What Was There Before the Big Bang? The Big Romance.

@Hocksman

22 күн бұрын

Well played hahaha!

@Allen-eq5uf

16 күн бұрын

The big foreplay

@annalorree

14 күн бұрын

You mean the Big Netflix and the Big Chill?

@PhunnyMunny

11 күн бұрын

Little foreplay, big bang

@VibratorDefibrilator

10 күн бұрын

Or... an eternity of foreplay.

Your intro is perfect, a quick tease and straight to the topic after a couple of seconds. I love this channel

@badassat69

Ай бұрын

Yes, this video is a masterpiece.

@manicmadpanickedman2249

Ай бұрын

Obviously it goes on forever because now is no different From then because we are always occurring at half way in time but the weird thing is that there is more time before you than after you because of a weird quark Time is experienced forward into the past technically Because you were never alive, that means you can't technically die so if you're not dead, that must mean rebirth You don't perceive the moment of death, which means it must be shed like snake skin... And something else weird I have a hunch that what is really happening is that the event horizon is what is seen /were space is free from form because it hasn't been yet created and is pulled into a pillar of space time Any ways I belive the core of the star that caused the black hole is moving backwards in time Compressed from all sides evenly by gravity perfectly spherical so the star shrinks away from our side and ends up going back in time through space so slight drift occurs and and when the star breaks its connection because as it gets further before time than it's effect will diminish over time thus singularity is all occurrence You're looking into somebody's head that exists in a lower dimension you are a black hole in a higher dimension Critical mass.... out of all the stars in the universe one star could potentially have to perfect mass that it is the critical mass it rings like a bell as in it explodes in both directions while all the others fall in

@smlanka4u

Ай бұрын

Hypothetical cosmic inflation is a joke. Big Bounce is realistic.

@manicmadpanickedman2249

Ай бұрын

@smlanka4u hence rings like a bell and central time as in you are in the middle of an eternity .. like a 💍 your the gem Including the projection angle 45° Obviously, we aren't able to be real because you can't get something from nothing unless you have a false vacuum .. It's pitch, and it's void, but there is this strange, almost fluid like essence almost like an energy resonating in potential 🤔 Time can't move without an observer So we are the embodiment of time. Infinite in one aspect but totally non-existent in the other aspect because what you believe i would say that is probably the most likely thing that you would get a potential energy from in quantum bits as where else would you gain principle Causality and(or) potential ... other than from an observation or experience resolved by intuition and to conclude from the math .. so when you no longer see the machine in other lives than you have finally ⁵½²

@manicmadpanickedman2249

Ай бұрын

@@smlanka4u s

No one on KZread able to explain this kind of complicated information easily like you, you deserve to be funded.

i love how you talk about all models and theories no matter how unlikely they are. it’s my favorite part of your videos. get all perspectives on each topic you bring up.

@Ezekiel903

25 күн бұрын

Yes, but he forgot to mention why matter and antimatter suddenly stopped annihilating themselves in this quantum fluctuation, because only then could a universe begin to form.

@mhughes1160

25 күн бұрын

Because people will believe anything but the truth. So goes the saying It’s easier to lie to someone than convince them that they have been lied to

Great video and looking forward to the Starmus festival in Bratislava! :)

Best topic to make video upon 🙏🏼 thank you so much 🙏🏼

Awesome video as always Arvin! Keep going!

Brilliant, love it, Arvin is legend!

@majusmanmne

Ай бұрын

He truly is. This world 🌎 has talent man!

Hi Arvin, Let me extend my compliments to your unprecedented research work. Plus the communication skills that you have, truly stupendous !

Excellent as always. Thanks mate. 🖖😁🇦🇺

Your talks are eternally and infinitely fascinating.

Excellent video, Arvin. 👏👏👏👏

Before the big bang, there was young sheldon

Thank you Mr. Ash, great video ! Greetings from Brazil, right now !

Great video, once again Arvin!

I love and enjoy your teaching style Arvin, thank you.

Great video!

The third hypothesis is the nothing-pothing-mothing model. Nothing vibrates creating pothing(positivenothing) and mothing(minusnothing) for a very short period of time. Then pothing and mothing recombine to form nothing again. And so on. Sometimes, when two neighbouring pothings are formed simultaneously, these two pothings combine due to attraction and will form a nonvisible entity of gravity (we call that dark matter) leaving the two mothings behind. These two mothings will drift away and form more space (we call that dark energy)

@jybrokenhearted

7 күн бұрын

This is like how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

@johnrap7203

7 күн бұрын

If that is not sarcasm...

