How Did the First Atom Form? Where did it come from? | Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 тра 2024
- Special offer for ArvinAsh viewers - Go to: brilliant.org/arvinash -- you can sign up for free! The first 200 people will get 20% off their annual membership.
Errata:
12:26 - Helium-3 has 2 protons and 1 Neutron
Background videos:
Fundamental forces: • The Four Fundamental F...
Electroweak theory: • How 2 Fundamental Forc...
Is Big Bang hidden in gravity waves: • How Gravitational Wave...
Cosmic Microwave background: • What Do We "SEE" in th...
Chapters:
0:00 - How many atoms are there?
1:01 - We don't know what happened at or before t=0
3:34 - Cosmic inflation
5:27 - What we do know
8:29 - How protons and neutrons formed
10:41 - How charged nucleons formed
13:47 - How neutral atoms formed
15:24 - How to learn more about atoms
Summary:
Where did the first atom come from? The short answer is the big bang. In the early universe there was an immense amount of energy, The energy condensed, atoms formed. But there's a lot more that happened, which will be explained here.
The big bang is often thought of as the theory explaining the beginning. but it’s not. We don’t know when the universe actually started, or whether it did. Our best theory of the early universe is the standard model of cosmology, We can only go back to one Planck time, about 10^-43 seconds. This is the smallest unit of time that can theoretically exist according to quantum mechanics. We don't know what came before this.
The earliest time we can theorize what happened is around the time of inflation. This is when the universe expanded exponentially from about 10^-36 to 10^-33 seconds after the big bang. The universe expanded faster than the speed of light. This is permissible because there is no theoretical restriction on how fast space can expand. I
The proper way to understand the term “big bang”, is not as some point or object from which the universe started, but as a period in the early universe, when the universe was very hot, very dense, and expanding rapidly.
The theory of the standard model of cosmology is well understood starting at about 10-12 seconds, because the universe at this point had energies that can be replicated in our particle accelerators.
In terms of the forces, gravity separated from the unified force shortly after the Planck Epoch at 10^-43 seconds. The strong force separated at around the time of inflation 10^-32 seconds. But from 10^-32 seconds to 10^-12 seconds, the electromagnetic and weak forces were still united as the electroweak force. The universe probably consisted of quarks and gluons in a quark-gluon plasma. All these fundamental particles were massless, because the Higgs field was massless at this point.
At 10^-11 seconds, the temperature fell to one quadrillion Kelvin. This leads to electroweak symmetry breaking and the beginning of the quark epoch. The electromagnetic and weak forces become separate forces, and the Higgs field gained a non-zero potential, the particles of the Standard Model obtain their rest mass.
The universe is however still too hot for the quarks to combine together to form hadrons like protons and neutrons.
As temperatures cool to1 trillion Kelvin at 10-5 seconds, the quark plasma turns into a hadron gas made of protons, neutrons, and some mesons.
As the universe keeps cooling down, matter antimatter begin annihilating with particles creating lighter particle and antiparticle pairs, eventually ending up as the lightest particles - neutrinos and photons. For some reason more particles were created than antiparticles. If this annihilation were symmetric, then we would have had a universe consisting of nothing except photons and neutrinos.
A few protons, neutrons, and electrons were left over, the building blocks needed for atoms. After the universe was a few minutes old, the temperature dropped below 1 billion Kelvin, big bang nucleosynthesis or BBN happened.
BBN lasts up to the universe at 20 minutes old. The universe had 75% Hydrogen and 25% Helium-4, & trace amount of deuterium, Helium-3 and Lithium-9 nuclei. The universe consisted of 87% protons and 13% neutrons.
Note that at this point in time it’s all ionized nuclei, only the core of the atoms exists - no electrons bound to them. The universe so hot that the electrons could not attach to the nucleons.
#firstatoms
#bigbangnucleosynthesis
The universe was still opaque because the photons that carry light as they interacted with the nucleons and electrons flying around. They were not free to propagate through space. This photon epoch lasts for 380,000 years until the universe cools down to 3000 Kelvin. Electrons can now bind to the nucleons to make neutral and stable atoms. This is called recombination.
