Where do these come from? They are absolutely incredible - some of the best physics videos I've ever seen. Is skydivephil just the account of a large organization? Are these just uploads of some documentary series that aired at some time in the past?
@@drewboardman9109 Hi Drew thanks for your comment. No this is not from a big organisation and no the videos haven't been uploaded elsewhere. This an ammeter operation specifically for youtube by someone who is a just a lay person interested in cosmology and wanted to watch the documentaries we are making. When we realised no one was going to make what we wanted to see, we made them. If you watch the first 2 episodes you will the see the ammeter quality. Luckily we have learnt a lot and bought better equipment so it looks more professional. For episode 5 we collaborated with Nick Franco who is a professional film maker and I also learnt a fair bit more from him. The operation is just me and my wife and two friends who do the animations.
Children's minds are amazing at adapting to new information, as long as they haven't had their heads filled with dogmatic rubbish already. Kids have no problems with infinity, because EVERYTHING is near-infinite when your age is single digits, everyone is taller than you and every journey takes AGES!
#James anonymous, I am also 12 years old, this is my father's account I am using, I also know very much about cosmology, Astronomy, Astrophysics etc. At the age of 7, I started leaning about space & physics, it needs passion & interest in which ever field you are studying. By:- Aditya pawar
One of the waitresses at work had seemed down for a day or so. I fell into step beside her as she arrived for work one day and asked what was wrong. In perfect harmony we both sighed and said: 'oh, nothing'. She stopped and looked at me and said: 'you were married, weren't you'.
@@PhilHalper1 I would appreciate if you could reply or do a video on what Vilenkin specifically means when he says you can get spontaneous nucleation from nothing(with the laws of quantum mechanics), what does he mean by nothing, (did it say somewhere in the video he doesn't mean the philosophical "nothing"), would the spontaneous nucleation come from potential energy, say perhaps in a zero total energy universe, you can have positive and negative forms of energy, so would the nucleation come from a negative energy or potential energy, he also said no field, potentially no space and no time, but he didn't mention energy. I am left a bit unclear what he means, is Vilenkin proposing a creation ex nihilo model, or a creation ex materia model? Would really appreciate if you could help me clear some of these up. Ill rewatch to check i didn't miss something.
@@PhilHalper1 Ok so i watched again, please forgive the length of this. I understand it this way, we measure time by change, the universe has been changing by inflating for 13.7 billion years, so the quantum tunneling to a larger size would be the beginning of change and therefore time, also due to tunneling to a larger size, space is emerging too, so we have space-time emerging from that dot quantum tunneling to a larger size, this larger size then inflates. He said he starts from this smallest possible universe, that dot with no space and no time, and the high probability state would be very high energy vacuum/false vacuum in the smallest possible size, that dot, i would say, well technically there is space, just no external space to the dot, its just all contained within that dot, compressed into that dot, so to speak. This would make me answer my previous questions as, this is a creation ex materia model from the laws of quantum mechanics and high energy vacuum/false vacuum, compressed into a dot with essentially no space, its not the same as Trions? vaccum fluctuation model because its quantum tunneling from the dot to the bigger size, then inflating, due to inflation. That to me appears to be what he is spelling out from 8:16- 11:33 , he then says at 13:09 we don't mean quantum vacuum, because there is no space no time, but i believe i have covered that in my comment, explaining time as change and space all contained in that dot. At 14:42 does he not describe what i have explained here? However I don't really understand how that dot is any different from a singularity, apart from instead of the gravity going infinite, it becomes repulsive. Maybe gravity only goes infinite in models without dark energy/the cosmological constant, or lets say relativity stops applying when the universe gets sufficiently small and the quantum high energy vacuum takes over and everything is repelled when things get that small, it would kind of be like degeneracy pressure when stars are collapsing, that degeneracy pressure halts the inward collapsing wave of the star and rebounds the waves back out. When we are rewinding the universe backwards towards the big bang, are we not collapsing it? At 24:35 he says a singularity in not a good thing to have in your model, because you can ask what was before that and before that, well with the interpretation i have spelled out you would say there was no time before that, it was just there, still, then it tunneled and time began. Have i got that wrong? Please i am trying to understand, i really think i have got it here and i too would go with the many worlds interpretation.
@@irtehpwn09 as I understand a singularity isn't nothing, it has mass, density, curvature, etc . The universe would have infinite size even at the singularity . that isn't the case here.
Thank you so much about this serie, the aspect i like the most about this serie is probably because it's the actual physicists that talk about all those aspects, they use proper terminology as well as specifying their sources, so you can go and actually dive into whatever aspects they are talking about and learn the details from other sources.
So Vilenkin says his model does not tunnel from vacuum in the sense of QFT-vacuum. But in quantum mechanics in general people sometimes call the lowest lying energy state whatever it may be “the vacuum”, probably inspired by the usage in QFT. Further, any local minimum energy state is sometimes called a false vacuum (To make it even more confusing this usage is not referring to the same thing as the “false vacuum” required for inflation, though the concepts may overlap.) So if one use “the vacuum” to just mean the lowest energy state or just the lowest energy state accessible then I think Vilenkins theory can be said to tunnel from the vacuum. Not necessarily from what is usually though if as the QFT-vacuum but still. There is so much terminology used in different ways and it’s confusing to get what anyone is saying about these issues. In neither the QFT case or the more general QM case is it reasonable to call the vacuum nothing. It’s a quantum state and it has unitary dynamics (unless one is making up something even more exotic than that of course, but that’s beyond quantum mechanics).
I think we can all agree that true 'nothing' does not exist...so not-nothing has infinite time to try out every possible combination of events that could trigger a big bang for a universe like this. Obviously we observe this universe because it is the only one that succeeded (anthropic principle). The creepy question is, if nothing is so unstable, why hasn't it ruined our universe with additional big bangs, or quantum fluctuations?
@@svendtang5432 impossible... not nothing always exists.. why do we get such a nice stable separation from it.... why can't this not nothing violent vacuum state ruin this universe in an instant?
presumably because it has to reach a certain quantum state for a big bang to result and until conditions similar to those at the big bang are the same, or at least similar, we (might) be safe. also as we only have the one universe to base our guesses on it might well be that the numbers that make up "the fine tuning" are the only numbers that exist, never mind only numbers that work. as far as nature, or physics is concerned, all thse numbers are "1", human measurement is arbitrary (the speed of light is based on the length of my arm).(well, not anymore but u get what i mean). as sean caroll likes to point out, time passes at one second per second. it may be the speed of light is the same in every universe because it is a "thing" rather than a measurement, a brute fact.
So, he basically views the bubbly multiverse landscape as a sphere, from which bubbles of spacetime nucleate to become the observable flat space time like what we inhabit, or does he view the entire universe/multiverse with all causal patches or diamonds itself as forming a super-sphere configuration of which only a minuscule part appears flat upon close inspection? Very thought provoking though. Next, please do one on the black holes and their roles in generating universes or on the role of black holes in quantum gravity theories etc. Thank you for your efforts. Keep ot up
This is the kind of deep content that keeps me awake at night. I have my own thoughts on the creation of "existence", but still need to learn higher mathematics so I can communicate my ideas in an objective way. Thanks very much for posting videos like this. Glad I found this channel.
@@PhilHalper1 The problem is that UA-cam has not put the translation feature in the video Please translate the video into Arabic The problem is that UA-cam has not put the translation feature in the video &
Your quotes around "Nothing" are well placed, as this might explain how matter and energy came into being from pre-existing quantum fields, but quantum fields (even at ground state) constitute the universe. So it says nothing on how the Universe (singular) itself or (multiple) themselves, came to be. Nor even if the fundamentals of physics are non-spatiotemporal (as various models of quantum gravity suggest) would whatever those fundamentals are cound as 'no thing': they are something, no matter how different that thing is from everyday experience or Descarete's 'Res extensia'. The 'nothing' that's meant in the question 'why is there soemthing rather than nothing' is complete nothing - the absence of the entire Universe, regardless of in what it consists.. Anyway regardless, great content in this series as always.