@Rancid-Jane

7 күн бұрын

@@jybrokenhearted All of them.

Gotta love Arvin!!!

Thank you Arvin ,like always very informative clip

Once again, a fantastic video capturing our uncertain reality. The graphics are truly mind-blowing. Amidst the awe, one pressing question arises: At the inception (just before or at the moment of the big bang), was there only energy or a mix of energy and fundamental particles? Grateful to anyone who can provide insight 😊

@rogumann838

Ай бұрын

From what we think today: at the very very start the temperature literally was too high for the fundamental particles to exist! So that would mean that there should only be "energy" at the exact beginning. As to what form this energy was in I'm not sure, but we usually say that photons are "pure energy", so if thats true then maybe there were only photons and then when it cooled fundamental particles (matter particles) started to form. Remember that these extremely early times are not very well understood, and are still subject to some speculation.

@katalyst4stem

Ай бұрын

@@rogumann838 thanks for the answer this was exactly my thought process as well

good video thanks. that Heisenberg guy though. I'm uncertain about him.

@Gelatinocyte2

Ай бұрын

Willy Wonka? ... Walter White?

@live_free_or_perish

Ай бұрын

🙄

@petrovtiganu9904

25 күн бұрын

I like that one 😂😂😂

@rfgiowa

25 күн бұрын

@@Gelatinocyte2woodrow wilson 🤓

Thank you for the video. I'm always curious about it and you explain some of the theories. Fascinating to my mind.

Awesome as always 🙂

I like how our science and understanding completely breaks apart at any singularity.

@cyprianmbelesia2693

Ай бұрын

Let's say our knowledge is incomplete.

@nickowen7406

2 күн бұрын

Our science and understanding doesn't break down at a singularity. Our science is good and it's predictable. We just do not understand singularity since we can't observe it

I always love science videos that have information that i hadn't heard before like that spontaneous universe creation theory

Love ❤️ these videos.

This is a mind bending topic. Potentially so many Universes !

❤ Please make a video about Plank's distances and time. Is there a minimum space-time volume? Is space "pixelated" at smallest scales or theres no minimum limit for space (and time)?

@smlanka4u

Ай бұрын

Big Bounce models don't need cosmic inflation hypothesis.

@jeffreyspinner5437

Ай бұрын

From what I recall, there was an experiment with comic rays that showed that they travelled along the H plank distance grid, like a really fine resolution computer game. They didn't mention the dimension, but showed a graphic of how the cosmic rays never traveled on the diagonals of the grid (like graph paper and you couldn't use anything but the established lines). That's why all the speculation we are just a simulation, imo. We exist in a resolution... A very very small, fine resolution, but something that theoretically can be captured by a super duper duper super computer eventually. At least Musk thinks so too.

@brothermine2292

Ай бұрын

>jeffreyspinner5437 : I'm skeptical about whether an experiment actually demonstrated a planck-length grid. Can you cite the paper's title, year, author, or some other metadata that allows us to find that paper?

@O_Lee69

Ай бұрын

The pictures from galaxies far away are too crisp.

@rogumann838

Ай бұрын

"Is there a minimum space-time volume? Is space "pixelated" at smallest scales" Its quite literally in your own question :D. The smallest space-time volume, which basically makes spacetime itself quantized (pixelated if you will) IS the Planck volume. And this is just the (planck length)^3

I'm really amazed at the astronomers who create these theories just by observation and calculation!

@terrific804

29 күн бұрын

What's amazing is that they make money doing it but can't prove any of it

@uriituw

28 күн бұрын

@@terrific804 Science doesn’t prove stuff.

@Pyriold

28 күн бұрын

@@terrific804 Science only falsifies hypothesis. And the surviving ones are what we call theories. They are all subject to be falsified, but the most accepted ones survived so many attempts that we are comfortable with them. Newton's gravity for example was a hypothesis that survived for a long time before Einstein found out that it's not always accurate. Newton's gravity is still being used all the time, because for most calculations it's accurate enough, but we now know that it is only an approximation that works well in our day to day conditions.

@terrific804

28 күн бұрын

@@Pyriold They will never know the answer to the question why. It's not 42.

@cheddar8213

24 күн бұрын

​@@uriituwall fields of science?

I may not always understand what is said on this channel, but I am still fascinated and watch anyway.