Photons were now free to propagate through the universe. This first light of the universe is what we see today as the cosmic microwave background or CMB. This light was released as the first stable neutral atoms were formed. - Наука та технологія
Correction: At 12:26, Helium-3 should have 2 PROTONS and 1 NEUTRON. Sorry, we missed this in editing. Dozens of you noticed this discrepancy. I am delighted that so many of you are "on the ball" and so observant! Thank you for that.
Also, regarding the shape of the "tube," this is just for visualization of the timeline. The universe is not actually shaped this way. The universe does not have any overall curvature, as far as we can tell.
Yes Arvin, clever is one who question himself, than others that only obey !!!
Just out of curiosity, what wavelength would the CMB have been originally? Was it visible light, UV, X-rays...?
Light - Time in it. Seek ...
@@michaelblacktree Gamma I would think. When particle anti-particle collides, it produces two photons of very high energy, in gamma range.
Just noticed it and already wanted to complain ;-) Can't you put some text over it to mark it? I thought this is also possible after uploading a video
The bigger question is what was outside the singularity. Empty space? What is nothing? Infinite amount of time beforehand, but why then?
Yes indeed, that is a BIG question that we don't have answers for...yet.
What is outside of your consciousness?
The question of outside generates a perception that there is a division between the inside and the outside.
To simplify our body is a moebus strip. The inside of our intestin is still outside.
The concept "outside" is a concept ti cut the univers in manageable chunks. It is useful when we find it useful.
There it is revealed that concepts are action. And disappear when not used.
Like denial is an action.
Its effect ceases as soon as it's purpose is done.
The univers was different to the one doing the denial, and thus the univers was diferent.
I am pointing out our responsibility in asking a question.
How ir shapes carves an answer out of the univers.
In a zero dimensional space,
You are that point
To see it you creat space
To articulat it
You are generat time.
How?
Like a bud creats a leaf or a flower or a baby.
By cutting. Carving and unfolding what was never folded.
By forgetting who we are and identifying with puppets we are so fond of. 😻😍😘💗💖💓💕
I’ve always wondered that.
I prefer Sir Roger Penrose's theory's on that.
If Something is Nothing then Nothing is Something. How can Something come from Nothing. That Mirracle Is Trully God✨🙏
The most detailed yet digestible explanation I've heard. Excellent work.
"We don't know"
Yeah easy explanation.
Or what part of the "explanation" was so digestible ?
@@kevinkonig3892 The part where he says, "there was immense amount of energy" - doesn't it make sense to ask where did the energy come from? All these explanations have a time, even if you only refer to it as "t-" All these are language centered - which is to say it has nothing to do with anything "actual" - just modeling of various concepts/theories as explorations using the medium of language, which is yet another layer of distortion - silence by far is the "explanation/understanding" of everything cosmological!!
@@kevinkonig3892 You have the Ying and Yang symbol as an avatar; he is talking about the knowledge and mystery at the same time.
@@balasubr2252
Does it make sense to ask where something comes from if you have no idea what that something is and have never seen it actually never even showed that it has intrinsic properties of it's own ?
I'm not sure but I don't think so.
I find it really annoying if people talk about energy as if it's an entity with intrinsic properties.
Well it's supposed to be model and concept that represent what actually is as closely as possible. I agree that many of them today have nothing to do with the actual but that's not because language is a thing.
If we are not playing semantic games we should be able to handle the distortion layer that comes with language without bigger issues.
But silence is pretty much the opposite of an explanation isn't it ?
And the question in my head is already noise.
@@blekkmark
"Knowledge"
I don't care about peoples knowledge. I don't trust it. I tried to know things and there are only very few things I can truly know so I've got a hard time believing others when they claim they managed to do so.
Might just be assumed knowledge.
Big bang nucleosynthesis was always a confusing thing to wrap my head around. It’s amazing how easily you explained the whole thing without losing any key details.
Really? Then why is he saying that no one know where the singularity came from? ?
@@radrook7584Because that’s true? Anyone that claims to know where the singularity came from is lying
marvellous presentation .For the first time you learned me how was done the "recombination" between electrons and nucléons to form the atoms.
well done !
There is quite a big error at 12:27 where the 'one proton - two neutron' nucleus is labelled as He-3. That is tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. Helium nuclei have two protons.