@@lorenavedon That is fairly easy to do. I don't know how old you are, but at some time in the past you did not exist as your mother had not yet gotten pregnant with you. Before that point in time you did not exist and were nothing. It took actions on your parents part to create you. Since everything in our universe appears to have an origin, there is logically and mathematically, a point where this universe had a start and did not exist before then. Science can make all kinds of proposals about what happened before that start, but at best, these are metaphysical proposals rather than a scientific theory. Nothing (or rather non-existance) is an honest and valid possibility and is a useful starting point for some ideas of origins.
@@lorenavedon I don't think what you've said make sense. There can't be evidence for 'nothing' and nor could it ever be based in reality, as 'nothing' precludes 'something' and reality has to consist in something. 'Nothing' precludes reality. Similarly 'possibility' - if you mean physical possibility - is precluded by their being no reality. So "philosophical "nothing" is what we should expect over "something"" is not right. 'Nothing' is the opposite of something, not over it. Of course, it may be that there always has been and always will be 'something' - that the universe is eternal. Of the possibilities for how the Universe came to be,while still strange, it's the one I prefer. It's also interesting to think about whether our Universe being a simulation counts. It would mean 'nothing' preceded 'something' in respect to our Universe, yet isn't really this philosophical 'nothing. So would a Universe created by a god be different? Not really. So perhaps the only possibility on the table where 'nothing' precedes 'something' is a true 'ex nihilo' coming into being, with no gods or sim creators.
15:03 causality at quantum levels is weird, I get it. But saying that because there is no cause for the atom to decay, then there is no cause for the universe.... Q. In 1st case you HAVE an atom that decays, 2nd case what do you have? A.Nothing. Q.Does that 'nothing' have some properties? A.Yes. Q.Then it is 'something' that we have no idea what it is.
How is this not produced by the BBC? I mean, sell it or give it away, cooperate with PBS Space Time, National Physical Societies - anyhow, this series needs to get maximum spotlight! And the production quality has become pretty professional, too! Very good and important work!
Far far too good for the BBC. The BBC would waste millions to do something that would not be nearly as good. They would piss around wasting time and money on trivialities, like clueless, pretty, demographically suitable presenters, regardless they have no idea or interest. They would absolutely dumb it down to fuck, imagining folk are bumbling imbeciles, and insulting everyone's intelligence, replaced with all manner of fancy looking, too expensive graphics, that in reality convey little to no meaning. Possibly the worst and most damaging would be their inability to do anything where they do not inject thier ridiculously sexists, feminist, and anti British, anti male and anti white, ideological biases and disdain for the especially working class. The BBC's time has long past. It should have been done away with at least a decade ago, probably two. I got rid of my TV several years ago now. I have never missed it. In fact when I do on occasion watch anything at someone else's, I can't believe how the country can sit and watch such puerile, stultifying drivel and papp. There is far far better to be found from professionals and keen amateurs alike here on the internet and even UA-cam.
Exactly .! This and other channels like D W documentaries produce content far superior to BBC . There was a time when that wasn't the case but somehow they have become obsessed with various agendas which have no connection to Science or Knowledge. Box ticking comes first . Programme quality a poor second.
So primordial black holes that would later become supermassive black holes could just be quantum fluctuations that just didn't "fluctuate" far enough to create a new universe and instead collapsed in on themselves? Remnants of failed bubble universes. Truly a beautiful thought.
A beautiful thought indeed. But i have problems with the term "not far enough". Tunneling cant be happening on a linear scale in this case. Either it reaches the higher energy state behind the barrier or not (see 10:07) If not it will be cancelled out, as far as i understand.
@@positrone I'm by no means an expert here but I think you misunderstand. The term Alex uses at the timestamp you provided is "collapse" not "cancel out". Huge difference here, in my opinion. I imagine the "high energy vacuum" constantly spawning all sorts of collapsing universes and sometimes expanding ones. Since the collapsing universes require less tunneling they should be more common but they are uninteresting since they can't produce conscious observers.
@@faaltoh - Yes. I thought about this. Alex is saying, that our current universe could be in a state of false vacuum and tunneling could cause either a new bubble or total destruction by vacuum decay, which did not happenend so far; ...and gravity is somehow stabilizing bubbles and an inflation within. But a bubble within a bubble would need tunneling to an even higher false vacuum in the beginning. So, we are either at the stable end of a chain of "past" failing universes or in constant danger to random extinction due to the lack of causality, if something can tunnel from where is no time and space, which sounds really really weird.
NO BIG BANG, no black holes. We live in a toroidal universe, without beginning or end in time, that is constantly regenerating itself (in the way of all energetic toroids). Academic fraud surrounding the Big Bang theory. facebook.com/SemirOsmanagich/posts/1647060798643433 No Big Bang (universe without beginning or end in time) "Deflating the Theory of Cosmic Inflation" ua-cam.com/video/Ox3_tJcPy2M/v-deo.html Academic fraud surrounding the Big Bang theory. facebook.com/SemirOsmanagich/posts/1647060798643433 "Deflating the Theory of Cosmic Inflation" ua-cam.com/video/Ox3_tJcPy2M/v-deo.html "Black hole" is a misconception. Fortunately. :) No black holes. "The Filamentary Universe" ua-cam.com/video/GyleDts9RiI/v-deo.html No black holes. "Theoretical Alternatives in an Electric Universe" ua-cam.com/video/ZBWOH9Wu2c0/v-deo.html No dark matter, no black holes. "Both black holes and dark matter, however, suffer from equally baffling conceptual difficulties, which should cause anyone of a scientific or rational frame of mind to question their very existence. . . . If we were not beholden to the idea that gravity ruled the universe, we might well be tempted to regard them both as examples of mathematical fudge. In the electric universe paradigm, we are indeed not beholden to the understanding that the cosmos is held together principally by gravity. "In an electric universe, the presence of the electric force -- which can reasonably be regarded as 1039 (i.e., one thousand million million million million million million) times as strong as the gravitational force -- is what changes everything. It is the electric force that holds in the bodies that revolve [in galaxies] at otherwise unaccountable rates. . . . "The fudge of neither dark matter nor black holes is necessary to account for the cosmic cohesion that we see, and both concepts can be consigned to the dust-bin of history." - Bishop Nicholas Sykes (start minute 3:16) "Theoretical Alternatives in an Electric Universe" ua-cam.com/video/ZBWOH9Wu2c0/v-deo.html I wish Stephen Hawking had been right about the black holes concept. Cool idea. On the other hand, maybe it's best that a star-sucking demon doesn't exist at the center of every galaxy. #StephenHawking #electricuniverse "The Filamentary Universe" ua-cam.com/video/GyleDts9RiI/v-deo.html @StephenMerchant Well played, sir. You both have your niches in history. I wish SH had been right about the black holes concept. Cool idea. On the other hand, maybe it's best that a star-sucking demon doesn't exist at the center of every galaxy. "The Filamentary Universe" ua-cam.com/video/GyleDts9RiI/v-deo.html How stars are formed. "Plasma Cosmogony" www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/07/03/plasma-cosmogony/
Bubble universes - maybe, but not as Dr. Vilenkin has imagined. If our universe is finite, then it is possible that beyond our universe there are many bubbles. I can think of several ways, but I don't see this as a priority: mostly fixed in solid electrino/positrino, moving in liquid electrino/positrino, or moving in 3D truly empty space. Yes they could merge. Yes, they could grow or shrink. It is unlikely to be testable anytime soon, and I can't imagine why it would be relevant at this point (knowing how the physics works throughout the universe).
Take lives as analogy, maybe it's more clear this way. We don't know the origin of lives, but we have uncountable living things. Universes is like the lives. Countless universes, and more mysterious origin.
