultimate zero become the number one? It can't because there is no such thing as zero which means there is no such thing as nothing, there was always something and there will never be nothing!
U misunderstood. Big bang not only produce matter or particle, but also produce space and time. So it is impossible for matter exist without or before space and time. And yes, dark matter also produced by big bang.
Big bang surely not the beginning of universe., big bang is just an one important event in universe.
This excerpt is too cool. As one who has tripped from being a steady state fan, I find his recitation delicious. Ha, ha, no matter how 'ya look at it, he's right..., somewhere...
I like when Dr Khun says "I am in AWE of Alan Guth..." so am I.
How much awe?
Yeah, beginning and end, like our physical body, the stuff-side is just motion, and motion is change.
(Law of Motion)
It is the most fundamental question of all. Thank you to our host and guest of stature. Associated with that question: what “triggered” the Big Bang and why? And, obviously, what pré-his-history before that?
Interesting and worthwhile video.
Alan is a treasure and among top intellectuals for cosmology. You sure know who to talk to. If only you'd really take in what they are saying.
I think he listens very well and always ask proper questions confirming the same doubts as we as viewers have on these 'theories' and such
@@richburmond6761 I don't think you've watched enough of his episodes then. He's constantly trying to smuggle in deity where there's no evidence for one. He has the old "I don't like this idea so it can't be right", "this doesn't sit well with me regardless of the evidence" "I prefer a caring universe even in the lack of evidence" kinda attitude. Before visiting theist people first prove the deity to show its even relevant to the discussion.
When Alan Guth says beginning is he referring to a state of being that came into being? A state that didn't previously exist?
What was there in the "hot dense state", and where did it come from?
When was this recorded? Guth's current thinking is that the universe is probably eternal into the past and has no beginning. He said it in so many words in an interview in Scientific American, and he pretty much said it in your video titled "Alan Guth - How Did the Universe Begin" which was posted before this one (although somehow both he and you look older in that video than in this video).
Lovely person!
Well it's here!
I wish we could go back to the solid state model. Simpler times. Taking it on a slightly different level--you wonder how much of our 'understanding of the universe' is just a reflection of our culture at the moment. It doesn't really matter to those of us living, a half-dozen decades or so of years and we're gone. Solid state, eternal inflation, it's just a bunch of words we created to describe something that has no real bearing on our lives. It's a story, a myth, of our time. We pretend it's some high learning, some great intelligence, but we're just spinning yarns with PhD book language.
Mathematics does not ‘prove’ anything. It is only a human-invented method of measurement. As such, it can only comply with whatever we pretend to ourselves is worthy of measuring..
spaceandmotion
Finally an honest answer. Yes, it did have a beginning but we don't know how. Even admits they say eternal but don't really mean eternal. Nobel prizes are not given for honesty is why he doesn't have one.
I'm pretty sure that his thinking has changed. He said in a Scientific American interview that his thinking is that the universe is eternal and there is thus no beginning to explain, and in another Closer to Truth video he said that his thinking is that entropy increases from some arbitrarily small value as the arrow of time goes both forward and backward.
Closer to Guth
So, whatever happened to the issue with the age of the universe when we found stars and galaxies that were seemingly older than the universe itself? I asked my astronomy professor about this, and he said, " the universe is probably much older than the mainstream approximation, it depends on how you measure it." I am still confused. It is a fair doubt, that the mainstream science community seems to throw issues like that under the rug. 😔
You're confused. There were never "stars and galaxies" found to be older than the universe. There is precisely one star, colloquially referred to as "The Methuselah Star", whose age is uncertain, but its oldest possible age is older than the oldest possible age of the universe per current measurement techniques and estimates.
In my experience, most cosmologists tend not to give very good explanations for this embarrassing indication that there is a deep problem with current age estimates; the universe can't have stars in it that are older than the universe. The standard 'answer' to this is to say "Ignore the age estimate range for the star that is older than the age estimate range of the universe", which is not a satisfactory answer at all.
Obviously there's a fundamental flaw in current measurement techniques.
Shean, the "scientists" make it up as they go ... they've been exposed as lunatics because their IQ's are uploaded online by Psychologists, the GPA's of most "scientists" include C's in Chemistry, C's in Geology, C's in Physics, C's in Calculus, C's in Astronomy, etc., since most "scientists" do not graduate from highly-selective universities like Oxford and Cambridge, since most graduate from low level institutions with minimal entrance requirements - like in Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Georgia, Arkansas, Texas, Iowa ... you get the idea ...
Astrophysicsts exposed themselves as idiots when they claimed the sun is the primary driver of climate change while the Arctic and the Antarctic were warming up faster than any other region on Earth ... even though they get the least amount of sun ... so how can they warm up faster than any other region if the sun is the primary driver of climate change and equatorial regions get the most sun?