The dialogue said "helium-3" so it was meant to be 2 protons and 1 neutron but instead showed it the other way around.
@@MusicalRaichu Sure, He-3 means what you wrote, but the dialogue said nothing about numbers of protons or neutrons in He-3. Therefore it can be misleading for those having little or no knowledge about chemistry (youngsters, for example).
@@Kedvespatikus IIRC he said "helium three". Helium-3 has 2 protons and 1 neutron. The video showed 1 proton and 2 neutrons by mistake, which as you point out happens to be tritium.
Yes indeed. Thank you. We missed this in editing. See errata in the description. It should be two protons and one neutron.
@@Kedvespatikus smart ass
Incredible the amount of things which happened in a duration so short we can't even realize what it represents...
As usual Arvin your video is perfect, so humble, your voice is so relaxing, your explanations so clear, your animations are fantastic... I'm french but you speak so well and smooth i understand everything, you are the best of the best Arvin, thanks a lot !
Thanks a ton! I hope the French subtitles help.
@@ArvinAsh i will be honest, they help :)
This is by far one of the greatest videos in UA-cam. Hands down.
I’m a space enthusiast and I have been so since I was little, I have read and watched hundreds of books and videos about space. Hands down this video is one of the most informative, and detail oriented videos I’ve ever seen yet!
Thank you for posting
You cant learn anything from space comic books.
What is space? A quantum field?
Excellent again, Arvin.
It's always so positive and happy to see you've uploaded another video, I really do look forward to each one.
Your modern direction is great! I would also like to see a few additional videos in your older format where topics like currency exchange rates, travel, cost of living, et cetera
This channel deserves more subscribers.
As usual, great content! I'm addicted to your channel and I was so happy to see Sabine Hossenfelder also showing one of your videos on her channel! I love collaboration among great channels!
I have three questions
1. When matter and antimatter annihilate each other and they turns into energy, what happens afterwards? What happens to that energy?
2. If that energy remains in our universe, can they be transformed in matter or antimatter?
3. Like matter or heat, can energy create blackholes as well?
I'll offer my answers if you like.
1. The products of matter-antimatter annihilation are typically bosons such as photons and gluons. Depending on the amount of energy involved in the annihilation including particle masses and kinetic energy, other particles may be created as well. This undoubtedly was the case until the annihilation process resulted in mostly photons being created that were subsequently scattered and absorbed by the sea of hyperplasmic fermions that remained.
2. Energy can in principle be converted between one form and any other. That includes mass-energy, kinetic energy, EM radiation, etc. For example, a gamma ray photon of sufficiently high frequency, and therefore energy, can transform into an electron-positron pair.
3. Black holes are typically the result of a sufficiently dense concentration of mass-energy of matter in a relatively small volume of space, due to gravitational effects. Gravitation, as you probably know, is the reflection of the presence of any form of energy, referred to as "spacetime curvature".
@@kenlogsdon7095 Kugelblitz
For your second question: yes, but it is unlikely. I can recommend one of Sabine Hossenfelder's recent videos where she discusses why decay happens in one direction: ua-cam.com/video/Yff_9c_GlfA/v-deo.html
All good questions, your head is in the right place.
Answer #3: An energy/photon only black hole is called a kugelblitz.
The quality of your videos is astounding! You break things down so well. This is the best explanation of the early universe that I've ever heard. Thank you!
It is really good. 😁
how exactly do you define "the universe"?
You have absolutely no idea? - No surprises there.
@@vhawk1951kl Wikipedia defines "The Universe" as The universe "all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy." I don't have a problem with that definition. So, actually, I do have an idea. My guess is that you have a different definition that no scientific experiment nor theory is able to look into. If so, that's pretty convenient. At any rate, I do have an idea about what the universe is that I'm referring to, hence my comment to this video.
It takes a true master to explain complex info in simple terms.
Incredible video, thanks for doing what you do, these videos are so helpful.
i just love how easy arvin explains things so everyone can understand it.thanks my G...onelove.
This answered a lot of questions I never knew I had! Great work as always!