Wow! I did learn a new thing watching this vid! I have watched like all PBS Space Time, all Sabines vids, All Antons vids. And Fermilabs vids. And hundreds upon hundreds of random physics and space vids - and I still got a little something new here. Thank you!

As you noted, though, how physicists define “nothing” is not how philosophers do. The physicists’ nothing presupposes the existence of the Laws of Physics, which enable those particles to pop into existence.

@ArvinAsh

Ай бұрын

Yes, defining nothing is a problem. Imagine what an infinite void would look like. Can you have space without time? Our phsics equations seem to say no. A state with no space, no time, and no matter, or what we imagine to be a "nothing" or an "infinite void" might be an infinitesimally small point.

@AndrewBrownK

Ай бұрын

if "true nothing" excludes even laws of physics, but laws of physics are rules and boundaries like conservation and causality, then true nothing has no rules or boundaries on conservation or causality, and anything can happen from nothing, and then you get a universe anyway.

@cyprianmbelesia2693

Ай бұрын

I think we need to have a definition of "nothing" within the boundaries of spacetime and "nothing" outside the boundaries of spacetime....

@cyprianmbelesia2693

Ай бұрын

​@@AndrewBrownK I concur with this

@antonystringfellow5152

Ай бұрын

Good point! Also, these so-called "laws" of physics, though some may appear complex to us, are really no more than what's possible, what's not and statistical probabilities. In the same way that 2+2 cannot equal 5 or that the internal angles of all rectangles add up 360 degrees and the internal angles of all triangles add up to 180 degrees, something which is pretty obvious when you consider that any rectangle can be divided into 2 triangles, and vice versa. Going a little further, entropy is no more than statistical probability, a concept not difficult to grasp when applied to a simple system (one with few components). And entropy is what gives us "time". At the level of a quantum particle, there is no direction of time. Time emerges as we add more quantum particles to the system - it emerges from the statistics of the number of particles in the system. If you don't understand how this works, time may appear complex, even mysterious. If you do understand how this works, time is as obvious as 2+2=4. Some of these "laws" are obvious to us, others are far from it, but that's all they really are. This is how the "laws" of physics always exist (2+2 will always equal 4, even when there is nothing to count).

Can we please leave String theory behind.

@DrDeuteron

Ай бұрын

I'm getting Spinal Tap energy from this...prolly seeing Brian May in the video.

@Create-The-Imaginable

Ай бұрын

Spirituality is more concrete than String Theory! 🤣 What's your Zodiac sign?

@desiderata8811

Ай бұрын

Sting likes it

@Angarsk100

Ай бұрын

Has it been completely and unequivocally debunked? If not, why should we not pursue all probable solutions?

@iam6424

Ай бұрын

What if string theory is really behind it !

So glad it is behind you, Arvin, however I do miss the beanie 😊

Danke!

@ArvinAsh

26 күн бұрын

Thanks so much!

I really appreciate you using "hypotheses" instead of "theories." It can get frustrating when some scientists aren't as precise with their language. The loose use of terms makes it hard for us, especially when we're dealing with dogmatic folks who try to undermine science.

@mentat1341

28 күн бұрын

god doesn't appreciate this comment

@cillianennis9921

27 күн бұрын

@@mentat1341 Lay off the Fallout Mentats bro they don't make you smart.

@darkoz1692

26 күн бұрын

The title may say 3 hypotheses but he does repeatedly say theories in the the video which is annoying.

@autopilot3176

26 күн бұрын

He wasn't "precise" when he described Big Bang with the nonsense "space exploded/expanded", which is idiotic. Space is just mathematical model, a relational concept, it wasn't involved in Big Bang in any shape or form. Matter/energy exploded. One participant. One force. Everything else effects. Imagine teaching generations of people about imaginary "space" and "time", that 100% don't exist. Universe and physical objects in it don't interact with imaginary constructs.

@FelonyVideos

21 күн бұрын

None of this is a criticism of the video, but none of the science-based theories have as much evidence as the biblical account.

virtual particles popping in and out of existence that in enough time could create Infinite bubble universes - sounds like a variation of the 'steady state' theory. Somewhere, Fred Hoyle's spirit is nodding it's virtual head and smiling.

@melgross

28 күн бұрын

Nothing like the steady state universe hypothesis.

Very good information Sir. Thanks 👍

this was the best video ive ever watched.

Sometime when watching videos like these, my mind tries to wander into the realm of "understanding existence". It's like opening a door into a huge dark room with scary noises I don't understand. I usually get scared and leave that train of thought.