It gets worse ... since climate forecasts from the IPCC have been wrong - year after year after year - since forecasts from Al Gore's fake experts have been proven wrong, since "professor emeritus" Guy McPherson admits forecasts from his calculations were wrong, since Michael Mann was exposed as a fraud in court, since several geologists were exposed as frauds by federal investigators, since this includes the Director of the USGS, since NASA and NOAA have been exposed for withholding data, altering data and fabricating data ... won't be long before the gullible public clues in to what's going.
Since the timeline for our broken and subducted tectonic plates is documented in historic records, theories of pangaea, continental drift and continental collision are exposed as preposterous nonsense, since the massive water erosion across the continents and islands is also detailed in historic documents, theories of ice ages are exposed as insanity, since the timeline for the stratified layers of the Grand Canyon are also documented in historic records, their claims of "millions of years ago" are obliterated, since the timeline for the Siberian and Deccan Traps is documented in old records, since the eruption of Yellowstone and dozens of other supervolcanoes are recorded in old records with the exact date - in different languages - by people more than 16,000 km apart - and then corroborated by observers who witnessed the on-going horror - since thousands of other eruptions of smaller volcanoes occurred that same night across five continents, since the timeline for our oceans, mountains and continents is also documented in old records - written in Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Latin, Greek, Arabic, He.brew, German, Russian, French, Dutch, etc., the "scientists" are exposed for the lunatics they are.
Since the word "science" comes from the Latin meaning "knowledge" while "scientists" have mostly theories - or more accurately unsubstantiated claims, adolescent guessing games, and juvenile wild imaginings while they proudly brag about the noble course of "uncertainty", to realize the dumbed down, drugged up, poisoned, programmed and gullible "scientists" are mindless sock puppets lured into the sewers of hell where they're gasping for breath, deep down in the labyrinth of lies is to run for your life from those with the mind of schizophrenic child.
@@WhirledPublishing they aren't scientists. They are Marxists.
@@WhirledPublishing You are a deeply disturbed individual.
There so many theories that scientists ignoring., we currently don't understand time, gravity, black holes, big bang, vacuum, turbulence., etc and so many basic stuff.. World looks like so modern and advanced these days but it's not. We are way behind in science stuff on universal scale.
There are some people that you just listen , no matter if you are religious, materialist or spiritual ...
This universe is just one out of infinite universes. It is a small part of Existence. Existence has no beginning, no end, no creator. Existence is infinite.
The universe is NOT one of infinite universes nor did it always exist. First, there is no such thing as infinity in material reality. It is an abstraction only. Consider, if you started counting now and continued on for gozillions of years, what would that last number be just before the next one was infinity? As you can see this is an idiotic notion that infinity can be reached by any entity or process of entities. If there were other universes created like Guth proposes, this happens in sequence, though there could easily be multiples at one time. But they could never achieve infinity in number...EVER. Look at the very expansion of the universe the expanse of which is claimed by many scientists to be infinite in its expanses. What is expansion? It is the progression or increase in value or number in quantifiable increments. How can this ever achieve infinity? For those who claim a bouncing or cyclical universe, which Guth does not....how could an infinite universe collapse to form a singularity to then expand again if it is infinite in scope? If you had an infinite number of rocks and took away a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, you would still have infinite rocks. An infinite universe could never collapse.
In the cyclical universe theory in which it is proposed that the universe always existed and is just expanding and collapsing to expand and collapse again, ad infinitum, it is claimed that there is an infinite line of these iterations of the universe going back in time. Can this be? No. If there were an infinite like of them then this one in which we are, positing these notions, would be the segmentation of that infinite line. Were we to consider it for the sake of arguing the point, we would first have to admit that the theory depends foundationally on sequence, I.e., that this universe was preceded by one and that by another and so on for infinity which is what makes it “sequential”. Deny sequence and you deny this entire theory right off. If we look back down this line in the only way we can, backward in time, we would see the infinite line STILL being populated by these iterations of the universe BUT BACKWARD because as shown above, an infinite line or volume CANNOT BE FILLED BY QUANTIFIABLE ENTITIES, such as these universes. This again destroys the sequence and thus the theory. So, we know that the universe could not have always existed as proposed by those who embrace this theory. The includes Penrose’s theory which is cyclical but slightly different. An ever existing universe would almost have to be cyclical so this issues should be put to bed.