This video didn't say where atoms came from
@@waterproof4403 9:40 delete your comment before you embarrass your entire family tree
@@sicfxmusic tell me where the universe came from... tell me where did what ever caused the big bang came from? Also what was before that and before that
What was before that too
@@waterproof4403 OK so you are that guy 😂 why are you even watching science videos?
Stunningly clear and brilliantly crafted.... a shame my university professors could not have offered this quality of tuition. I have to ask just how well some these individuals really understood the physics themselves. In hindsight, I have my doubts.
Wow. This is so well explained, thank you so much. Never seen such a clear representation of what these things are and how it might have developed. Still more mysteries and questions than answers, it's all so weird, but this is amazing. 💫💥💫
2:25 - The "LET There Be Light" Moment❗
Arvin, we need to clone you, and make you a physics teacher for everyone! :)
Upload him to a neural link and then again on your smart watch
Just love Arvin's voice and delivery. He's very calm and neutral but he's also clearly very interested in the subject and knows his stuff.
WELL DONE! Excellent graphics !
This man is a REMARKABLE teacher!!!
Great video as usual Arvin….
I know I read about this before but my question is this: when we use theory to roll back the clock all the way to the Planck time at t=10^-43 seconds, there is obviously no standard of time to keep track of these events, so what part of general relativity do we use to tell how far apart in nanoseconds the earliest events were. The Higgs field didn’t exist yet so clocks wouldn’t have worked yet since everything was massless, right? Yet we have solid evidence and theoretical basis for marking these events with these very specific times. How are we able to do this?
Thanks again Arvin, you rock dude.
That's a very good question. Relativity also shows that there is no absolute time, so there is nothing like a standard with which to measure these time frames. 10^-43 just comes from quantum mechanics and is the smallest possible increment of time that can exist mathematically. However, this does not mean that there was nothing prior to this. There may have been, but we don't have a theory to explain it if there was.
10^-43 is a timestamp consistent with our current theories there is nothing to suggest that it is absolute, it is merely an extrapolation back in time as we currently understand it. The same applies to all the time stamps shown,, but perhaps they get more accurate the nearer they are to today. I am not sure that no mass implies no time since energy existed by definition and clearly Physics assumes changes in the energy distribution hence 'local' states of energy which in turns predicates the 'possibility' of time as a sequential measure of 'state' evolution? As for what part of General Relativity we use then clearly it is the part yet to be unravelled :-)
We have to mark these events as before lunch and after lunch.
The Big Bang was the gaseous wind that occured as a result of the build up of wind!!!
Ty so much, i had that question for years and you put it on the best terms possible, again thank you !
For me it's interesting to compare this to the black hole. The theories also stop working there. So maybe there are similarities which could be extrapolated to Big Bang, with the advantage that black holes are existing at present day. Although - any theory of what really happens in black hole will probably forever be untestable...
Keep them coming! I loved the analogy of the speed needed for gravity to capture something in orbit and the cooled down temperature /decreased energy needed for electrons to be captured in a shell around a nucleus. It’s connecting the small and the large, and the currency remains energy.
Well said!
Arvin.. the visuals are outstanding!!!
Arvin has one of best science show on the internet
I just loved this explanation
👌👌
Really, really appreciate the honesty in this video. This is science. He states what we think we know, and clearly states what we don't know yet. SO many questions still regarding what happened in those first few seconds! All the energy of the universe in the size of an orange! And WHY?? What was the CAUSE of the expansion? So intriguing.
U right. Like the video too cos we dont know yet statement. I more interested in WHY too than HOW.
I love how you put the perspective of time passing !After only 20 minutes of cooling 🤯
You tell the big bang amazingly 👏
This is one of the best bit of knowledge I have ever seen. In 6 decades. Not my focus. A pleasant surprise nevertheless. Well done, Arvin.
Arvin, thank you for always captioning your videos! Deaf science nerds like me truly appreciate it!! I have a question: at 7:06 you said that it’s possible the massless fundamental particles may have been the leftovers of some kind of inflation field that decayed. Is this a fancy way of saying the fundamental building blocks of life came from the expansion of space itself? I’d love to learn more about the two theories you mentioned here!