Either math *defines* "reality", in which case the only sensible conclusion is it's all a simulation, or math *describes* "reality", in which case postulating theories based on what math hints at is pointless.
Idea of simultaneous multiverses crowding unspecified vacuum volume is not very easily perceptible and smacks of over complication for sake of sounding deeply "scientific". That defies Occam Razor principle of "least proof is sufficient", Aristotle postulated some 1800 years ago.
Math is a system contained in it's axioms. If you modify the axioms the math is modified. This means math is not physical, not real. Can you name any physical thing you can modify by thinking about it? Yeah, me neither.
It's so hard for my brain to contemplate the state of nature before our universe appeared. The concept of "nothing"... not even space or time... not even a vacuum. Just absolute nothing is hard to imagine. And even if energy exists eternally outside our universe... why! Why is there anything? Why is there something instead of nothing!!! ARGHHH I can't deal with it. LOL I like to imagine the multiverse as an immense and timeless broiling broth of pure energy. And universes just pop out of this river of energy like little bubbles.
I've convinced myself that there is 'never nothing' not just in our universe, but everywhere (said the way Gary Oldman says 'everyone' in "The Professional").
@@donaldsmith3926 That may well be true but iIm not sure the word "convinced" and these sorts of issues should go together. I recall that movie it was called "Leon" in Europe, v good stuff.
@@PhilHalper1 I use the word 'convinced' like a way to stop thinking when I try to use contemplating origins as a way to sleep after determining where 'everywhere'is,and where it wait, stop, not now. Despite what one might think, pondering boundless isn't sleep inducing. We who live in the area wonder how Luc decided on Wildwood as the setting for the girl's school. It was either an inside joke or he just liked the name.
The series of videos made by you guys is really appreciable.By these videos we came to know what are the hypothesis regarding the creation of our universe.I enrich myself with these ideas.Thank you guys for all the hard work done by you.
Has anyone thought to map the picture of the CMB onto a large sphere and stand inside it? I feel like that might yield something interesting. Looking at the image in this video, there appear to be some large scale structures that might wrap around from one side to the other. Mapping it onto a sphere would be as informative as the difference between looking at a flat world map and a globe. I'm sure it must have been done before many times, but I've never seen it done. For some reason cosmologists seem to prefer the flat picture of the CMB which by nature must distort the geometry from a sphere into a flat oval - thus giving a false representation - just the same as various continents look much larger or smaller than they really are when displayed on a typical world map.
Erm, they only project it onto a non-spherical surface for illustration, practically it's ALWAYS treated as projected onto a sphere around the observer.
3:00 QM makes the faulty assumption that the vacuum can do no accounting. Guess what, the vacuum, spacetime, is a superfluid of graviton (6-/6+) particles (think of low energy photons particles, maybe at around 2.7K in free space of the Milky Way). Of course this superfluid can do accounting. It's a specialist at accounting! Where do you think the mass-energy trade comes from? These particles, like photons exchange energy. They can also encapsulate fragments of themselves. That is what makes standard matter. A neutron is a graviton encapsulating an anti-neutrino (9-/9+). A proton is a graviton encapsulating a positron (6-/12+). A this electrino/positrino level charge is 1/6th magnitude of an electron.
If inflation continues into the infinite future, and we're at some random point on that infinite timeline, like say half-way, well half infinity is still infinity right? So by that logic, it's likely to extend into our infinite past right?
I don't believe the intelligent young lady got any credits, I found her very refreshing. I've always believed in the many universe theory because it doesn't have to come out of nothing, it can come out of a black hole in another universe. Gravity or what is confused with black energy can travel through multiple universes but it's presents can be measured in ours. BTW, nice video and thanks for the index.
I must watch at least one of the videos from this series every week, they keep me sane and take my mind off the nonsense happening on this planet. Thank you to everyone involved!
i dont think we should be convinced of any of the models we cover, nature will convince us at some point that one, some combination or none are correct though I hope .
hey Phil - would love it if you could do a shorter, concise video on "what cosmologists say about the Big Bang" - much like you outlined in the discussion you had with Aron Ra. I get tired of trying to correct misconceptions and be nice to have a summary to refer to
The probability of creating something from nothing like our universe is ver y low? Then how can we believe of the existense of infinte other universes?
Well, the energy comes from the condensate.. fields permeate all aspects of space. U cant have space and not have fields. Electromagnetic or of the like
The following is a continuous, unbroken quote. The timestamps do not indicate skips to different times: the timestamps are just meant to help divide the long quote into different times to make finding particular statements in the video easier. “[8:16] To see how what I call “tunneling from nothing” is possible, let us imagine we have a closed universe which has 2 ingredients. It has high-energy vacuum, of the kind that you need to drive inflation. Inflation I should say is rapid accelerated expansion of the universe which is driven by this unusual stuff, which is called high-energy vacuum, or sometimes false vacuum. A remarkable thing about this vacuum is that it has repulsive gravity. So when the universe is filled with this stuff, the repulsive nature of gravity causes the universe to expand with acceleration. And the other ingredient is just ordinary matter. So we have this universe with these 2 ingredients. [9:19] Now let us imagine varying the radius of this universe. If we make the radius small, the density of matter will grow and then the attractive gravity of matter will dominate and the universe will collapse. If you increase the radius, the matter will be diluted and the repulsive gravity of the vacuum will dominate and the universe will inflate - expand with acceleration. [9:46] Okay, now I wanted to start with a very small universe. So suppose I have a very small universe. Classically it would collapse, because of gravity. However, there is an energy barrier between that and the large size of the universe that would make it inflate. But what I realized is that instead of collapsing the universe can do something more interesting. It could tunnel to a larger radius. So it would be a quantum-tunneling process, so the universe will tunnel to a larger radius and will start expanding. [10:22] And then I asked myself how small this initial universe can be. Mathematically I discovered that when I take the size of the initial universe to 0, the mathematical description of the whole thing simplifies greatly and what I had was a mathematical description of a universe tunneling from a point to a finite radius and starting to inflate. So a point is no space at all, so basically this is no space, it’s no matter. [10:55] And the universe in this picture is created spontaneously from basically “nothing”. I write “nothing” in quotation marks because it’s not a philosophical nothing, because we assume that the laws of quantum mechanics are there, “somehow there”. [11:21] There is no space or time and the universe tunnels from this timeless, spaceless “state” into existence. As it appears, the universe has a very small size. It’s filled with this high-energy vacuum and it starts to inflate very rapidly. [11:44] The mathematical picture that I had gives the probability for the universe to appear in different sizes and also filled with different kinds of high-energy vacuum, and what I found was that the highest probability is for the largest energy vacuum and the smallest initial size. So the universe appears extremely tiny, but then the high energy of the vacuum and its repulsive gravity causes the universe to expand very fast, and so it doesn’t stay small it becomes huge in [a] very tiny amount of time. [12:26]Female Narrator: “So how does Vilenkin’s tunneling-from-nothing model differ from Tryon’s vacuum-fluctuation model?” [12:32] It’s different from Tryon’s model in two regards. First, Tryon had a disadvantage that he didn’t know about inflation. If the universe appears as a quantum fluctuation, then a small quantum fluctuation is much more probable than a large one. [Second,] He assumed the preexisting empty space - preexisting vacuum - and it was not clear where that came from. So the main difference is in the picture: [for] tunneling from nothing there is no space before that and no time. [13:08] When we say ‘nothing’ in this context, tunneling from nothing, we don’t mean quantum vacuum - which is actually what Tryon meant. Here we have a state without space, completely, so there is no vacuum. [13:29] The laws of physics are assumed to be there, and that’s a great mystery: where they come from and what determines which laws they should be.”