@tonmoysharma5758

Ай бұрын

Yes, same feeling

Well explained.

Holy crap!!! I finally understand the bubble universe. Thank you...

What I can't get to wrap my head around is the "flat universe" thing... In my mind it's always been some sort of a sphere, expanding in 3d, changing that to a flat model blows my mind... Maybe it's even more than 3 dimensions for all we know.

@ArvinAsh

Ай бұрын

"Flat" doesn't mean literally flat like a pancake. In physics, a flat spacetime means that two parallel lines stay parallel forever because space has no overall curvature. If space were like a sphere, then two parallel lines would eventually converge.

@alsmith20000

Ай бұрын

@@ArvinAsh This comment made me realise that lines of latitude on the earth are not really lines, even in the context of a curved surface; lines of latitude are presumably then just circles. The equator is I assume a line in the context of a curved surface but with periodic boundary conditions.

@Gelatinocyte2

Ай бұрын

Basically, it's flat from a 4th dimensional perspective.

@educatedguest1510

Ай бұрын

nobody observes overheated Universe 13.5 billion years ago, thus there was no observation of big bang

@nunyabisnass1141

29 күн бұрын

​@@alsmith20000that's the best way I understand it as well, but it doesn't really help me understand over all, like why that's important in the first place. I just lack too much fundamental education in the field.

I'm so hoping scientist would come up with some major discoveries on the topic during my lifetime...

@jpaulc441

Ай бұрын

I'm sure there will. There are 2 huge telescopes under construction and there will be a flying drone sent to Saturn's moon Titan arriving in 2034.

Brilliant!

U forgot the Simulation theory 😉 Thanks for sharing 👍🏼

Only the programmer will know.

@uriituw

28 күн бұрын

Programmer?

@DonFinley

28 күн бұрын

I’ve programmed stuff… sometimes I don’t know how it works, so there’s that possibility too lol

@samsaini379

23 күн бұрын

@@uriituw he means the one who programmed us

@uriituw

23 күн бұрын

@@samsaini379 What do you mean by that? Be specific.

@JarethGT

18 күн бұрын

​@@uriituwprobably hinting at simulation hypothesis or some form of god.

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but if objects come in and out of existence on the quantum level, does this not point to time operating in a different way on the quantum level?

@calebsingano6273

Ай бұрын

It does 😊

@stefanogandino9192

Ай бұрын

Why would it mean that? The fact that things appears and disappears doesn't mean they go forward and backward in time

@LordandGodofYouTube

Ай бұрын

@@stefanogandino9192 Then what are they up to between disappearing and reappearing? Like I said, sorry if this is a dumb question, for me, it's very hard to wrap my head around.

@stefanogandino9192

Ай бұрын

@@LordandGodofKZread they are up to nothing because they are nothing, they are not real particles but numbers to describe what the quantum field does, and the quantum field is always there. That's why they come from nothing and go to nothing without violate anything

@LordandGodofYouTube

Ай бұрын

@@stefanogandino9192 Thanks. That is going to take some time to sink in here.

Very interesting video.

Arvin - thanks for making me feel even more insignificant. 🙂

WHAT was before the Big Bang?: Another Universe, part of the Multiverse we will NEVER be able to comprehend.

@karelvandervelden8819

27 күн бұрын

You only have to except infinity.