I am delighted that the captions are helpful to you! Not quite - the inflation field would have been made of inflatons, It would be scalar, like the Higgs field. They would have decayed to form the first particles. There is a Wikipedia page on this if you're interested. I am not an expert on it, I only know about it as a possible explanation for the early universe. It would be hard to prove because we would not be able to replicate it particle accelerators due to tremendous energy requirements.
@@ArvinAsh does that mean that the inflation field doesn't exist anymore?
@@Akshaayswaminathan Yes
Great video! Nice summary. I really liked the analogy of the universe being the size of an orange at 10-33s. However, I wish you would have continued the analogy with each phase, how much bigger did it get for each step you described?
Good idea. Didn't think of that.
This channel is perfection.
Best video I have seen yet on the earliest history of the universe! Thank you and well done!
I've seen a lot of explanations of atomic genesis and this is actually one of the better ones. In the very least it doesn't assume anything and correctly states that beyond a certain point trying to reverse engineer reality, we just don't know.
12:35 that's tritium not helium-3!
yep , I think so
This video answered questins I had from another oe of your video's. Thanks.
i'm sincerely loving your videos.
Now let's define a new Era of the Universe: the "Yadda yadda yadda Era" 😀
It's impressive how many things had to happen in just the right way to create a universe that allows for life to exist. I wonder if there are many other universes where things went differently.
Oh Jesus oh god my peenpeen just fell off and is rolling down a pyramid shaped stack of cat food bags
What might had been surrounded around that very first starting point....
What a video... Great work of explanation
Best account ive ever seen I really been enjoying these videos even though I’m in highschool and understand only 10% or so
I'm a computer science major but your videos have given me immense interest in physics. Maybe one day I can solve some of these unknowns. You're my favorite UA-cam channel. Keep up the good work 🙌
"The greatest story ever told", and told the way everyone understands - Awesome video Arvin! I can see you having a cup of tea with Nile DeGrasse-Tyson right now :)
Tyson is a sell out. He lets politics get in the way of science and then as a cop out, he morphs into a philosopher.
the greatest story ever told was god creating the universe in 7 days and sending onto us his only son to be sacrificed for our sins PRAISE HIM!!!!!
@@dr.foxysocks2459 🤭🤣
@@dr.foxysocks2459 you mean the greatest bullshit story ever told.
Super Arvin!!
Excellent presentation.
One question Arwin though not related to video. Why do stuff reflect light. I mean between the atoms there are huge empty space so why dont a wave of light or a photon just go through. What interaction between the atoms (of surface of reflecting material) and photon (or light wave ) happens that reflects back the light.
Oversimplified: When photons contact the electrons of atoms on any particular surface, not all the energy of the photos is absorbed. The photons which are not absorbed are reflected off. These photons are what you see when they enter your eyes.
@@ArvinAsh
Exactly, sun rays. ..photon interacts with the electron in surface of plants leaves moves it further..to combine with different compounds. Then other parts of photon bends back..recoil of photon..
As I still remember..
we are in computer
yes, that's absolutely true
Excellent work
Man, this video answered SO many questions i have held for years about the beginning of the big bang!!...and another big win for this channel is your calm, measured voice commentary, it really makes a biiig difference, other channels voice overs are unbearable, keep up the stellar work Arvin, cannot wait to digest the rest of your channel content!...woohoo!! 🤘🏾😎🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
i didnt even know i had these questions. hahaha this video blew my mind
“We don’t know” and that will literally never change.
Sings, "It ain't necessarily so..." 🎤
God ofcourse. Who made God? Let's make that question a sin lol
Never say never
Not really but thank you for your opinion
"Humans will never be able to fly."
Thanks for your input.
Hey Arvin, can you talk about the density of photons in the Universe? The fact that a star, 100 lightyears away, has emitted so many photons that even 100 lightyears away, at the surface of a sphere 100 lightyears in radius, we are still fully saturated in those photons? The volume of that sphere is incomprehensible, and yet, it's *filled* with photons from that star, and virtually every other in that range, such that we can't move so much as a millimeter left or right without interruption?
According to the interwebs, the average photon density of empty space is around 410 per centimeter cubed, most of which is CMBR, so that sphere is definitely not "filled" with photons
Hmm? We get the conclusion that Scientists are stuck in the rut....and Universities are pouring more and more new Scientists into the Rut, when they should be encouraging these up and comers to find the “Door” in the rut, not just keep looking over it.....To long stuck in this Big Bang rut, one has to suggest!