As for Guth’s nonsense about the multi-verse, IF there were these pocket universes by means of the cause he proposed, we would see them now. He has claimed that were one sufficiently close we would so that is not speculation on my part. Consider, if these monopoles which produce the repulsive gravity existed, and they might, and were present in the volume of the mother universe which expanded to become the observable universe, EVEN if at the very boundary of that volume, were to have expanded in inflation to cause a new “pocket” universe, its center would be taken away in the expansion of our mother universe but it too would be expanding in kind and its boundary would remain for the most part, stationary in the mother universe as the pocket universe expanded. We see none of this which means that for the bulk of the time in which all of existence existed, this never happened. It would have had to have happened only after the bulk of the 14 billion years had passed. So how is it that when it is almost impossible that even one formed, that this guy thinks that there are infinite pocket universes (which he should know is not possible in any circumstance)” So I think you need to rethink your comment and position on this stuff.
@@jamestagge3429 You are not capable of comprehending or accepting.
@@Val2073 At least he tries to explain and use arguments. Unlike you who just blatantly made a claim - Nay, several blind claims about the physical and metaphysical, ignoring scientific data and philosophical rationality, and thrn called it a comment.
Infinity is abstract and impossible in time and space.
Scientific data shows it most probably had a beginning.
Scientific data (2nd law of thermodynamics) also shows that the universe is headed to an eventual end.
@@DexTFT exactly. Thank you for posting that.
this video had shared before I watched it
This is a clip from an interview featured on a television show well over ten years ago.
It's been uploaded to RUclips many times.
@@b.g.5869 ı said for this channel
@@fatihkarakayal2764 😂
Matter and Consciousness are beginingless - Bhagvad Gita (chapter -13).
-Infinite-
Universe is endless. Yogi Sadhguru.
fact
If universe is space yes off course there is beginning of universe is the dimension outside the space ... no there is no beginning.. because there is no time .. time is something special belongs to our space because has limited energy which is spending as time .. more energy we spend we spend more time .. so in universe there is no time .. but we can’t think non existent of time that’s why we can understand.. but when you think and believe if there is no time .. what is the beginning or ending ? Forget time than you will never ask this question.. because no time no beginning no end .. because endless energy ... as soon as energy used immediately replaced as if it’s not used at all ..
Isn't it obvious that the very beginnings of a physical universe began outside its physical reality, it is the one that is above it, with its own consciousness and laws defined as it pleases? The physical reality is a mere manifestation of it ( that includes consciousness and laws of physics as we know it, but is more of a subset/ subordinate to the actual non-physical reality ). And it is thus impossible to explain from this reality ( with physical examples and models ) as to why exactly things have started out of nothingness, and we can only hypothesize as of why it all started. Though my own opinion to this would be very simple - because it can and ultimately do whatever it pleases to do, and it is by and large beautiful.
Who says “things started out of nothingness”?
@@childfreesingleandatheist8899 ALEXANDER VILENKEN POINTED OUT THAT FROM ABSOUTE NOTHINGNESS ARISED SOMETHING QUANTUM MECHANICALLY!
1:21 let's sing along!
If there was a point at which normal gravity started, would this be the beginning of universe?
No., I think universe don't have beginning. It's just exist and universe also don't have any end., the begging and ending., these are just terms in our consciousness. There is no such a thing like beginning and end in universal scale.
@@rohanjagdale97 That doesn’t make sense when you are talking within space-time. Did time have a beginning?
Since the timeline for the appearance of the stars is documented in numerous independent historic records, theories of the "scientific community" are exposed as idiotic nonsense - you're free to believe in the guessing games of imbeciles, morons and lunatics - or you can do the research - if or when you should ever develop a conscience.
Can't it be that the universe has been expanding and will be expanding for ever? And that it follows that there was NO contraction and therefore NO BIG BANG?
Nobody thinks there was a contraction.
@@b.g.5869 you are correct. Sorry I didn't mean to say that. I meant to say if the universe has been expanding forever then if you extrapolate into the past, you will never reach tge point of the big bang since you can extrapolate into the past forever
@@PAULsteki It sounds like you're describing the "steady state" model of cosmology. This idea was popular in the 50s, but the discovery of the cosmic microwave background ruled out this as a possibility. We know beyond any reasonable doubt that our observable universe had an incredibly hot and dense early epoch, because a steady-state universe wouldn't have such a CMB, much less one as uniform as the one we observe.
Inflationary cosmology can "save" the steady-state model in a way. It does this by making the steady state one of inflation in the greater universe --which can be thought of as a uniform, possibly infinite, rapidly expanding space. When this state of rapid expansion ends in a region of the greater universe, a hot big bang happens in that region.
This model of inflationary cosmology is, of course, entirely hypothetical. We need far better measurements of the CMB to have a chance of confirming or refuting such models, not to mention a physical mechanism for inflation itself.
Considering that there are pocket universes going forward in time, and our observable universe is part of one such pocket universe; can pocket universes be extrapolated backward in time, with our pocket universe coming out of a previous pocket universe?
There are?
