Mysteries of Cosmic Inflation | Episode 906 | Closer To Truth
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 тра 2024
- The very early universe likely underwent a period of enormous expansion called "inflation." The theory stunned cosmology. Here's the story of its discovery. Featuring interviews with Alexander Vilenkin, Alan Guth, Saul Perlmutter, and Andrei Linde.
Season 9, Episode 6 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#Cosmology #Inflation
Imagine being the person who's realizations helped to illuminate a gigantic portion of one of the biggest questions ever posed by living beings.
Imagine sitting waist deep in a tub filled with mustard.
I wish i knew more about cosmology/physics to understand completely. I've viewed CTT on pbs, its great.
I feel the same. When I was in college, I took a basic course in Physics. I had to drop it. So these CTT episodes are great.
Amazing interviews with those 4 guys. Alan Guth and Andre Linde really are like explorers uncovering uncharted land. Eternal inflation fleshes out our idea of what space really behaves like in the first nanoseconds of time after the singularity. Excellent episode .
The singularity isn't a physical thing that actually existed. It's a mathematical abstraction where the equations break down because of division by zero.
@@b.g.5869 I'm referring to it as an event or point in our local cosmic history, I'm aware that the physical singularity might be a mathematical construct and that real energy/matter might not be able to condense to 0 volume. There is still some debate as to the true nature of a cosmic singularity and what it would actually look like, string theory suggests that the singularity would be exactly one Planck-sized ball of hyper-dimensional vibrating strings and branes. My guess is that we're in an eternal sequence of Big Bang > Expansion > Heat Death > maximum expansion and 0 mass left for the universe to know how large it is and entropy resets back to 0 for a new Big Bang a la Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. But yes, I'm well aware of the nature and debate over the "singularity". Thank You for enlightening me sir.
@@nurk_barry No no no no.
You're confused.
Currently, the smallest/earliest we can explain with physics is the Planck scale, which is when the universe was on the order of 10^-35 meters in extension and 10^-43 seconds old.
That's _not_ a singularity however. A singularity'is a dimensionless point of infinite density, a physically meaningless concept that is just an artifact of the mathematics.
Nice one Robert , great episode. keep em coming
Why has Alan Guth not been awarded a Nobel prize?
He hasnt??
Outstanding!
This is gold
"Inflation is what cause the Big Bang to go... BANG!"
This explanation sounds closer than ever to Penrose's idea that cosmic inflation = heat death of a (preceding) universe.
I love the idea of everything dissolving leaving an absolutely empty space in all directions into infinity and that space saying "ABSOLUTELY NOT" and exploding
We live in a universe that is both incredibly large and yet quite tame. It's made of matter, space, time and energy. The laws of physics are the same everywhere as far as we can tell. The universe also has a tendency to form structures that are self-similar everywhere, from the largest scales (galaxies) down to small scales (atoms). This is called 'scale invariance'. Scale invariance is a property of systems like our universe, which are in a state called 'metastable' or 'critical.' It's the reason why we see fractals and self-similar patterns everywhere. The universe is critical because it has just enough energy to form structures but not so much that they will destroy themselves by collapsing. If the universe had too much energy, it would collapse. If it had too little, nothing could ever form and there wouldn't be any structures. This is why the universe appears to be fine-tuned. It seems like there had to have been a creator that made the universe this way, so that it would form structures and not collapse.
However, the universe is not fine-tuned at all. It's actually very simple. There are two basic forces in this universe: gravity and expansion.
Could it be possibly that the laws of physics appear to be the same everywhere because we can only detect the aspects of physics in other places that are at work in our own neighborhoods??i disagree with the Goldilocks theory ...i tend to think if circumstances were diiferent we would have different adaptation rather than not existing at all. That could be why we have not been able to make contact with other life forms ...our box is just too small.
Expansion isn’t a force, it’s a consequence
Gravity implies finite insofar as pulling together, while expansion implies infinite. Good and evil?
This just pushes the question one step back. Can easily suppose forces of gravity are fine tuned.
Very interesting and worthwhile video.