Are you saying that a photon has a finite size?
My understanding is that photons are not spatially localised entities but exist in a field - in fact they are perturbations in a field that permeates the entire universe.
Photons are Bosons, infinite number of them can be present in one place.
@@minijo4289 Maybe a better than "filled" would have been "present." Photons from that star are present throughout the volume of that sphere. And that blows my mind, haha. The angle between emissions was so shallow that even 100 lightyears away, along the surface of that sphere, they're still essentially parallel.
Amazing explanation
Great job!
I always have questions popping into my head when I watch your videos.
Is it possible for antiparticles to decay/ change into neutrons then into particles?
How do we know that there's not some galaxy or region in the universe made of antiparticles? Would that be possible?
Do you think it would be possible that some force we know today can breakdown into two separate forces?
Hold on, 1 proton and 2 neutrons make up helium 3? Isn't this tritium? Don't we need 2 protons to name anything helium?
Yes, you’re correct. I just noticed it, too.
Yep...we missed it in editing. thanks. See Errata in description.
Brilliant,thanks Arvin.
Excellent explanation - thanks.
The more I hear theories like this make me believe in a creator more and more
If you believe in a creator, you have faith. If you are true believer, no amount of science should dissuade you from your beliefs.
This is called “fitra” in Islam. Every human is born with this “natural inclination in believing a God” but it’s corrupted by the society or the environment we grow up in. I invite you to study Islam and lear more about your creator.
@@ArvinAsh speaking knowledge smd the all knowing is how we have science
I know “god of the gaps” but this origin of the universe really does feel to me very strongly of a creator.
Eh...why? You assume a consciousness where none is necessary and conveniently missed out the "who created the creator" problem.
@@garethhanby لاااا🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
الله أوجد مفهوم الخلق نفسه
يعني قبل ما يخلق الله الكون الكون كان خالي من مفهوم الخلق والله اوجده من العدم مفهوم الخلق زي الزمن والمكان
المخلوقات تمشي على هذا المفاهيم إلا الله لنه اوجدها
الله أوجد الزمن فمارح يتطبق عليه مفهوم الزمن
والله أوجد الخلق فارح يتطبق عليه مفهوم الخلق
والله أوجد المكان فارح يتطبق عليه مفهوم المكان
أرجو أن تقرأ تعليقي
@@garethhanby The creator/God does not need a creator. You can not apply the law of biogenesis to that which exist outside of and independent of our universe which must obey these laws.
To answer "why is a creator necessary", well aside from the big bang and creation of the universe itself we can look at biology. Based on our current understanding and progress in abiogenesis and genetic research we can safely come to the conclusion that a creator is very necessary. The thing is when we look at operational, demonstrable science it leads us to the conclusion of design. Evolution only works with untested and convoluted theoretical models.
For example we contain arbitrary genetic code, how did this come about? We know all arbitrary code comes from a mind, this is a fact. Evolutionist then go on to spew comical theoretical models of how an arbitrary code could naturally form with no evidence, such as the "frozen model". This is just one of the many fatal flaws in evolution and aspects of biology that demand a creator...we could get into the failure of abiogenesis research and the non existence of natural mechanisms capable of forming the first cell, or gaps within the archaeological record such as "the cambrian explosion" or even modern day genetic evidence that corroborates with the Bible such as humans descending from 3 mtDNA lineages/noahs 3 children, or mitochondrial Eve and y chromosonal Adam but ill stop there.
Lets not even get into the materialist issues on the cosmological front, they're even worse.
@@rejectevolution152 More "I believe in magic because I don't understand" nonsense.
@@garethhanby Ok, debunk what i just said.
You've made me recovery from surgery so much better....thanks, Professor, Arvin!
Thanks. Wish you well on your recovery journey.
Great video !!
12:30 isn't that tritium and not helium?
Yes, see Errata in description. We missed it in editing.
So the universe didn't have a beginning rather it existed at t = the first Plank time? That's the way I see it because time did not exist until t = first Planck Time.