@@williamesselman3102 He's regurgitating his programming from imbeciles and idiots, morons and lunatics.
Always found this question interesting, but ultimately it always boils down to mathematical speculation at best.
Math not necessary.
Just ask Yourself, if You can imagine that something arises from absolutely nothing.
For me, the beginning and the end, are just a change of the previous state.
@@jareknowak8712 I don't think I could ever subscribe to the idea of something being created from nothing.
@@SquizzMe
So as i.
Wrong. Mathematics cannot explain anything in the 3-dimensional Universe.
@@SquizzMe The thing to realize here is that 'nothing' might not be a valid concept. That there always was something.
For instance, quantum fields may be eternal.
The fist step was to study or try to know all the forces a that exist. FORCES.
Right., specially gravity., such an embarrassing to physics world., we don't understand gravity yet.
And of course there is no need to question *"how"* the blind and mindless processes of gravity and thermodynamics were somehow able to cause chaotically dispersed quantum particles to magically coalesce into an unfathomably ordered setting from which life and consciousness could then effloresce from the fabric of that setting. No mystery there, right?
Nope, no mystery. Just a lack of knowledge, no mysticism needed to fill the gaps with BS.
@@jhwheuer why are you "lack of knowledge" guys so easily triggered?
@@ronrontall6370 what knowledge do you have? Please enlighten us?
@@jhwheuer
Okay then, without appealing to materialism's religious-like "faith" in the magically manifested "laws" of nature, how about you "fill the gap" for us as to how, again, the blind and mindless processes of gravity and thermodynamics were not only able to serendipitously create the perfect source of bio-driving energy and light (a sun), but also create an accompanying orb that has been meticulously equipped with every possible prerequisite ingredient necessary to awaken us into existence?
_______
@@rolandmccarthy1780 Just the fact that "lack of knowledge" is never sound as an argument in favour or against anything. It's just a sort of belief that one day one will have facts which he is lacking now.
No, it didn't.
KRISHNA IS ETERNAL
So, that’s it in a nutshell so to speak.
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. I refer to it as the genesis particle.
So, is he saying that there was a beginning to all existence: both our universe and multiverse?
The universe is being created by me right now. I assume somewhere universe started to expand. The idea of beginning is in human mind.
Human mind, consciousness are most perfect quantum machines., if we don't understand ourselves then we don't understand universe at all.
افضل
I remember asking my father at around age 4 what the biggest number was, and he answered "uncountable"...
The biggest number is 100. Anything beyond that is pure speculation.
@@BugRib No, it's 1. All others are just multiples of it. 😁😨
@@GreaterDeity Or divisions of it...
@@GreaterDeity 😄😄
Mathematics does not ‘prove’ anything. It is only a human-invented method of measurement. As such, it can only comply with whatever we pretend to ourselves is worthy of measuring..
the chances are we are inside a black hole that exists in another outer universe to our own little bubble, the alternative is a star in a much older perhaps eternal universe went bang and gave us our own little bubble universe, one amongst many.
so--nothing is settled or for sure--the beginning and the end is clear as mud.
Wrong: your brain is filled with mud.
@@indrekkpringi you are a denier
Happy seeking people 👋🏼😁👌🏼
in the beginning was the wood, in the beckoning was the weird and in the bargaining was the wyrd.
history is a load of old bollocks and with regard to inflation - generally speaking - the cost of living is always rising
If it’s possible to squeeze “ something “ to the point of total emptiness (universe) . Is there mathematical equation?.
Emptiness isn't the same as nothingness. But the entire universe compressed to a dimensionless point (a mathematical singularity) wouldn't be 'emptiness' or 'nothingness', and that's not what physicists think ever existed anyway. It's called an error in the equation, a "singularity", which simply means that taken to their logical conclusion, the current equations of physics lead to division by zero, which is the equivalent of a compilation error occurring when you try to compile a software program, indicating a logical error somewhere. The singularity isn't something that actually ever existed; it indicates a fundamental error somewhere in the equations.
@@b.g.5869 . Reason I asked about mathematical solution .
Compression is not complete because some how dark matter exists. Maybe the size of Universe is beyond our limited understanding the mechanics involved?.
@@b.g.5869 . Why singularity, universe is expanding. Could be new force.
@@ajg3768 Dark Matter has nothing to do with 'compression of matter'.
Dark Matter is a type of matter currently known only from it's gravitational effects. It apparently doesn't have charge.
It doesn't present any difficulties so far as imagining all of the universe compressed in a tiny volume.
Regarding the singularity, the point again which many people miss is that the singularity isn't physical. It's literally just a mathematical error that our current equations eventually entail. It means there's something wrong.
A lot of viewers have this misunderstanding that physicists claim in the beginning, everything was compressed in a singularity. That's _not_ what they're saying.