Someone should let the producers know that inflation isn’t actually a universally accepted/proven theorem and is instead, in particular recently, having substantial holes poked in it...
They had to come up with *something* to account for how the universe could have expanded to the size of about three light years across in just its first second of existence... with most of that utterly exponential expansion occurring during the inflationary period which lasted for about a billionth of a trillionth of that first second. That's a rather fantastic claim to assume is true just because the numbers work out nicely. The numbers work out nicely with string theory with ten spatial dimensions and one of time, yet it isn't assumed to be true.
They obviously know that. However inflation explained all the known observations at the time and has made a handful of predictions that have turned out to be correct.
This is why I'm losing interest in this series. Robert always asks broad fundamental questions and brings is a decent diversity of guests, but in the end he's clearly just chugging along with that tired, midcentury, middle of the road 'pop science' perspective on reality. That type of typical, educated middle class viewpoint where you say you believe in the Big Bang but you don't know the math or physics, and you're not religious but you can't articulate a coherent substitute philosophy. Inflation is a perfect example. It's a bandaid put on a huge unknown by technician 'physicists' so their textbooks don't have any gaps, with considerable criticism from top theorists including, for example, R. Penrose. To devote an entire episode to inflation is just eyerolling and tells you what slant the rest of the series is going to have.
May anyone to tell what is the music name at the beginning
OK, my mind is blown. The size of the universe compared to the multi-verse out there is like comparing one atom to our entire known cosmos?? wowwwwww
10:30 a relatively short amount of time - what effect did time dilation have on this process?
That all depends on the perspective of the observer
@@mogley840ify One might say it's... relative.
what part of space is expanding? the outer edge? or all space at once? if its all space at what size scale does that stop?
Spade doesn't have an edge. It's space itself that is expanding.
The big bang wasn't a firey egg in space that exploded it was empty and then space itself began to expand uniformly in all directions and after about 10 ^ 35 of a second later the space was filled by a hot plasma like substance and stayed that way for about 380,000 years.
One question : Why did not one of them get the Nobel Prize?
What causes the separate vacua?
Good question. I know this is from almost a year old, but I hope you dug a little deeper and found out this isn’t as simple or straightforward as they’re pretending.
This is more like closer to facts
Truth is lot more elusive and yet so immanent
The Hubble Constant is easily calculated from the following equation:- 2 X a Megaparsec X C, divided by Pi to the power of 21 = 71 K/S/MPS. This is known as "The Principle of Astrogeometry". The Hubble Constant is "fixed" at 71. There is no such thing as "dark energy".
Could cosmology explain the nature of consciousness? Is consciousness beyond the physical world?
No and no?
Is the idea ever entertained that the big bang is something which never stopped, as shown by the ongoing expansion of space?
He tried to do a steven hawkings imitation xd
Who is Steven Hawkings?
A baseball player?
His name is similar to a famous physicist named Stephen Hawking.
my wife is also vast and expanding
bcoz of ur bangs?!. :D
Pregnant?
Frequency of these commercials is inflating . i personally have never considered buying anything from any advertisement that has interrupted the videos i enjoy watching/listening to . wait . thats not true . fresh baked dispensary grabs my attention , however , im not going to get out of bed to drive to boulder just to by a joint at 2A.M . even if they were open .
O ....and before i forget . "jesus spelt backwards sounds a lot like sausage "
Dude, get the joint. This show is much better stoned.
Is it correct to say that all of the bubble universes arising from eternal inflation are causally unconnected? That is, their space will never intersect our space. And we will never be able to detect such other universes. If yes, could someone please explain (in layman’s terms) why?
In my very simple mind, the analogy is blowing up balloons (universes) one after another, indefinitely. Couldn’t two or more of these balloons bump into each other?
Yes they can and do intersect. In time and in space
There is a hypothesis (pure speculation, supported only insofar as it is plausible, and barely so) that one of the “cooler” regions of the cosmic microwave background is due to its abutting a separate “universe.” (No expert here, just a cosmology hobbyist)
@@paulodonnell753 Thanks! I can at least wrap my head around that. Very interesting idea.