Well, it's a question mark. According quantum mechanics, we can't define it mathematically. But this doesn't mean that nothing existed prior.
@@ArvinAsh It would be hard to digest into language since we use time as a measurement of causality colloquially. What came before time? Well, we'd need a causal definition decoupled from time in colloquial language before we reach an answer that makes sense/we can accurately describe
Well done!
I enjoyed this. Arvin, you are a great speaker.
Energy is neither created nor destroyed. But would it be correct to say It was created at Big Bang. If not then from where does all this energy came from some of which became matter.
The Inertial plane/Counterspace.
That's not correct. First of all, the real answer is "we don't know for sure". But... The best answer we have right now comes from inflation, which also predicts a multi verse. Inflation came from the inflation field, which quantum tunneled into a lower energy state and saturated our universe with particles.
Of course you can then say where that energy came from and so on and on. But it's still incorrect to say energy was created I'm the big bang because it already had the energy. We don't really know where the "first energy" came from, or if that's even a thing. Remember, existence has absolutely no obligation to be completely understandable by squishy little human brains.
Hmm i guess i disagree with all the replies. The universe have net zero energy so actually the big bang doesn't have any energy. This universe doesn't have any energy. It's all adds up to zero so the law of thermodynamics isn't broken.
I think arvin arsh have talked about it. Idk in which video.
@@jakublizon6375 You're not correct.
Time started when the Dielectric energy tunneled from Counterspace, through the Inertial plane. Dielectric energy is, terminate to terminate, Inflation.
This Dielectric energy decays into Dielectric voidence field/Magnetism. The Grand Expand. Magnetism gives Magnitude to the Universe. These 90° transverse waves, Dielectric energy and Magnetism, create the nodes that EM waves/Light propagate on.
Energy of the Universe came from the infinite capacitance of the Inertial plane. The smaller the spacial footprint, the higher the capacitance.
So I recently heard that (and oi forget who) physicists have recreated a model of the cmb in a simulation with more accuracy than ever before, and this is due to a scalar theory of gravity that changes on different scales. Be that as it may, with this "scalar gravity" that acts differently at the quantum (and the inflation epoch) and what we experience as gravity today across the universe, in my unprofessional opinion leaves open the possibility of a 'big bounce', or maybe even cosmological natural selection, as legitimate possibilities. From what we know today about dark energy, and thats essentially nothing, we know its basically 'anti-gravity' - repulsive in nature. and if gravity is just distortions in the fabric of spacetime caused by mass, then maybe it is helpful to think of dark matter as a 'negative distortion to the 4d fabric of spacetime? idk im stoned and im just spittballing the inklings of ideas ive had in my head nd no one to talk shop with haha!
I love your videos they get down to the nitty gritty without having to do the math myself! ♥
dont ever let the algorithm change your channel up!
Why don't you ask these questions in physics stack exchange or similar platforms?... maybe there you will get some relevant links and directions to think 😅
@@anuraagpaul6610 hi, um what is this and link pls?
@@Kylie-wc4gx Hi! So, few minutes ago I have sent two links regarding modified gravity, dark matter and dark energy, but unfortunately I can't see my own comment. I guess
my previous reply is held for review, so it's unlikely that I can send links to other websites . Anyhow, if you want to get some technical answers to these questions you can search for specific phrases/key words in physics stack exchange. There you can find links to useful resources. Physics SE maintains library of Q&As on various topics in physics. If you want to ask your own question you have to create an account. I have benefitted a lot from this forum in these past few months! Just google Physics Stack Exchange
@@anuraagpaul6610 what websites do you recommend for this? I’m a lifelong physics / chemistry lover, I’d love to just read people talking openly about high-level physics on a website like that where I can ask my own questions.
Dark energy is not negative gravity, they are fundamentally different concepts. Dark energy is theorized as vacuum energy of space itself, while gravity is caused by external energy sources
Absolutely fantastic. Thank you, for your video.
Best presenter. Credit to U Tube 👏
To say it always existed is sort of like "The God of the gap".
Technically there's nothing that would rule out it being past eternal. Also requires far fewer assumptions.
@@Supernov4 Assuming that something must have always existed because we cant figure it out is the ultimate assumption. Far greater than any speculation that proposes an alternative hypothesis
@@TheMaddBlackMann That's a straw man.