Basically, the equations break down at scales smaller than about 10 to the power of -35 meters (0.000000000000000000000000000000000035 meters).
That's super small but it's not a singularity. A singularity is a dimensionless point of infinite density. It's not something that ever actually existed; it's a mathematical artifact that comes out of the equations if you apply them beyond the scope where they are physically meaningful.
@@ajg3768 Of course it's a force; the cosmological constant, and possibly a separate force associated with inflation as well.
There's no such thing physically as a singularity; that's why it's called a singularity. It just means 1/0; it's a physically meaningless mathematical abstraction.
Yes i am the beginning of the universe**********((((((((((((()))))))))))))******(((()))
((!))
Its more about inflation than about begining.
True. In the final analysis, regardless of what theory prevails, the universe (or multiverse if you accept eternal cosmic inflation) is just another word for "all that exists", aka "everything", and logically, there can be no 'beginning' to 'everything' because the only way for that to be possible would be for there to have been a time when there was literally, actually 'nothing'; but _actual_ 'nothingness' by definition is _not_ a thing and cannot _actually_ exist (if _it_ existed, whatever _it_ was, it wasn't 'nothing').
It's the same as saying "There was once a time when there was no time, and at this time, the only thing that existed was not a thing and was non-existent" etc. It's the epitome of incoherency.
This is a concept that a lot of people can't get their heads around; they seem to think of 'nothing' as a minimalist sort of 'something' that actually existed at one point (like empty space or some such, which of course would not be 'nothing' etc).
In some sense there necessarily was always 'something'.
@@b.g.5869
Yes, im with You on that.
I like to call this nothingness a "blank".
"We've been able to prove mathematically that you cannot extrapolate arbitrarily far into the past" - Alan Guth
Mathematics does not ‘prove’ anything. It is only a human-invented method of measurement. As such, it can only comply with whatever we pretend to ourselves is worthy of measuring..
@@fluentpiffle "mathematics does not prove anything" -fluentpiffle
@@realestateunplugged6129 “Mathematics does not ‘prove’ anything. It is only a human-invented method of measurement. As such, it can only comply with whatever we pretend to ourselves is worthy of measuring..” - Deduction from Necessity
If you mixed Jim Cornette and Stephen King.
There is something fundamentally God-like to Alan Guth: an absolute humanity
Huh?
@@b.g.5869 I think that 'huh?' Answers it all. Thank you
@@PaulHuininken Huh?
Energy can not be created or destroyed :/
All you need is an error in the first law off thermodynamics and the infinite, eternal universe becomes more favourable.
Mathematics does not ‘prove’ anything. It is only a human-invented method of measurement. As such, it can only comply with whatever we pretend to ourselves is worthy of measuring..
@@fluentpiffle Harsh but partly true.
@@baraskparas9559 Truth is pretty harsh most of the time, which explains why we like to avoid it so much..
Our only real problem is that we cannot exist without it..
@@fluentpiffle Maths describes relationships in physics and indeed economics but most senior physicists accept that it doesn't explain what is behind or at the root of the relationship. In other words without a theory of everything the math doesn't outline the cause of the relationship that the math describes and may therefore be inadequate or even erroneous. An example is the strong nuclear force which is supposed to only work at very small subatomic distances. It is much more likely to be the same force as the other 3 but so strong because of the inverse square law.
NO
“Have a beginning?” 🤷🏾♂️ don’t know but to imagine or visualizing 100 BILLION galaxies, including our Milky Way, to be here FOREVER, before & after us, IS hard to imagine in our chimp minds.
It's known for a fact that the galaxies have not been around forever, and they won't be around forever.
Self indeed once seen few particals colied in the sky prob 2 after that a dark cloud came with some spinning small in it and the cloud even moved and some big in it and IT went home nowhere not even few minutes and still think IT looks some how like the univers with bilion years in it
"The ultimate theory of the origin of the universe is still very much up for grabs"
the universe always existed it keeps expanding and contracting their have been eighty cycles so far it will conract again and expand again ancient hindu religion states this fact 2000 years ago
Nobody knows
If SPIRAL a start, and the universe attained mature size and density w/in 4/(365)5781 a fraction of history.
At the end of the hyper cosmic expansion(cosmic inflation) epoch. (So cosmic expansion/inflation ended at equilibrium between the repulsive force/s and gravity..)
5781 years ago. still pretty old. see Pearlman vs Hubble in SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model.
Is it possible that inflation goes on infinitely backwards and forwards in time from information bits of matter that themselves extend infinitely from whatever source?
No.
I'm not sure what you're trying to articulate with the latter half of your comment, but the truth about inflation is that we know too little about it to really say anything for certain. There are models of it that extend infinitely in time, but there are also models that don't. We really have no idea what the nature of the greater inflationary universe is, its very existence is hypothetical.
he is just guessing, like the rest of us.