@inertiaforce7846

14 күн бұрын

We're a black hole inside that universe

@efeocampo

14 күн бұрын

@@inertiaforce7846 The Multiverse (only hypotesis that can explain everything) is Eternal and Infinite and ultimately the true, unavoidable, only "God" as the Only Source of everything that exists or we believe exists ! Not an extremely low level, imperfect, human-like "God", a human Concept, "Creator" of imperfect things. A Multiverse (Set of Universes) remains a SINGLE UNIVERSE composed of multiple universes (like ours, which could be inside a Black Hole - who can prove otherwise? -), ETERNAL and INFINITE that is continuously TRANSFORMING or evolving and manifests itself in many, infinite different ways, whatever they are called or perceived by us: Human Beings, Animals, Rocks, Water, Fire, Air, Planets, Asteroids, Suns, Stars, Galaxies, Clusters (of Galaxies), Quasars, Black Holes, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Singularities, etc... The Universe or Multiverse only transforms: It is PURE ENERGY... Remember Einstein's proven equation: E = mc2, which shows that E, Energy, is the same as mass (or what we believe or perceive as "solid" matter) multiplied by the square of the speed of light, a very large number. Or put another way, what we believe to be "matter", what we can "touch" is actually PURE ENERGY somehow interconnected with the rest of the Universe or Multiverse. If you think you can "touch" matter, use an ever increasingly powerful microscope: Body, cells, molecules, atoms... And do you think you can see or "touch" an atom? NO ! It has subparticles: Electrons, protons, neutrons... And do you think you can see or "touch" them? NO ! They in turn include other quantum untouchable "particles" that are elusive... because they are PURE ENERGY! Ask the scientists of CERN Accelerator in Switzerland... It is impossible to prove it because it is and will be far beyond our limited intellectual and technological capabilities, but it does not make sense that the Multiverse or God, however you prefer to imagine it has a Beginning or an End in time... or any physical LIMIT. What can lie BEYOND the "physical limit" of the Multiverse? Well, ANOTHER Universe or type of Universe. That is, we would be facing a new Multiverse. And what could have existed BEFORE the BIG BANG? Well, another Universe or Multiverse... And once ours cools down (which is what is happening with ALL the stars burning their limited nuclear energy source) and perhaps it WILL COLLAPSE into a SINGULARITY or Black Hole and then maybe (Who could prove it or refute it?) give rise to another "Big Bang". That is, our Universe is... ETERNAL And most importantly: That Universe or Multiverse is... GOD or "Creator" of everything we observe! A God who does not reward, punish, monitor or "prefer" anyone. "He" does not condemn anyone to suffer eternally in "hell" (which does not exist!). A God not concerned about anyone, much less these imperfect human beings, absolutely insignificant: INSIGNIFICANT for the Earth, in turn insignificant for the Solar System, this one for the Milky Way Galaxy, totally insignificant for a Cluster of Galaxies, and this Cluster, insignificant for the known Universe and perhaps for a Multiverse, which is the most likely "thing" that exists. So, forget all those fears or feelings of "guilt" (of WHAT?) that you learned or were brainwashed since you were a child, convince yourself there is NO afterlife (where to?) because all of our cells DIE and desintegrate into dispersed molecules and then "atoms" that eventually will disperse randomly and help create, combined with others, new stars that will in turn "die", collapse and explode as super novas releasing new atoms to create new stars...and... ENJOY your LIFE... or "delusion" of life... or whatever it is...👍 !

1. Not only are the laws of physics (quantum mechanics) _something_ (not nothing), so are the quantum fields described by quantum mechanics. So what was the origin of the laws and fields? 2. A fourth possible explanation involves a causation-defying time loop, where the far future is also the distant past. Unlike the "bouncing universe" hypothesis Arvin described first, the time loop hypothesis doesn't propose an infinite past or a finite-but-vast past. Whether or not a time loop is more paradoxical than an infinite past or the origin of a vast past seems to be a matter of personal taste. 3. Beyond the big bang singularity, thar be dragons.

@wmpx34

Ай бұрын

I think that was Penrose’s idea, that if you allow the universe to expand long enough, eventually it will become completely homogenous; and once there’s nothing moving through space anymore, time loses its meaning. And that essentially recreates the conditions that led to the Big Bang. Something like that, I’m sure I’m glossing over important details

@mw9297

Ай бұрын

Reality isn’t real. It’s a simulation from the quantum realm. Beyond the simulation is more simulation. The simulation is all.

@darrennew8211

Ай бұрын

@@SoffiCitrus Nah. It's called Cyclic Conformal Cosmology. Look it up on Wikipedia for the idea. It's not really all that far out if you can deal with infinities.

@Bill..N

Ай бұрын

It IS a brow rubber friend, but I think causal time loops are more of a philosophical consideration as opposed to a scientific one.. I think of it as philosophy or metaphysics given that it is not only unfalsifiable, BUT if true, would falsify ALL logical considerations like naturalism, the scientific method of information analysis, and much more.. A rather dubious idea in my humble opinion, peace friend..

@radovan_mladic

Ай бұрын

@@darrennew8211 I never heard that Penrose said far future is also the distant past. He says that universe forgets how big it is. Is that the same thing?

This is marvelous work!! I tend to agree more with the last hypothesis of a pre-existing spacetime (the quantum fields) which is the background of all matter and interaction

A late comment, this has/is always a question I dwell on. This discussion provides a theory/perspective that brings "hmmm" to forefront. Appreciated as always. Watch regularly and happy to see the skin cancer issue from a few years back has been cured - hopefully.