@@Supernov4 Both perspectives can be considered strawman depending on perspective. Ultimately the ability to prove one way or the other is equally hindered. What is really the difference between God being eternal and the universe being eternal? They are the same argument
@@TheMaddBlackMann I don't think you know what that means. Suggest looking it up.
If you can't see how they are different then I'm afraid this conversation is over. I'll give you a hint: Occam's razor.
We experience time dilation on a micro scale here on earth. Earth is rotating around its own singularity of time it regulates time on a micro scale, The blackhole we orbit at the center of our galaxy regulates our flow of time on a cosmic scale, The blackhole at the center of the universe regulates our flow of time universally. The singularity of time is the key to the expansion of the universe as well as gravity and the formation of all matter. As it provides the envelope that traps energy so that it can collide creating frequency vibrations.
Blackhole at the center of the universe? You sure?
Black hole at the center of our galaxy isn't cosmic, it's galactic. Besides, your theory totally overlooks inflationary properties such as temperatures, pressures and everything else that allowed the atoms to form, which don't really have much to do with time, but do allow it to occur. No atoms, no black holes.
@@chrisgriffith1573 You don't understand time dilation clear enough to get the point. I made a typo cosmic galactic time dilation is time dilation. Galaxy galactic man it takes a lot of thought to get get that reference. No energy is energy and I said radiation and all forms of energy radiate. You clearly don't understand what energy or radiation is and doesn't seem you even understand what time dilation is. I will say it again for you energy causes the inflation of the zero energy field radation drives inflation...
@@voges1001 The original whitehole or star would have been at the center of the universe because it was the original point that expanded and eventually exploded to create the universe and give rise to all the particles and energy that drove the inflation and gave rise to galaxy formation. That would have been a massive star and it would have left a blackhole when it exploded. This is the only explanation for why we experience time dilation here on earth and why the core of our planet rotates faster than the outer layers. This also explains why small bodies don't have a magnetic field because there is not enough time dilation to allow the inner layers to orbit the singularity at a speed high enough to create the friction that drives the magnetic field of planets stars and moons. They probably have a very weak magnetic field that isn't powerful enough to radiate out because the body is to small for time dilation to speed up the inner core enough to generate a strong magnetic field. Smaller core moving closer to the speed of the outer layers because not a lot of dilation. Lets say the universe is in the shape of a syringe right now the needle tip would still be the center or that is my view anyways. Maybe starting point would be a better way to explain it rather than center but I like center lol. Hope that explains why I said center of the universe anways.
@@jayb5596 you realize “the first star” wouldn’t have formed until a lot of time after the big bang, right?
Best explanation of big bang on UA-cam so far love it ❤
Great work, thank you.
And to think that this all was a chaotic event or series thereof.
Amazing how humans are getting close to understanding that there must have been an ENGINEER behind this ULTIMATE ORGANIZATION, and we still have to add the story of life to it.
If there is an engineer, he is incompetent because there are much easier ways to create the universe than the way it was done.
@@ArvinAshlol now your trying to play God 😂😂😂
Romans 1:20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. 22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish
Brilliantly explained 👌👌
U have some very interesting videos..thank u👊
Thanks for the video.
I simply love your videos. Thank you 🙏
Good job!
Excellent program.
Mateee ur vids are so amazing 👏
Love this channel. Love his voice.
Great efforts
Love u sir
7:45 The entire universe came out of a 😂😂Mexican hat
The best explanation I've seen.
Very nice. Thank you!
Awesome. I like all your cosmic videos. I always love to hear discoveries about our universe . Thank you arvin.
Need help I have one topic to discuss on. How should I contact?
This video was really neat.
You are awesome, really mi d blowing. Now my question is where do you get all that informatiin that you share. Becouse it seems to a lot of work.
you explain very well. thanks
Thank you!
Excellent!
EXCELLENT
Very Nicely explained Arvin the cronilogical events that happened in first second.in slow morion with supporting multi media
Thank you!!!That makes sense to me.
“Let there be light” always sounded like the point in which the Big Bang happened to me.
Damn! It's a good video! You managed to explain mind bending theories very lucidly!