So if the big bang created matter AND space, where were these vacuums housed? (i.e. what did they permeate if there was no space?). I hope i phrased this in the correct way to reflect my question. Asked differently, what is the medium in which these quantum fluctuations occurred before the creation of space (and matter)? If "nothingness" contains inherent field fluctuations, what were the crests and troughs of the waves moving into?
High energy vacuum? Were does that come from? Wave function collapses? Why when does a wave just collapse? I've never seen a wave collapse. Waves keeps waving. I think this stuff is still too much for us to understand. And by us I mean me.
@@PhilHalper1 Sean Carroll just had David Albert on his podcast and they go over Everett's work - discussing pretty much what you're asking at one point OP.
@@ChasingChevy yeah its a great podcast , really love it. David Albert is awesome , a really profound thinker. However, i do think he got this subject wrong. he said a universe from nothing was from a vacuum fluctuation, but thats Tryon's model and not Vilenkin's. A common confusion.
Not easy to know where everything comes from. ad. Wave function The square (see complex conjugated ) of a wave functions describe the probably position to find a particle. When you find it or grab it, which is a measurement. The wave function is no longer probabilistic. We have found the particle and we say that the wave function has collapsed.
Absolutely brilliant content, graphics, organization and delivery of material. The editing is superb. I love this democratization of media outlets through UA-cam channels like this. You put mainstream networks to shame.
Thanks,put some thoughts into perspective,what a mind this genius has.I think I will have to view this vid several times for me to get a grip of it,great stuff,serious brain food,yummy.
WoW ...this was an amazing video...it would be great to combine it with some ambiance chill out music and cut it ...sort of an art peice. Listen to it like a really long work of art. A bit like what the did to David Lerry and his acid trip experiences in the 90s.
15:04 I think it should be clear that decay processes are simply reactions. So there is definitely a cause. The probabilities aligned where the energy of the reactants was greater than the required threshold energy at that moment. It could be a solar neutrino, or a high energy gamma ray, or some other confluence of energy particles and waves passing through the universe. So, it turns out this was not supportive of Dr. Vilenkin's argument.
Maybe there are dimensions that contain infinite unimaginable dimensions. Maybe a dimension is such a human construct that there are universe's where you eat dimensions for breakfast.
NeverTalkToCops1 no he must not, if that kind of dumb reactions is what all the other scientist would have gotten and moreover adhered to, we would know nothing. There is either a beginning, or there is not. Both are problematic for science, and coming up with theories that contain untested elements is one thing, buth building on those until the point you feel like you have to make the general public believe that the issue of beginning and “what was there before” and “outside the universe” is not relevant in order for you as a scientist to be able to make sense about some parts of your theory, is just dumb.
I was always under the assumption that dark energy was a mystery, but he gives a good explanation as to what it could be and also answers the questions about the nature of the universe such as the size, shape, genesis and if there is a multiverse
Occasionally anomalous paradoxes occur at the macroscopic level; objects appear from nowhere, time shifts, etc. I'd say sometimes the different scales cross behavior
It may be possible to have confidence on what happened before the big bang, whether or not we can ever understand the whole history of the universe is I agree very daunting, but maybe it is not hopeless.
@@seagramrip187 Or we could figure it out and be those who reveal the secrets to others in our cosmic neighbourhood. Why wait for someone else? They could be waiting for us, lazy, and disheartened (if they have one - or more!).
@@seagramrip187 you think that we won't "ever" have the answer, but that some more "advanced life" could. That's a contradiction as this lifeform would have had to have gained that knowledge as they develop. You're just appealing to yet another "higher power".
I do wonder why, exactly, you can't say that the universe could emerge from nothing (in the philosophical sense) spontaneously. It feels sort of like saying "If there are no laws, how could someone possibly get away with murder?"
I've always thought this, to say something cant happen implies a law, but if there was genuinely nothing then there would be no law preventing something coming from noting.
-Since this video title have "Multiverse" in it's name we shall consider maybe the universe we talk about was just caused by another universe. That talking about how this universe come to exist not mean talking about the very source of everything. Personally i think that "nothing" or "nothingness" never existed.That the total lack of something results in something. That by definition if the nothing exist i't does not exist just because the non existence is the very definition of the nothingness
Yes , we must be very careful with the words we use in this case . What do we call "something" , & why ? By opposition to "nothing" or "nothingness" ? Or something (!) else ? I mean , can we deal with the concept of "something existing" without the duality something - nothing ? Is it a fundamental paradox of our consciousness , or can we break it ? Can we find another alternative ? I agree with you on the point that , if nothing exists , then it doesn't . In this case we have the curious effect that it's equal to it's contrary . May be we can figure out using this property ...
*”… you don’t know which universe you are in”* 17:48 This may be semantics , but Yes, we know. To work with Schroedinger’s example, if the cat is alive you’re in the living cat universe. *Before* the quantum “decision,” you are in the pre-decision (MWI) universe. “You” are going to be in all possible universes, each branch of you thinking it is the “real” you and the others are copies. …except that as time passes, each branch of you becomes less like the others.
sychrovsky: In other words, you don't understand what's being said. I understand some of it. I understand enough to know better than to try to dismiss it because there are bits that are beyond me. I understand enough to know that you'd have to provide more than just a ludicrous assertion to refute what it says. If you have a scientific point, an evidence-supported scientific argument, against what is said here, present your view and your supporting evidence. Otherwise, clear off!
I am excited on the next 11 part! Actually, this video made me more believing in god. Especially, when vilenkin talked about the many-worlds Interpretation which needs an observer outside the universe, who is likely a God! Also the nothing that created something from nothing needs a lot of QM complex nature laws! Which also God created and "wrote" that laws of nature.
skydivephil What about the laws of nature? Even the fudemantal laws which Max Tegmark refereed to needs a creator. I think the subject of "laws of nature" is a good subject to discuss in the next 11 episode. ☺️
What's the use of talking/thinking about the time before the Big Bang, when there isn't one person on earth who can give you the real composition of our current universe??? In my opinion, Archimedes was more of a scientist than most astronomers/cosmologists nowadays. We are back in the time of the natural-philosophers :-(
@Ψ It's all speculation. We will NEVER know what happened during the Big Bang (if there was one). Inflation-theory and string-theory for example can't be called theories because they can't be tested. Scientists should be more honest about their work, like this lady: ua-cam.com/video/oqgKXQM8FpU/v-deo.html
Thank you for addressing this complex and controversial issue and providing some great insight here. It also reminds me that we have so much fascinating nature and so much still to explore - yet some people turn to books written 1000s of years ago and abandon all thinking and the urge to find out more.
@@PhilHalper1 Well, but a zero-dimensional spatial point is physical, right? It is not just an abstraction that represents non-existence. So, how can Prof. Vilenkin claim that the universe came from material/physical non-existence when in fact it emerged from this physical point?
@@PhilHalper1 But, Phil, even if this 'point' is not space, it is still a physical object. As Jim Gott pointed out in his paper: "[T]he Universe [in Vilenkin's model], we argue, should really start not as nothing but as an S3 universe of radius zero - a point. *A point is as close to nothing as one can get, but it is not nothing."* [Gott & Li, p.41] So, were the apologists right, after all, when they claim that Vilenkin and Krauss distort the meaning of "nothing" (i.e., no physical objects)? While a point is not a quantum vacuum, it is still a material thing, and so Prof. Vilenkin must explain the origin of this point. Is it eternal or had a beginning? If the latter, then what is the mechanism?
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco the apologists are definitely wrong because they claim the model is just arising from a vacuum, thats not correct. There is perhaps a physical debate between Gott and VIelnkin but note the word "should" thats open to questions.