I wonder why physicists who talk about other universes always say that those universes would have their own laws of physics? Isn't it possible that there are multiple universes, but all have the same laws?

@ArvinAsh

Ай бұрын

It's possible, but if they begin with a singularity, then even slight variations in initial quantum fluctuations would made each universe unique. It would be kind of like a fingerprint.

@98593le

25 күн бұрын

Because scientists need a way to explain the precision and design of this universe that allows us to exist. So they need to have a "theory" that proposes an infinite number of universes where one like ours (that is clearly designed) is simply a mathematical certainty. I.e. give a monkey and a typewriter infinite time, he'll produce Shakespeare.

@jakegerstein

24 күн бұрын

​@@98593le This is the exact right answer.

@Legend-mg2ry

16 күн бұрын

@@98593lewhat about the fact that over 99% of life that once existed on this planet are now extinct? Doesn’t sound “designed” to me.

@grine6966

15 күн бұрын

@@98593le Bro... if the universe was designed it woudn't be a possibly infinite universe but a small planet with a tiny sun orbiting around it. It's like creating the whole solar system just to have somewhere on earth a 20L aquarium with shrimps inside, a big waste of time and energy. So no, it's clearly not designed

Arvin, you've made a mistake. You said the the universe is homogeneous because it looks the same everywhere you look in space. That's not homogeneity, that's isotropy, which has been observed experimentally. Homogeneity, on the other hand, cannot be observed experimentally, it's a philosophical assumption.

@ArvinAsh

Ай бұрын

They are similar concepts. Homogeneity means that there is no preferred location in the Universe. That is, no matter where you are in the Universe, if you look at the Universe, it will look the same. Isotropy means that there is no preferred direction in the Universe. That is, from your current location, no matter which direction you look, the Universe will look the same. Our universe is both. I suppose I could have been more technical, and explained this more fully, but that was not the central point of the video.

@Faustobellissimo

Ай бұрын

@@ArvinAsh It's not a matter of being technical. You gave a wrong definition of "homogeneous". Also, you are saying "our universe IS both", as if you were sure and had observational proof of this. No, homogeneity cannot be experimentally observed. Only isotropy can be experimentally observed.

@Faustobellissimo

Ай бұрын

@@ArvinAsh Arvin, why is it so hard to admit your mistake? Because your mistake hides a dogmatic stance? Science should show a little humility. Your audience would like that!

@adamcummings20

18 күн бұрын

I agree, there should be a pinned clarification. What I don't understand is how we can simultaneously assume the Copernican principle to turn our isotropy evidence into homogeneity evidence, and also claim expansion speeds vary on extra-observable scales? Sorry if it's a a dumb question.

I’m so glad I watched this sober. This way I was able to understand about 7% of it. Fascinating stuff.

Thanks for this excellent video! I was recently watching a video featuring Roger Penrose discussing his insight about this topic - something along the lines (though I don’t clearly understand it) of the situation around the big bang being equivalent in terms of the impossibility or meaninglessness of measuring time, to the situation near the heat death of the expanding universe, where time itself cannot be measured-leading to a suggestion that the heat death at the terminal stage of the expanding universe is equivalent to a big bang in some way, thus suggesting another type of recurring cycle. I wonder if you can comment on that?

Physics is beautiful but jee coaching in india are making it the worst subject ever no one cares about our existence and universe everyone just cares about getting into prestigious institutions anyway I am trying my best to not to be like everybody else....

@ashred9665

Ай бұрын

IIT sheep

@Anityam

Ай бұрын

Because you r just hearing in layman's language actually physics is very difficult apart from intersting

@shinoraze

28 күн бұрын

I'm so lucky I was never pushed into Indian education system.

@shinoraze

28 күн бұрын

​@@Anityamthat's true. The problem is no one reached the concepts only formulas. Hence physics is tough 😅

@Stefan-jl3oc

27 күн бұрын

You probably wont listen to me but: better DO go there and care about existence and stuff after you finished it. There will be enough time left, and if you care about existence first there wont be enough time left for your prestigious institution. Just saying.

How strange!!!! The word God was not mentioned no even once!!! That is because it does not explain anything, therefore, not needed.

@rogumann838

Ай бұрын

It does explain things to a certain degree, but it just has absolutely no proof so its as unlikely as me saying that the big bang came from the fart I did 2 minutes ago.