Also, as to whether they are causally connected (again, I am no expert), there are some who argue that a “big bang” type event could have sent many universes expanding in many “directions” (quotes because it is not like there is north south etc) whereby laws of physics might be different in each. This video discussed it (dude seems credentialed): m.ua-cam.com/video/GxghuChsQPo/v-deo.html
@@paulodonnell753 I’m more than halfway thru the video, and already saw the multiverse hypotheses at around the 23 min mark. Thanks very much for the link 🙂
I cant help but think our view on inflation is incorrect. I mean, in the farthest reaches of the cosmos, measurements indicate that galaxies are moving away faster than light. However, looking outward into space, means looking backwards in time. So, observations of the most distant places in the cosmos, would represent a time billion and billions of years ago. Since we know the universe expanded very rapidly, in its early form, and we see this rapid acceleration, looking back in time, all it really shows us , is that the early universe was rapidly accelerating. We cannot examine, those same galaxies, as viewed in our time as moving so fast, in present time. In other words, we know examining the universe, at its furthest reaches, allows us to examine in much earlier in time. The further out in space we look, the further back in time we see. Is it just assumed that these fast moving galaxies so far away, are continuing to accelerate? I believe if we could see those distant galaxies in real time, they would not be moving so fast. Its seems silly to make observations, that are from a point so long ago, and make an assumption that that is also the current state of those galaxies. I wonder what the most distant regions of the cosmos actually look like? In present/ real time. I mean, we make observations, of distant space, backwards In time. I wish we could see those same distant galaxy, that were long ago moving so fast, in present tense
We can't tho, and we base the entire present tense of the cosmos, based on observations that are from billions and billions of years ago. Imagine our local region of space, our galaxy, represents a current, view of the entire cosmos. Its moving much more slowly, than the very early universe. In other words, if the universe, and inflation were correct, than shouldn't our own galaxy be speeding away faster than light? What evidence is there, to suggest a current state, of those most distant galaxies? It seems to me, that if inflation were correct, then our own galaxy should be speeding away faster than light. At least some part of the cosmos, has indeed slowed down, from that moment of inflation, our own region of space / our own galaxy is evidence to this. I mean if everything from that moment, from the big bang, was accelerating exponentially, then all space time, and all regions in the universe should experience this exponential, and constant acceleration, so , what slowed our own galaxy down? I cant help but think we are missing something here. Something is wrong with our current view of inflation, as nothing from that point of the big bang should be slowed down. I'm confident, that if we could see those most distant galaxies, in present time, that they would not be speeding away so fast. I'm curious, if anyone in the audience, can explain how making observations of the universe, from a time billions and billions of years ago, has anything to do with the present time in the universe, of those regions we have observed so far away, and so far back in time. I would also like to point out, that those regions, so far in space, and so far back in time, could actually represent, in some image, in some way, a snapshot of our own early galaxy, or at least the matter it now consists of. How do we know, when we look back, billions and billions of years ago, by looking billions and billions of light years out , that we are not looking at ourselves? And if we are looking at ourselves, and we were once moving so fast, why are we not continuing that acceleration vector? I'm not sure I can Express my thoughts correctly. I mean imagine our current view of inflation. Imagine the big bang, and every thing from that point, accelerating faster and faster, there should be nothing moving as slow as our galaxy. We should be moving faster than light, if inflation were correct. We have obviously slowed down .
Eeeeh no.
It's not that everything is actually moving faster than light it's that the space between every point of space is growing exponentially (and faster than the speed of light)
Am I able, in principle, to look through a telescope see myself as a kid? Of course not. The reason we are not (as far as I barely understand it) able to see ourselves in these protogalaxies, is because our expansion in space does not “catch up to” much less then “jump in front of” the light emitted from those proto galaxies. That light is gone. Emitted maybe for someone somewhere else far away to see.
And, in the case of inflation, we have inflated our way so far from these other regions of space so quickly (in 10^-35s… there was exponential growth faster than light) that whatever light reaches us is from long ago and far away. Those galaxies might see us as protogalaxies but we won’t see ourselves in them.