Not sure I understand. He said a tiger could not come out of the quantum vacuum because of energy conservation, yet that's ok if the universe does because the positive energy of matter is canceled by the negative energy of gravity. Wouldn't it be possible for a tiger to pop out of nothing since its positive energy from its matter be canceled by the negative energy of gravity? Also, what is the chance of creating a universe with 10 to the 80 particles in the universe vs 2 particles? Why did it create 10 to the 80 particles? Chance? BTW I love the questions she asks, because they would be most of the questions I would ask. Great job.
no a tiger doesnt have net zero energy and neither does the universe unless it has a closed geometry. So Vilenkin's model needs that assumption . According to Vilenkin a small universe is much more likely to fluctuate into existence than a large one like ours, but inflation can turn a very small thing into a very big thing so the model needs inflation as well.
@@PhilHalper1 Thank you for your reply. I think I understand much better now. So the universe started with no or very minimal matter and matter was created later when inflation ended. The potential energy from the inflaton field went down to the lower energy state through either a low roll or quantum tunneling and the potential energy was converted to matter. It must have been a very strong field to produce all this matter. I always wondered why the universe has the particular amount of matter it has rather than, say, half the amount or a billionth.
Maybe watch this again, some time I'm less sleepy; I'm not really getting the difference between this 'from nothing' and the 'quantum fluctuation' model. This insists on a Platonic existence for the rules of quantum mechanics, which , to me, is not ' from nothing'.
the difference between the Vilenkin model and a previous model (Tyron's model which is discussed in this film) . Is the previous quantum fluctuation model assume a pro existing space time whereas Vilenkin's does not.
EDGE FOUNDATION: To arrive at the edge of the world's knowledge, seek out the most complex and sophisticated minds, put them in a room together, and have them ask each other the questions they are asking themselves.
The problem is that UA-cam has not put the translation feature in the video Please translate the video into Arabic The problem is that UA-cam has not put the translation feature in the video
Vilenkin says that the Everett interpretation is the only one that makes sense of cosmology, but he also says that quantum events are non-causal. As far as I understand the Everett interpretation it is in deterministic by unitary evolution even though observers run into indexical issues in trying to locate themselves. I’d be curious to hear him lay out further how he thinks about that.
Bit of a circular logic issue where he was describing constraints on the cosmological constant. Says that if it's too large, galaxies don't form, then immediately talks about how the observed constant being right in the predicted range changed a lot of minds. We know we have galaxies in our 'bubble', why would the prediction be surprising at all? Edit: it's like trying to figure out what weather is likely to cause puddles, looking at the soaked ground, then predicting that it's raining.
@16:19 Everett's many worlds interpretation is wrong and irrelevant. There is no ensemble of universes. It's just a bunch of gravitons, photons, and standard matter. That's it. A soup of gravitons, photons, and standard matter. QM and GR do a fine job of modeling it even though their physical model is wrong.
@@indicasativafusion : Hi. If you are referring to pair production from the quantum vacuum, then I would say, based on reverse engineering nature, that scientists do not understand the fundamentals of nature. What they call a quantum vacuum is a superfluid of graviton particles. Those particles can react and create standard matter. Throughout the universe, we have conservation of fundamental particles and energy. Nature is actually very logical and simple regarding the overall mechanism.
@@indicasativafusion Hi. I am a simple practical person, and in my reversed engineered model of nature, it too is simple and practical. Here is what you need for our universe: 1. Flat 3D space with a mathematical concept of real distance and real time. No curviness required. 2. A huge number of pairs of electrinos and positrinos, each 1/6th charge of their namesake. These particles, and composite particles made from then, are the only carriers of energy. 3. Lots of energy for the particles to carry. 4. That's it. Just release a plasma of those energetic particles in the 3D space and something like our universe will eventually form. (Now whether it actually had a starting point is a different question.) Here is how it works and it is very simple. a. when the hot electrino/positrino plasma cools, one composite particle type formed is the graviton. It fills all the 3D space in the spherical shape of our universe. b. when a graviton is in a reaction, it can split into a fermion and anti-fermion. These can be captured by other gravitons. So a proton is a graviton encapsulating a positron. A neutron is a graviton encapsulating an anti-neutrino. So now we have all the standard matter. c. standard matter-energy is constantly exchanging energy with nearby gravitons. Those waves travel through the gravitons and heat them (of course it is spreading spherically, so temperature falls of quickly). That exchanged energy is what we call the mass of the standard matter-energy. That heating of the graviton superfluid is what causes convection, i.e., gravity. So now we pretty much have it all - the gravity pulls matter-energy together, eventually making all the objects in the cosmos, including black holes and supermassive black holes in the center of each galaxy. Here is the really interesting part - under sufficient conditions the matter-energy and graviton superfluid that are ingested by the SMBH can be compressed to Planck scale, but no further. Incrementally more energy, and guess what - it phase changes back into an electrino-positrino plasma. That plasma can then emit from the SMBH via a jet or merger event and we are back to step 4 above. Everything recycles. I didn't go into the cosmos surface stuff, but it's just a logical extension. To see how close scientists are to realizing this, watch ua-cam.com/video/IFcQuEw0oY8/v-deo.html and read my comments there. Gee whiz, they just need to be a little more creative and open-minded and they will realize what I have already reverse engineered. So, nothing mysterious at all. No dark matter, no dark energy, no many worlds, no big bang, no big crunch, no, no, no. It's just simple. That all said, it still begs the question of where did the ingredients come from and when did this begin.
Question: *How could the various universes AVOID constantly colliding?* Prof Vilenkin states that all these nice bubbles are in a much bigger, expanding space, but later describes "failed" universes (for observers) that either collapse back down, or have cosmological constants such that they expand far too rapidly. *_Given an infinite number of universes, there will be a sufficiently large amount of super-expansive bubbles that will envelope many or most of the other innocent bubble universes (i.e. ours) that happen to be in the neighborhood._* Perhaps if there is a boundary on the cosmological constant that yields an expansion rate that is far below that of the "space" containing all the bubbles - but why would that be?
the space between the bubble creation is expanding exponentially so collisions are unlikely but not impossible. We do discuss this in episode 4 of this series.
@@PhilHalper1 Thanks for the reply. "Unlikely but not impossible" is pretty undefined, and seems more like a rationale to keep things believable than a theory: "Exponentially expanding" - how was that determined? It also doesn't answer my question as to whether there is a limit. Even our universe has an accelerating expansion rate; what's to stop the more extreme from having near "infinite" expansion rates?
Sadly, the excuse of the universe just suddenly appearing in a big bang is actually the intellectual equivalent of a two year old saying 'because.' Math is a wonderful tool for many, many things, but not necessarily everything.
The excuse that the universe was created is the intellectual equivalent of saying there's an afterlife because we're scared of dying. Maths describes everything given a sufficiently complex model, some people would rather give up and pretend that reality is limited by their own comprehension.
The word "nothing" is tricky because to characterize it as "slang" is not far off. "Nothing" exists only in the human imagination. It is actually a place holder, a word that means the absence of a certain type of thing or class(s) of things - whatever the focus of discussion might be at that moment. When we elevate the meaning of "nothing" to some imagined absolute metaphysical state we are entering the realm of myth and fantasy (the "philosophical Nothing"). The tyranny of vague everyday language affects philosophers and scientists just as it does the rest of us. One example of this is the assumption, built into our language, that everything must have a beginning and an end. Some "things" do have a beginning and an end. This of course depends on how we define a "thing" - a word only slightly less vague than "nothing". But, perhaps not all that we might call a "thing" requires a beginning and an end - let alone a "cause".
Since the universe exists now, the *potential* for it to exist has always existed. So my question is, why did the potential for the universe to exist, exist, instead of not?
This series of docs is absolutely superb. Thank you guys for all the hard work that went into this.
thank you we really appreciate the comment.
Where do these come from? They are absolutely incredible - some of the best physics videos I've ever seen. Is skydivephil just the account of a large organization? Are these just uploads of some documentary series that aired at some time in the past?