😆🙄 ignorance is bliss
THE BEGGINING OF UNIVERSE IS THE SKIN OF THE GOD CALLED GRAVITY USING A DUST TO GIVE A VISION HER SKIN
Maybe, just maybe, in the beginning, the power of thought was turned on and a dream of infinite potential found form?
Nope
Materialists mock Source, creator -- Supreme Good(God).
Yet science over time, reveals the nature, laws, metaphysics, physics, photon(Spirit), light, mind(cosmos) of this inevitable quality(God); love, light, spirit, law; thus there is form, from order, out from quality in quantum(quantity; cosmos). What is this law that brings forth order, so tranforming things into shape, giving each thing from micro to macro, the individual characteristics.
Fools say science does not prove God. Truth is sience is in God; nothing is outside of God. Everything science reveals is qualities of God and understanding of the Supreme.
Have you met this god?
You seem to know so much lol.
@N RJ have you met this god? What are his/her traits? What does he/she do in their spare time?
How do time and space act during inflation? Does the repulsive gravity have time and space different than general relativity?
I prefer Penrose's theory of eons and singularum infinitum as more plausible, more down to earth reasoning. Plus this theory has a philosophical support in Sartre philosophy of existence, which states that existence precedes ontology (equally remarkable statement as Penrose's). Now, if we remove time from consideration, as we should, all we have is this medusae-like structure of energy. Something that eastern philosophies preached for centuries: their concept of Saṃsāra is closely associated with the belief that the person continues to be born and reborn in various realms and forms. And the law of big numbers: sooner or later an eon will be spawned in which consciousness will emerge. I believe this also has support in theorems of general topology that explain the nature of weakly perfect spaces:
Theorem 1: In the class of generally ordered spaces, weakly perfect spaces are one and the only real generalization of perfectness.
Theorem 2: The existence of weakly perfect spaces that are not perfect is almost a rule.
Jean Paul Sartre's ideas were not scientific. He was basically just an Emo kid trying to be an edge lord.
@@b.g.5869 we all think that your science god is garbage.
I hope Kuhn had to pay for this interview
Why?
This is an old clip from a PBS TV show that has been on and off the air since the year 2000, 21 years ago. Of course Guth was paid for his appearance, but it wouldn't have come out of Kuhn's pocket.
Are you under the impression that these are new interviews, or that this is Kuhn's personal RUclips channel?
The only videos that are new (or relatively new at least) and produced exclusively for RUclips are the so-called "Closer To Truth: Chats" series, in which you see a clearly MUCH older Kuhn perform roughly hour long Zoom interviews with a single guest. All the others are anywhere from 3 to 21 years old and were made for TV, not RUclips.
Universe is expending?
What expand in empty ??
Universe is infinity and dark.
Where empty is expending how empty expand lol ??
I witnessed the beginning if u want to see meditate and instead of clearing your mind ask and keep repeating SHOW ME WHAT IVE FORGOTTEN eventually it will make sense and you should see
“There’s not much to understand here, really” 😂
yeah. What I understand from them is that there must be a beginning. The explanation to why is that won't sink in to my small brain. LOL
Short answer. NO
Im pretty sure he said our universe did have a beginning
No one knows for sure, but I think the universe started as a seed. I love walking through a maize field in its various stages of growth, and wonder how something so tall and so intricate can arise from such a tiny beginning, then ultimately it ages and starts to sag.
We are like the the amoeba, on the bacteria, on the insect, on the fly on just one of the corns on one of the cobs. I think there are more.
Multi-verse is real!
What happens that inflation becomes space-time of general relativity at start of universe?
Since the universe has a basic vibration corresponding to the harmonics of a flute, the big bang looks more like a big band playing a cosmic simphony.
Is that true?!!
Fascinating.
Yes from the remains of the previous universe
Wrong: dummy.
No. First of all all indications are that there was not a previous universe. But if there was, a star from the previous universe could not survive a 'Big Crunch'. The short and unsatisfactory answer is simply that the ages for the so-called 'Methuselah Star' and the universe are estimates with a significant +/- range of error, so there is a broad range within the estimates in which the star is not older than the universe.
This is obviously a very hand waving and unsatisfactory answer but unless and until the reason for the error is understood, that's the best explanation available.
TheYang of 'How?'
is lost without
TheYin of 'Why?'
☯️
Deepity Alert!! "How" and "Why" don't have a 'ying yang' relationship.
Like building triangels out of squres
Well, you can think of a triangle as a square where one side has no length.
@@b.g.5869 add a dimention and fold the square, we can keep imagine things, but we will never know.