Creation is the key, something that stands out. God 🙏 lives in his own creation.
Did you really not understand any of this? You comment could not be more ignorant even if you tried.
I'm just glad it's not about free will
Why you think that?
Ask Wolfgang Smith someone trained in rational natural philosophy. Can't remember if this was Hoyle "...the modern scientist/cosmologist believes he has made a great discovery/observation only to admit (Heisenberg Gifford Lectures "I didn't understand what I was doing as a mathematical physicist until I read the first philosophers") the mediaevals have been there for centuries"
Even if philosophy can give us answers, that doesn't mean they are right.
did alan guth get a nobel prize for inflation already?
"In some remote corner of the universe, bathed in the fires of innumerable solar systems, there once was a planet where clever animals invented knowledge. That was the grandest and most mendacious minunte of 'universal history'. " Thus spake Nietzsche in 1873...
Hey... thanks for sharing that quote. Very interesting.
I think we are getting somewhere at last.
On December 12th 2020, at night, I had the remarkable realization that Alan Gnuth was Heath Ledgers inspiration for the Joker. An eccentric genius (which is what the joker actually is aside from sociopath). He also needed someone not well known or seen by his audience. Watch a minute or so from here 9:13 and then meet my challenge to post a link and time stamp to any video on youtube that beats this resemblance between the Joker and Alan Gnuth.
Why is there something rather than nothing? Check this out:
ua-cam.com/video/o2wIELXbHHY/v-deo.html
I'm sure it didn't upset the science community as much as it did the religious community. Killing the idea of a static universe.
Nope... did not upset me at all. I can still hear "In the Beginning..." behind all the "static" !!
The theory of the Big Bang is the scientists saying: "Give us just one miracle and we'll take it from there."
No it's not. It's based on observation.
Inflation=god's eternal fart😅
Halton Arp had it right. Steady state. This theory sounds like epicycles to me.
So what you are saying is the universe grew......
Nice to have one of these episodes sticking strictly to the science and not going into all the woo woo stuff.
Inflation is woo woo
@@rl7012 How so? Hasn't inflation been directly observed and proven?
@@guaromiami Nope. Inflation has to be eternal, but there is no such thing as a perpetual motion. Inflation cannot be eternal, so they invented a new chaos inflation theory that invents a multiverse into the eternal inflation theory. It is all nonsense. None of it proved. None of it has any evidence for it. They invented it to make another theory still work.
The big bang was based on extrapolating observed motions of the galaxies back in time. But the math didn't work so they came up with "inflation"... and forgot all about the logical step that connected the red shifts to the big bang theory in the first place.
Wrong.
"Great idea which you cannot make work." I wonder if God is listening?
@@rubiks6 Thanks for keeping in touch. I'm kind of "laying low" myself because so many comments on these CTT episodes really depress me. On top of that, some people are really good with philosophical words and ideas. So I'm spending less time on CTT. I like videos on archaeology, history, music etc. Blessings of the Lord to you too.
@@rubiks6 Yes... I read your response about how God "stretched out the heavens." Do you think God is still using cosmic inflation?
Eternal *INFLATION!* Creeping Spillage!! ''Spillage Creep!'' = There -- SOLVED~! (Chaotic differential points of expansion! IE: """" Jellyfish plop~! """ - Smack Dab Splotch expansion!) Hey~! G.U.T.H. ??? How's THAT! **Peace .....
The Rig Veda explains it all and yet it knows that it does not.
You cannot infer from space growing that multi-universe exist, basically it's just space which is growing, with nothing inside.
Wrong.
Hey... this is supposed to be an episode about "Cosmic Inflation." Then how come I find myself ( in the comments ) talking about God?
One can always sneak a God of the Gaps in virtually any subject.
@@ferdinandkraft857 I agree with you 100% I hope I'm not trying to do that in my comments.
John Brzykcy . There is no god. Search your feelings and come to the dark side.
@@jeffamos9854 I reject your "invitation." I hope the light of Jesus the Christ keeps me away from the "dark side". The dark side cannot comprehend the Light. Wow... PEACE to you.