@@drewboardman9109 Hi Drew thanks for your comment. No this is not from a big organisation and no the videos haven't been uploaded elsewhere. This an ammeter operation specifically for youtube by someone who is a just a lay person interested in cosmology and wanted to watch the documentaries we are making. When we realised no one was going to make what we wanted to see, we made them. If you watch the first 2 episodes you will the see the ammeter quality. Luckily we have learnt a lot and bought better equipment so it looks more professional. For episode 5 we collaborated with Nick Franco who is a professional film maker and I also learnt a fair bit more from him. The operation is just me and my wife and two friends who do the animations.
@@PhilHalper1 well they are amazing. They are better than almost all other big budget astronomy videos out there.
@@drewboardman9109 thanks, thats very kind of you. Any shares on social media are much appreciated.
Thank you much for these vids Skydiver & co. I have watched all episides this far and am very impressed. Intersting, interesting... Thanks again!
you are very welcome and thanks for watching them all!
I sent this video to my 9 yr old grandson, he replied saying, It makes perfect sense to him.If it's good enough for him, then me too
Children's minds are amazing at adapting to new information, as long as they haven't had their heads filled with dogmatic rubbish already.
Kids have no problems with infinity, because EVERYTHING is near-infinite when your age is single digits, everyone is taller than you and every journey takes AGES!
But 9 year old children can't even give informed consent about marriage?
#James anonymous, I am also 12 years old, this is my father's account I am using, I also know very much about cosmology, Astronomy, Astrophysics etc. At the age of 7, I started leaning about space & physics, it needs passion & interest in which ever field you are studying.
By:- Aditya pawar
This is such a great series. I've watched this through 3 times.
I really like Alex. He seems very humble.
thanks, yes he seemed very nice when I met him and has been very helpful in making the film
Your channel is so incredibly good. Sincere thanks to all involved :)
you are welcome
When your girlfriend says "Nothing is wrong" 🤔 there's a chance it could explode into everything.
=D
lol
True
One of the waitresses at work had seemed down for a day or so. I fell into step beside her as she arrived for work one day and asked what was wrong. In perfect harmony we both sighed and said: 'oh, nothing'. She stopped and looked at me and said: 'you were married, weren't you'.
Hence the multiverse
Possibly the best series of videos on the internet that deal with cosmology. Thank you for yet another brilliant thought provoking video.
Thanks that is so kind of you to say
@@PhilHalper1 I would appreciate if you could reply or do a video on what Vilenkin specifically means when he says you can get spontaneous nucleation from nothing(with the laws of quantum mechanics), what does he mean by nothing, (did it say somewhere in the video he doesn't mean the philosophical "nothing"), would the spontaneous nucleation come from potential energy, say perhaps in a zero total energy universe, you can have positive and negative forms of energy, so would the nucleation come from a negative energy or potential energy, he also said no field, potentially no space and no time, but he didn't mention energy. I am left a bit unclear what he means, is Vilenkin proposing a creation ex nihilo model, or a creation ex materia model? Would really appreciate if you could help me clear some of these up. Ill rewatch to check i didn't miss something.
@@irtehpwn09 i think this is all explained in the video Im in honest. Try giving it another go.
@@PhilHalper1 Ok so i watched again, please forgive the length of this. I understand it this way, we measure time by change, the universe has been changing by inflating for 13.7 billion years, so the quantum tunneling to a larger size would be the beginning of change and therefore time, also due to tunneling to a larger size, space is emerging too, so we have space-time emerging from that dot quantum tunneling to a larger size, this larger size then inflates. He said he starts from this smallest possible universe, that dot with no space and no time, and the high probability state would be very high energy vacuum/false vacuum in the smallest possible size, that dot, i would say, well technically there is space, just no external space to the dot, its just all contained within that dot, compressed into that dot, so to speak.
This would make me answer my previous questions as, this is a creation ex materia model from the laws of quantum mechanics and high energy vacuum/false vacuum, compressed into a dot with essentially no space, its not the same as Trions? vaccum fluctuation model because its quantum tunneling from the dot to the bigger size, then inflating, due to inflation.
That to me appears to be what he is spelling out from 8:16- 11:33 , he then says at 13:09 we don't mean quantum vacuum, because there is no space no time, but i believe i have covered that in my comment, explaining time as change and space all contained in that dot. At 14:42 does he not describe what i have explained here?
However I don't really understand how that dot is any different from a singularity, apart from instead of the gravity going infinite, it becomes repulsive. Maybe gravity only goes infinite in models without dark energy/the cosmological constant, or lets say relativity stops applying when the universe gets sufficiently small and the quantum high energy vacuum takes over and everything is repelled when things get that small, it would kind of be like degeneracy pressure when stars are collapsing, that degeneracy pressure halts the inward collapsing wave of the star and rebounds the waves back out. When we are rewinding the universe backwards towards the big bang, are we not collapsing it?
At 24:35 he says a singularity in not a good thing to have in your model, because you can ask what was before that and before that, well with the interpretation i have spelled out you would say there was no time before that, it was just there, still, then it tunneled and time began.
Have i got that wrong? Please i am trying to understand, i really think i have got it here and i too would go with the many worlds interpretation.
@@irtehpwn09 as I understand a singularity isn't nothing, it has mass, density, curvature, etc . The universe would have infinite size even at the singularity . that isn't the case here.
Excellent. This gentleman has a superb grasp on his topic, explained in a clear, easily understood use of language.
couldn't agree more
Such an important episode.
Thanks
This series is fantastic! I get so excited everytime I see a new episode posted. Thanks for the amazing content!
thanks for your comment, we really appreciate it.
"thanks for your comment, we really appreciate it." A self awarded Pluralis majestatis, Phil?
Thank you so much about this serie, the aspect i like the most about this serie is probably because it's the actual physicists that talk about all those aspects, they use proper terminology as well as specifying their sources, so you can go and actually dive into whatever aspects they are talking about and learn the details from other sources.
thanks thats the idea we had , that these aren't "films" but video educational resources. Glad you like them
So Vilenkin says his model does not tunnel from vacuum in the sense of QFT-vacuum. But in quantum mechanics in general people sometimes call the lowest lying energy state whatever it may be “the vacuum”, probably inspired by the usage in QFT. Further, any local minimum energy state is sometimes called a false vacuum (To make it even more confusing this usage is not referring to the same thing as the “false vacuum” required for inflation, though the concepts may overlap.)
So if one use “the vacuum” to just mean the lowest energy state or just the lowest energy state accessible then I think Vilenkins theory can be said to tunnel from the vacuum. Not necessarily from what is usually though if as the QFT-vacuum but still. There is so much terminology used in different ways and it’s confusing to get what anyone is saying about these issues.
In neither the QFT case or the more general QM case is it reasonable to call the vacuum nothing. It’s a quantum state and it has unitary dynamics (unless one is making up something even more exotic than that of course, but that’s beyond quantum mechanics).
I think we can all agree that true 'nothing' does not exist...so not-nothing has infinite time to try out every possible combination of events that could trigger a big bang for a universe like this. Obviously we observe this universe because it is the only one that succeeded (anthropic principle). The creepy question is, if nothing is so unstable, why hasn't it ruined our universe with additional big bangs, or quantum fluctuations?
Because nothing is not there anymore.. we are living in a one and only universe (I do not believe this but it would be a possibility)
@@svendtang5432 impossible... not nothing always exists.. why do we get such a nice stable separation from it.... why can't this not nothing violent vacuum state ruin this universe in an instant?
presumably because it has to reach a certain quantum state for a big bang to result and until conditions similar to those at the big bang are the same, or at least similar, we (might) be safe. also as we only have the one universe to base our guesses on it might well be that the numbers that make up "the fine tuning" are the only numbers that exist, never mind only numbers that work. as far as nature, or physics is concerned, all thse numbers are "1", human measurement is arbitrary (the speed of light is based on the length of my arm).(well, not anymore but u get what i mean). as sean caroll likes to point out, time passes at one second per second. it may be the speed of light is the same in every universe because it is a "thing" rather than a measurement, a brute fact.