@uriituw

Ай бұрын

Is there really a need for that many exclamation points? There’s no need to mention any kind of god. There’s zero evidence that any god has any words.

@jolulipa

Ай бұрын

@@uriituw Exactly! It does not exist.

@thefinerbs7157

Ай бұрын

​@@jolulipaI'm glad you're so sure about that. Of course, it sure will suck when you find out you're wrong

@navinbondade5365

Ай бұрын

The human mind is so smart, creative and intelligent that i feel that God is the laziest and easiest answer for the creation of the universe, disrespecting the shear efforts of words greatest scientists

You Learn me something! Universe one. People zero! Many Thanks Sir!🎈

Very interesting!

God is just a refuge for people who don't want to know more.

@dziban303

Ай бұрын

also a floating mass of pasta

@prawnmikus

Ай бұрын

A god. I like Kali.

@Coolie-High

29 күн бұрын

OR God is a refuge for humans that can look past their own arrogance of knowledge as he teaches us to look beyond just logic and common sense in understanding the U-And-I Verse.

@dziban303

29 күн бұрын

@@Coolie-High what're you smokin

@uriituw

29 күн бұрын

@@Coolie-High The notion of gods are for the intellectually lazy.

Always fun speculating on how the our universe came into being. I'm glad you stressed these hypotheses are extremely speculative as our knowledge of physics breaks down at that point.

oh man!! my curiosity is expanding far far more than the universe, faster than light.

Love me some Arvin Ash

Thanks Arvin for explaining these concepts to physics fans like me who are not trained in physics. The section on Eternal Inflation was the first time I understood it conceptually, esp. the reason why we cannot interact with those other universes. The thing that boggles my mind most is, where did the laws if Quantum Mechanics come from, if they exist even without space and time? Also, is Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology not mainstream enough to be included as a 4th hypothesis in this list?

Just finished reading Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe From Nothing" (for the 2nd time). To me, Arvin just summarized the book with 3rd Hypotheses and really clarified it for me. Thanks!

Fascinating theories! Thank you for making this very interesting video, concentrating on unproven ideas!

Great presentation. I'm a firm believer in the Eternal Inflation hypothesis. It does show us how miniscule and insignificant we are and how little we could ever comprehend. To that end, I believe JWST actually gave us a peek beyond out "Universe" and makes us wonder.

Thnk you so much! I'm baffled: How did I understand in a 17 minute video something I spent years trying to get?!

Really great video. You altered my thinking on these questions. If we came from nothing, there's a lot more nothingness out there for others.

So easy to understand and immagin that this is possible.

I did enjoy the video

The cyclic universe hypothesis was described in Lem's "His master's voice" (it's the old SF book, not science paper though).

The Bang Big!

The 3 body problem novel's 10 dimensional take on the universe is fascinating

Could you make a video about the hidden variables (those that are supposed to consider the probabilistic world as deterministic)? Thanks.

@ArvinAsh

26 күн бұрын

Indeed, I have a video coming out next month on that.

Good time to watch this is at 2am.

Hi Arvin, great Video as always. I personally believe in another possibility. 1. black and white holes grow the volume by r^3 when mass is added. This could explain the accelerating expansion of our universe. 2. the mass in the known universe is in the range of a black hole 3. inflation is just necessary because we have the strange assumption, that the universe comes from nothing. Why that? Why is the starting point an ideal singularity and not a practical one that is a little bit bigger already? 4. the starting point could be a practical singularity as we assume based on ART for black holes. This would lead to another multiverse approach with mother and child universes. 5. imbalances like matter vs antimatter could be leveled out across a multitude of universes. Would love to see the arguments why this hypothesis is not working.

Sir can u make a vedio explaining big bang in connection with rising entropY

Nice video and topic Arvin Ash, thanks! 😉 We are now (finally) discovering that our universe is a holistic cyclical process... There is much evidence that our universe renewed itself after the end of the last cycle of existence of the previous universe (the collapse of matter). We are now slowly but surely realizing that our gigantic universe today once consisted of several smaller universes that later all merged together. This is exactly what can explain the different expansion speed (Hubble tension) in different parts of the cosmos. The very early universe was a completely different world with a different time sequence, lightning-fast mergers and star formation processes. The black holes were also simply different, usually in the form of particularly powerful quasars that formed from huge collapsing gas clouds (rather than as supernovae from giant stars). We first have to explore this completely different world and explain it, which is not so easy when you see a lot of new things but can't explain them. If we then build a space telescope with a view of 20 billion years, then we will have better ideas, but the JWST is also really a great thing... with time comes advice...