THIS SCIENCE/THEORY=MYTH, NO PROOF/EVIDENCE. THE ETERNAL FACT HERE: DARK IS DARK, NOTHING CREATE NO THING. ONLY LIGHT/ENERGY OF GOD CAN CREATE SOME/EVERYTHING FROM NOTHING.
YHWH IS THE ETERNAL SPIRIT, WHO THINK/DESIGN EVERYTHING & MAKING ALL TO BE EXIST/SEEN. IF YOU SAID YOU ARE FROM DARK, YOU GO INTO TOTAL DARK IN HELL. IF YOU BEGIN WITH GOD/JESUS, YOU LIVE FOREVER IN HIS ETERNAL LIGHT/BLESSING! 🙏
MULTIPLE UNIVERSES PROVE GODYHWH! because it reveal/teach that other dimension/time is exist, so God is Exist/Dwell in His own Dimension/Time that can't be seen/reach by human. it also prove Eternity & the Unlimited Power of Endless God, huge universes with no limit BUT still in He's in Control & He can make all those things to be perished forever by His Fire. NOTHING TOO BIG FOR YHWH! & it prove, Existance Without Life/Souls means Nothing, so LIFE & EARTH are exist by design & have purpose for GOD/LOGOS/REASON! & it prove that atheist/scientist are too limited, God is Bigger than science/brain/human! 😉👍
..
GOD/TRUTH IS NOT RELIGIONS.
RELIGION & SCIENCE ARE NOT GOD!
GOD/TRUTH IS YHWH=YESHUA THE CREATOR & FINISHER OF CREATION! 🙏
ATHEIST CANNOT ERASE JESUS/GOD!
JESUS/GOD IS SAVIOUR & FOREVER, HUMAN/SCIENTIST DIE & FORGOTTEN! 💀
WE LIVE& BELIEVE IN GOD/YHWH, WE CANNOT BELIEVE IN HUMAN/SCIENTIST! 😵
..
BIBLE SAID: MATERIAL FROM MATERIAL. HUMAN/FLESH FROM DUST. BUT THEIR IMAGE & SOUL WERE FROM GOD/SPIRIT. & YOU CAN'T CHANGE/AGAINST THAT FACT.
Darkness/Nothing cannot create Anything! LOGOS/LIGTH is God Spirit, Power/Energy who create & design Everything/Existance.
Material back to Nothing, BUT your Dark Soul will be judged by GOD Spirit/Light=JESUS!
DARKNESS BE SEPERATED FROM LIGHT. HOLYFIRE SEPERATE HELL FROM HEAVEN.
..
you don't want to find True God=JESUS. you want another gods & you deny The True God. God didn't impressed by your will/effort. you ask atheist & scientist who don't know about God/Jesus at all. you reject Christian scientist & theologian, so you have rejected God/Jesus since long time ago. sure you won't find God Who Save you from Eternal Death! God is not about particle & energy, everything perished. GOD is Spirit & Eternal, Saviour for your soul! but you think you're only material like animal/ape! you've heard/known everything, nothing hidden for you anymore, & you'll got what you want, there'll be No God in Hell where you go! 😢
Prove it.
Yes it did and the God of the Bible was the cause.
Only in your imagination, God of the bible is just superstition and nothing more, thats why you need faith because you have no proof, if you had proof you wouldn't need faith.
@@Unconskep Faith isn’t blind faith, it’s putting your trust in where the evidence points.
@@Unconskep Do you believe something can come from nothing?
@@jollygreen9377 nobody knows how the universe started, but saying I don't know therefore God, is God of the gaps
The universe ( time and space) physical reality is uncaused and eternal, is uncreated and indestructible, is neither created nor destroyed A cause exists before its effect ,an effect exists after its cause. Without time and space there is no before and after, there is no cause and affect, there is no event A then an event B, without time and space there is no change in the state of affairs, there is no temporal relationship, there is no sequence of events, no temporal succession. That's just one of many theory's
If there is a God that created the entire universe and all of it's laws of physics, does God follow Gods own laws? Or can God supersede his own laws such as travelling faster than the speed of light and thus being in two different places at the same time, there are new stars and planets all the time, so to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt you must provide mechanism. ........what is Gods mechanism
There may well be a creator of some kind but definitely not the God of the bible, there could be multi universe,our universe could have expanded off a dying universe and when our universe ends another expands off ours in a cycle eternally, energy is eternal it can't be created nor destroyed .There could be a primeval atom, something we know nothing about, a spark of some kind , it only takes a piece of( inflationary vacuum ) the size of a kilogram to start a big bang event and quantum theory permit this to start from NOTHING.
@@Unconskep Wow, way too much to read and I’m really not that interested but God exist. Hope you see that one day. God bless my friend.