So, he basically views the bubbly multiverse landscape as a sphere, from which bubbles of spacetime nucleate to become the observable flat space time like what we inhabit, or does he view the entire universe/multiverse with all causal patches or diamonds itself as forming a super-sphere configuration of which only a minuscule part appears flat upon close inspection? Very thought provoking though. Next, please do one on the black holes and their roles in generating universes or on the role of black holes in quantum gravity theories etc. Thank you for your efforts. Keep ot up
black hole generating universes will be the next episode of this series.
This is the kind of deep content that keeps me awake at night. I have my own thoughts on the creation of "existence", but still need to learn higher mathematics so I can communicate my ideas in an objective way. Thanks very much for posting videos like this. Glad I found this channel.
Thanks very much for your comment and good luck with you endeavours.
@@PhilHalper1 The problem is that UA-cam has not put the translation feature in the video
Please translate the video into Arabic
The problem is that UA-cam has not put the translation feature in the video
&
@@نظريةكلشيئ How do I do that?
In the final Analysis its God or Magic....
ua-cam.com/video/Bj6mZiRRuUU/v-deo.html
@@Allan-JC well said , it's all theory anyway , I think we can learn more by studying , religion , theosophy ect .
Your quotes around "Nothing" are well placed, as this might explain how matter and energy came into being from pre-existing quantum fields, but quantum fields (even at ground state) constitute the universe. So it says nothing on how the Universe (singular) itself or (multiple) themselves, came to be.
Nor even if the fundamentals of physics are non-spatiotemporal (as various models of quantum gravity suggest) would whatever those fundamentals are cound as 'no thing': they are something, no matter how different that thing is from everyday experience or Descarete's 'Res extensia'.
The 'nothing' that's meant in the question 'why is there soemthing rather than nothing' is complete nothing - the absence of the entire Universe, regardless of in what it consists..
Anyway regardless, great content in this series as always.
@@lorenavedon That is fairly easy to do. I don't know how old you are, but at some time in the past you did not exist as your mother had not yet gotten pregnant with you. Before that point in time you did not exist and were nothing. It took actions on your parents part to create you. Since everything in our universe appears to have an origin, there is logically and mathematically, a point where this universe had a start and did not exist before then. Science can make all kinds of proposals about what happened before that start, but at best, these are metaphysical proposals rather than a scientific theory. Nothing (or rather non-existance) is an honest and valid possibility and is a useful starting point for some ideas of origins.
@@lorenavedon I don't think what you've said make sense.
There can't be evidence for 'nothing' and nor could it ever be based in reality, as 'nothing' precludes 'something' and reality has to consist in something. 'Nothing' precludes reality.
Similarly 'possibility' - if you mean physical possibility - is precluded by their being no reality.
So "philosophical "nothing" is what we should expect over "something"" is not right. 'Nothing' is the opposite of something, not over it.
Of course, it may be that there always has been and always will be 'something' - that the universe is eternal. Of the possibilities for how the Universe came to be,while still strange, it's the one I prefer.
It's also interesting to think about whether our Universe being a simulation counts. It would mean 'nothing' preceded 'something' in respect to our Universe, yet isn't really this philosophical 'nothing. So would a Universe created by a god be different? Not really. So perhaps the only possibility on the table where 'nothing' precedes 'something' is a true 'ex nihilo' coming into being, with no gods or sim creators.
So so happy you guys are continuing this series. Pls keep up the good work can"t get enough.
thanks
15:03 causality at quantum levels is weird, I get it. But saying that because there is no cause for the atom to decay, then there is no cause for the universe.... Q. In 1st case you HAVE an atom that decays, 2nd case what do you have? A.Nothing. Q.Does that 'nothing' have some properties? A.Yes. Q.Then it is 'something' that we have no idea what it is.
How is this not produced by the BBC? I mean, sell it or give it away, cooperate with PBS Space Time, National Physical Societies - anyhow, this series needs to get maximum spotlight! And the production quality has become pretty professional, too! Very good and important work!
thank you so much we really appreciate it. If you want to see it widely spread , just share it on social media.
Far far too good for the BBC.
The BBC would waste millions to do something that would not be nearly as good. They would piss around wasting time and money on trivialities, like clueless, pretty, demographically suitable presenters, regardless they have no idea or interest.
They would absolutely dumb it down to fuck, imagining folk are bumbling imbeciles, and insulting everyone's intelligence, replaced with all manner of fancy looking, too expensive graphics, that in reality convey little to no meaning. Possibly the worst and most damaging would be their inability to do anything where they do not inject thier ridiculously sexists, feminist, and anti British, anti male and anti white, ideological biases and disdain for the especially working class.
The BBC's time has long past. It should have been done away with at least a decade ago, probably two.
I got rid of my TV several years ago now. I have never missed it. In fact when I do on occasion watch anything at someone else's, I can't believe how the country can sit and watch such puerile, stultifying drivel and papp.
There is far far better to be found from professionals and keen amateurs alike here on the internet and even UA-cam.
@@rationalmartian they did have a decent attempt with the Horizon, What Happened Before The Big bang, back in 2010
Exactly .! This and other channels like D W documentaries produce content far superior to BBC . There was a time when that wasn't the case but somehow they have
become obsessed with various
agendas which have no connection to Science or Knowledge. Box ticking comes first . Programme quality a poor
second.
29:30 how does the vacuum energy predicted from particle physics relate to that of the initial inflation? how different?
So primordial black holes that would later become supermassive black holes could just be quantum fluctuations that just didn't "fluctuate" far enough to create a new universe and instead collapsed in on themselves? Remnants of failed bubble universes. Truly a beautiful thought.
it is, fingers crossed this will be something we can probe experimentally.
A beautiful thought indeed. But i have problems with the term "not far enough". Tunneling cant be happening on a linear scale in this case. Either it reaches the higher energy state behind the barrier or not (see 10:07) If not it will be cancelled out, as far as i understand.
@@positrone I'm by no means an expert here but I think you misunderstand. The term Alex uses at the timestamp you provided is "collapse" not "cancel out". Huge difference here, in my opinion. I imagine the "high energy vacuum" constantly spawning all sorts of collapsing universes and sometimes expanding ones. Since the collapsing universes require less tunneling they should be more common but they are uninteresting since they can't produce conscious observers.
@@faaltoh - Yes. I thought about this. Alex is saying, that our current universe could be in a state of false vacuum and tunneling could cause either a new bubble or total destruction by vacuum decay, which did not happenend so far; ...and gravity is somehow stabilizing bubbles and an inflation within. But a bubble within a bubble would need tunneling to an even higher false vacuum in the beginning. So, we are either at the stable end of a chain of "past" failing universes or in constant danger to random extinction due to the lack of causality, if something can tunnel from where is no time and space, which sounds really really weird.
NO BIG BANG, no black holes.
We live in a toroidal universe, without beginning or end in time, that is constantly regenerating itself (in the way of all energetic toroids).
Academic fraud surrounding the Big Bang theory.
facebook.com/SemirOsmanagich/posts/1647060798643433
No Big Bang (universe without beginning or end in time)
"Deflating the Theory of Cosmic Inflation"
ua-cam.com/video/Ox3_tJcPy2M/v-deo.html
Academic fraud surrounding the Big Bang theory.
facebook.com/SemirOsmanagich/posts/1647060798643433
"Deflating the Theory of Cosmic Inflation"
ua-cam.com/video/Ox3_tJcPy2M/v-deo.html
"Black hole" is a misconception. Fortunately. :)
No black holes.
"The Filamentary Universe"
ua-cam.com/video/GyleDts9RiI/v-deo.html
No black holes.
"Theoretical Alternatives in an Electric Universe"
ua-cam.com/video/ZBWOH9Wu2c0/v-deo.html
No dark matter, no black holes.