John Brzykcy Without the dark side there would not be balance in the universe. The force is strong with you.
A wonderful Theory, NOT proven/Doesn't exist. All (Hearsay) presenting No TANGIBLE EVIDENCE is substantiate your claim is Factual. Correct! A Theory.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that... As any physicist and cosmologist will tell, they are working on theories with the expectation that they can be falsified by observable outcomes of actual tests and experiments. Thus far, the theory of inflation has been supported & expanded by many experiments. Same goes for Einstein's theories of relativity, for instance, or way before that, the idea that the earth is - gasp - actually round (cue the flat-earth-trolls here). It all starts with a theory, and the more we experiment with it, the closer to truth we get, one babystep at a time.
İ really recommend everybody the book,TİME & SPACE:the God is found,by humayun aryan on amazon.Mr.lawrence this is something for you
Free money for elite science glorification.
Brother, after having seen the awe of the Creation, it's now time to accept the power of The Creator. Allah has made 7 heavens. The lowest ones He adorned with lights (stars and galaxies). The size of it to the 2nd heaven is like a ring in a desert. The size of 2nd to 3rd heaven is like a ring in a desert etc lol the way to the 7th.
Quran reminds us to study the Creation of Allah to get a peep into the Majesty of The Creator.
The most important question is not to understand the structure of the 1st heaven but rather the Purpose of Life and to attain Jannah. Once you get there all your questions will be answered. If you fail (may Allah guide us) the Hell Fire is worse than any fire, lava, star core, excretion disc that we've ever seen. May Allah forgive us and protect us from it.
An episode without a mention of God, thank God.
But when these scientists talk, I still hear the "works of God" hidden in their ideas.
I know what faith is & that it is not enough to 'know' a gods work. Other than your faith, what tells you "its gods work"?
@@pardonwhat You said: "I know what faith is." I'm still struggling myself to understand what "faith" is. Regarding "know', I guess I could come up with answers related to science, the Bible, human nature, philosophy, history, etc. But this is supposed to be an episode about "Cosmic Inflation" so I don't want to exaggerate (inflate) my reasons or inflate my ego!
@@johnbrzykcy3076 I appreciate your response, I was curious why you felt you recognised god speak in others...
I can only 'know' my own experience of thought, other than that for me 'knowledge' is a belief which can become exclusive and labled as faith. Sometimes the ego can give rise for an interesting question to emerge.
Science based discussions are based on logic AND evidence of observations and experiments
Theologic discussion are at best based on logic but VERY often just speculations with no way to verify if what is said has any basis in reality
Closer to Truth = studying the creation of Allah.
Closest to Truth = studying the Revelation from Allah (Quran). Pick up your copy today.
Just listen to Alan Guth's enthusiasm. Is science not infinitely more interesting, and exciting than a non-answer like "My invisible magical god-friend did it"? The latter seems so infantile and utterly moronic.
Yes... the statement "my invisible magical god-friend did it" certainly does sound "infantile and utterly moronic." But I don't use such words for my belief in God and Jesus the Christ. I believe these scientists were given skills and intelligence to explore and discover our Cosmos by our Creator. So I find BOTH interesting, because I believe God gave us science.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Yes, I read that as "My invisible magical god-friend did it". I think it is a very accurate description for how theism most often is utilized as a panacea.
@@Ploskkky I understand your worldview. To some people a belief in God may indeed be a "panacea." However I don't see theism as offering a remedy for all difficulties. To me a belief in God brings hope and invites trust. But it also generates many questions, some doubt and definitely not a "panacea."
Science can only explain the "how" not the "why"
@@-JSLAK Hi there... I agree with you 100%
No Trump supported has ever found this video to be interesting. Think about why that is.
Not True
@charlesrothauser1328 yes its true. You lack the curiosity to find this interesting.
@@mmur9233 A counter example proves you wrong. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
The big bang was based on extrapolating observed motions of the galaxies back in time. But the math didn't work so they came up with "inflation"... and forgot all about the logical step that connected the red shifts to the big bang theory in the first place.