Does that guy know what he is talking about? Big Bang discovered 1964??? Oh no! Someone help him.
This guy just mixes up everything and it is EASY to see that he doesn't have a clue of knowing what he is saying. Decaying increasing inflation and vise versa, throwing a little bit of half life in the mix, and voila, that is how energy and matter comes into existence ! Expansion or inflation, which are really the same word, is an ACTION on existing matter and not what can create matter OR ENERGY. In fact either of those 2 processes use up energy, and therefore CANNOT create it. The bottom line is this. THEY HAVE NO CLUE WHERE OR HOW ENERGY AND MATTER CAME FROM
Theists : God created universe.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
What do you think crested the universe? " science"
That's stupid belief.
God is.
@N RJ did you witness this? Ffs 🤦♂️
It's funny but what he says at the end absolutely not disproof theists hypothesis , since he says that probably there was a beginning but not an end .
@N RJ did you witness a god doing all those things? Or are you just spewing 💩 out of your lips cause your bored?
I witnessed the beginning if u want to see meditate and instead of clearing your mind ask and keep repeating SHOW ME WHAT IVE FORGOTTEN eventually it will make sense and you should see
I am the Alpha and the Omega! 🤡🥳
No. The universe is infinite in each of the three physical dimensions; time, space, and scale.
“Give me one miracle, I’ll explain the entire Universe” some wise person once said.
Without doubt.
Our universe was created by AlMighty Allah(The God) so it has beginning.
It was His Will.
Only with His Perfect Knowledgeable and by His Powerful able to create the universe as Signs for His special creations Human beings which He shall equip them with intelligent faculty to be His vicegerent, who will be entrusted to sustain the earth on His behalf, to know, appreciate and acknowledge Him as the Only God worthy to be worshiped.
Obviously materialism’s shall deny and called Him as ‘God of the gap’. They promised that ‘scientists” who stands the true “Gods of the gaps” of their shall in time explain everything. They may well do BUT by certainty “their gods” will never ever able to create even a single ‘quark’ out of nothing. That shall reduce their so called ‘knowledge’ to only ‘information’!
Among them then may come up with excuses that ‘the universe has eternally came to existent naturally by itself. This is only a brute claimed - the naturalists have neither scientific evident nor testimonial from the first mind/person to prove their claims. Unintelligible empty claims that blinds matter from sub-particles/waves can designed, made laws and arranged themselves into the harmonic universes and ultimately to intelligently conscious human beings (whom do not themselves and the pathways they have gone through from particle to their present day existence!)
In truth The Almighty Creator - the God has introduced Himself from onset humanity on earth that He is the One the Creator of the universe and the Mankind whom going to be His vicegerent on earth. It has since been followed His appointed Prophets and Messengers and the revelation of the Books of Revelation until the final one The Prophet Muhammad SAW and alQuran. Now the alQuran is the proof in His Words in Human language - Arabic and the universe is His creative language as the Signs of the undeniable Existence of the AlMighty Creator of our universe.
I don't follow any religion. Religion is man-made. But I believe in Eternal Consciousness.
This is idiotic. *THIS* universe "had a beginning." The universe this one hived from may or may not have had a begining.
EXPANDING UNIVERSE.
IN HOLY QUR'AN
ALMIGHTY ALLAH THE MASTER CREATOR
Who can claim 1350 years ago that the universe is expanding?
والسماء بنينها بايد و انا لموسعون o
" And the heaven We built it with power, and indeed, We are the expander "
(And We it is Who make the vast extent, thereof )
(Qur'an, 51:47)
Until 1931, physicist Albert Einstein believed that the universe was static. An urban legend attributes this change of perspective to when American astronomer Edwin Hubble showed Einstein his observations of redshift in the light emitted by far away nebulae - today known as galaxies.
After Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, Einstein called the cosmological constant his "greatest blunder."
At around the same time, larger telescopes were being built that were able to accurately measure the spectra, or the intensity of light as a function of wavelength, of faint objects.
It is clearly mentioned in Holy Qur'an :
" And the heaven We constructed with power, and indeed, We are the expander "
(Qur'an, 51:47)
Almighty Allah is the Master Creator of the whole universe.He says:
Should He not know what He created? And He is the Subtile, the Aware.
The knowledge of scientists is very limited and poor to understand the universe!
But theirs constant efforts to understand the universe is highly admirable and they are praiseworthy indeed.
DR.MOHAMMAD LAEEQUE NADVI
Ph.D. (Arabic Lit.) M.A. Arabic Lit.+Islamic Studies)
Director
Amena Institute of Islamic Studies
& Analysis
A Global & Universal Institute
Donate to promote this Institute
SBI A/C30029616117
Kolkata,Park Circus Branch
nadvilaeeque@gmail.com
Thanks