As usual your analysis is always interesting. But what I can't understand is that something the size of the universe could have started with something very very small. On the face of it that would seem vastly impossible. Keep thinking!

@ArvinAsh

21 күн бұрын

It might be easier to fathom if you can imagine that all the matter in the universe, that is, all the "mass" that you see around you is, at its core, energy. And energy has no minimum size requirement.

It's like asking what's outside outside, or what happens after forever.

Before The Big Bang there was F.R.I.E.N.D.S and before that Seinfeld and The Simpsons

@christianheichel

Ай бұрын

Seinfeld is still the best

@ArvinAsh

Ай бұрын

Totally agree!

@shethtejas104

Ай бұрын

@@christianheichel I haven't given it a watch (I was born in the 80's) but I have an elderly colleague who mocks me for liking Friends. He tells me Seinfeld is the best. So, I should binge it soon.

@uriituw

29 күн бұрын

Seinfeld is better than any of those.

@shethtejas104

28 күн бұрын

@@uriituw wow another recommendation for Seinfeld!! I am waiting for next vacation when I will binge watch it :)

I could jump onboard with the third speculation, and not just because it's the most encouraging one. It means that we'll all live again.

@steveg1961

Ай бұрын

Except there is an infinite variety of variations, even in infinite time, such that it is exceedingly improbable that another universe absolutely identical to ours would ever exist again. And even then, it wouldn't be you, it would be a physical copy of you.

@ironDsteele

Ай бұрын

@@steveg1961 And that's fine- there's something, not nothing.

I like the way you talk and think, so im gunna assume you are the real deal and not an ai youtube production. yer the best out there mate, well done

'For anything to exist, that which is eternal must by necessity be'. I realised that when I was about nine after loosely digesting Newton's Principia Mathematica.

Really enjoyed it . thanks. If before the big band there was quantum mechanics and virtual particles were fleetingly coming into existence and then disappearing, does that imply that quantum fields could have existed? Do we think that QFT predates big bang?

The sudden brief expansion then stop is kind of like a phase change or crystallization event. Remember space itself is not limited to the 'speed of light'.

I have to watch this video again! My limitations. It went OTH.

05:50 - The Universe did exactly as you implied, for many "iterations". With the added principle of "ongoing creation of matter", that "contraction/expansion" cycle would take more and more time - until it "fell" on the "other edge of the knife " and became the first "stable" and "accelerating" Universe.

Trying to work out what happened before time began (BB), is a bit like trying to remember the future..

@mw9297

Ай бұрын

It’s possible, I can do it.

@darrennew8211

Ай бұрын

It's nonsensical. There is, by definition, nothing before time began. There's nothing that can cause time to begin, because the cause would have to come before effect. Time has always existed, and there was never a time when time didn't exist, by definition.

Love your videos. Could be that the expansion of space is continually happening in other galaxies or universes from a tiny singularity. There is no before because it’s continuous. It just happened that 14 billion years ago it was our turn. Could be that all singularities in black hole are future big bangs.

It would be like a picture turned into a movie by motion so time would likely be proportional to expansion and flow at different rates keyed to expansion of the universe.

The third idea has some flaws - the combination of 'probability' with 'no *before* spacetime'. It’s easy to see why physics breaks down at or before the initial singularity, when probability is some measure of the occurrence of an event, in space or time or spacetime. The likelihood of producing a universe either becomes absolute or nonexistent, as the occurrence can be stacked to infinity or countered by an array of unknown factors with infinite possibilities.

Another straightforward (and similarly untestable) hypothesis is the Simulation Hypothesis, in which the big bang was someone hitting the start button on the sim. Regardless, I think science is going to have to get beyond its need for all things to exist on the same timeline. I think we're beginning to see it is not so simple.

Still think it's a interdementale osmosis mechanism that idea is both beautiful and practical where mater plays the role of energy storage and its decay feeds back in to the system. Also a kline bottle feeds in to its self. with out considering higher demental principles as the mechanism for the up to down stream effects of states of matter and energy they clearly can't have a practical solution. It's how you would have a arc of dissequallibrem in a interdementale system.

Just before the Big Bang… there was a sound… I seem to remember… it went something like this: ‘Whoooooopsie, Aw, dang! Lookout everybody!’

@dalemartell8639

13 күн бұрын

It was hold my beer and watch this!