"Both black holes and dark matter, however, suffer from equally baffling conceptual difficulties, which should cause anyone of a scientific or rational frame of mind to question their very existence. . . . If we were not beholden to the idea that gravity ruled the universe, we might well be tempted to regard them both as examples of mathematical fudge. In the electric universe paradigm, we are indeed not beholden to the understanding that the cosmos is held together principally by gravity.
"In an electric universe, the presence of the electric force -- which can reasonably be regarded as 1039 (i.e., one thousand million million million million million million) times as strong as the gravitational force -- is what changes everything. It is the electric force that holds in the bodies that revolve [in galaxies] at otherwise unaccountable rates. . . .
"The fudge of neither dark matter nor black holes is necessary to account for the cosmic cohesion that we see, and both concepts can be consigned to the dust-bin of history."
- Bishop Nicholas Sykes
(start minute 3:16)
"Theoretical Alternatives in an Electric Universe"
ua-cam.com/video/ZBWOH9Wu2c0/v-deo.html
I wish Stephen Hawking had been right about the black holes concept. Cool idea. On the other hand, maybe it's best that a star-sucking demon doesn't exist at the center of every galaxy. #StephenHawking #electricuniverse
"The Filamentary Universe"
ua-cam.com/video/GyleDts9RiI/v-deo.html
@StephenMerchant Well played, sir. You both have your niches in history. I wish SH had been right about the black holes concept. Cool idea. On the other hand, maybe it's best that a star-sucking demon doesn't exist at the center of every galaxy.
"The Filamentary Universe"
ua-cam.com/video/GyleDts9RiI/v-deo.html
How stars are formed.
"Plasma Cosmogony"
www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/07/03/plasma-cosmogony/
Bubble universes - maybe, but not as Dr. Vilenkin has imagined. If our universe is finite, then it is possible that beyond our universe there are many bubbles. I can think of several ways, but I don't see this as a priority: mostly fixed in solid electrino/positrino, moving in liquid electrino/positrino, or moving in 3D truly empty space. Yes they could merge. Yes, they could grow or shrink. It is unlikely to be testable anytime soon, and I can't imagine why it would be relevant at this point (knowing how the physics works throughout the universe).
Take lives as analogy, maybe it's more clear this way.
We don't know the origin of lives, but we have uncountable living things. Universes is like the lives. Countless universes, and more mysterious origin.
A sumptuous serving of food for thought which only leaves you hungry for more. A deeply fascinating subject brilliantly presented. Thank you.
thanks very much , Im glad you liked it.
quality has come a long way since episode 1. Good job!
thanks, we hd no idea what we were doing in terms of film making back then, but have learnt a lot Thanks for noticing.
Either math *defines* "reality", in which case the only sensible conclusion is it's all a simulation, or math *describes* "reality", in which case postulating theories based on what math hints at is pointless.
Idea of simultaneous multiverses crowding unspecified vacuum volume is not very easily perceptible and smacks of over complication for sake of sounding deeply "scientific". That defies Occam Razor principle of "least proof is sufficient", Aristotle postulated some 1800 years ago.
Math is a system contained in it's axioms. If you modify the axioms the math is modified. This means math is not physical, not real. Can you name any physical thing you can modify by thinking about it? Yeah, me neither.
The stellar universe dwells within a far more ancient pre-existing space/time.
It's so hard for my brain to contemplate the state of nature before our universe appeared. The concept of "nothing"... not even space or time... not even a vacuum. Just absolute nothing is hard to imagine. And even if energy exists eternally outside our universe... why! Why is there anything? Why is there something instead of nothing!!! ARGHHH I can't deal with it. LOL
I like to imagine the multiverse as an immense and timeless broiling broth of pure energy. And universes just pop out of this river of energy like little bubbles.
you are not the only one who finds it hard to picture this. Im not sure there is energy outside the universe. Energy is a feature of the universe.
I've convinced myself that there is 'never nothing' not just in our universe, but everywhere (said the way Gary Oldman says 'everyone' in "The Professional").
@@donaldsmith3926 That may well be true but iIm not sure the word "convinced" and these sorts of issues should go together. I recall that movie it was called "Leon" in Europe, v good stuff.
@@PhilHalper1 I use the word 'convinced' like a way to stop thinking when I try to use contemplating origins as a way to sleep after determining where 'everywhere'is,and where it wait, stop, not now. Despite what one might think, pondering boundless isn't sleep inducing. We who live in the area wonder how Luc decided on Wildwood as the setting for the girl's school. It was either an inside joke or he just liked the name.
@RANDY WASSUM barking up every tree will get you nowhere you need discipline and an education, then you may discover a part of the puzzle
The series of videos made by you guys is really appreciable.By these videos we came to know what are the hypothesis regarding the creation of our universe.I enrich myself with these ideas.Thank you guys for all the hard work done by you.
thanks you for your comment, it is very much appreciated and Im glad you like the series.
Has anyone thought to map the picture of the CMB onto a large sphere and stand inside it? I feel like that might yield something interesting. Looking at the image in this video, there appear to be some large scale structures that might wrap around from one side to the other. Mapping it onto a sphere would be as informative as the difference between looking at a flat world map and a globe. I'm sure it must have been done before many times, but I've never seen it done. For some reason cosmologists seem to prefer the flat picture of the CMB which by nature must distort the geometry from a sphere into a flat oval - thus giving a false representation - just the same as various continents look much larger or smaller than they really are when displayed on a typical world map.
Erm, they only project it onto a non-spherical surface for illustration, practically it's ALWAYS treated as projected onto a sphere around the observer.
3:00 QM makes the faulty assumption that the vacuum can do no accounting. Guess what, the vacuum, spacetime, is a superfluid of graviton (6-/6+) particles (think of low energy photons particles, maybe at around 2.7K in free space of the Milky Way). Of course this superfluid can do accounting. It's a specialist at accounting! Where do you think the mass-energy trade comes from? These particles, like photons exchange energy. They can also encapsulate fragments of themselves. That is what makes standard matter. A neutron is a graviton encapsulating an anti-neutrino (9-/9+). A proton is a graviton encapsulating a positron (6-/12+). A this electrino/positrino level charge is 1/6th magnitude of an electron.
YES! I love this series so much!
thanks
If inflation continues into the infinite future, and we're at some random point on that infinite timeline, like say half-way, well half infinity is still infinity right? So by that logic, it's likely to extend into our infinite past right?
Leonard Susskind criticised Vilenkin, making the very same point. arxiv.org/abs/1204.5385
I don't believe the intelligent young lady got any credits, I found her very refreshing. I've always believed in the many universe theory because it doesn't have to come out of nothing, it can come out of a black hole in another universe. Gravity or what is confused with black energy can travel through multiple universes but it's presents can be measured in ours. BTW, nice video and thanks for the index.
you are welcome, she prefers being anonymous as there are a lot of internet weirdos.
I must watch at least one of the videos from this series every week, they keep me sane and take my mind off the nonsense happening on this planet.
Thank you to everyone involved!
you are welcome, I hope you find them interesting
Such an amazing documentary , definitely deserves much more views
thanks, if you can share it on social media that would help get them. But appreciate the comment.
That quantum tunneling thing seems like the mechanic I was lacking in my understanding of CCC
Phil and Monica- great team. I want to form the Monica fanclub
Alex speak clearly. enjoy following his thoughts though I am still not totally convince by it.
i dont think we should be convinced of any of the models we cover, nature will convince us at some point that one, some combination or none are correct though I hope .
you say a quantum singularity or fluctuation, that means you are assuming that there is something prior to this
"Prior to this" This what? What prior?
NeverTalkToCops1 the first cause, unmoved mover. What caused something
hey Phil - would love it if you could do a shorter, concise video on "what cosmologists say about the Big Bang" - much like you outlined in the discussion you had with Aron Ra. I get tired of trying to correct misconceptions and be nice to have a summary to refer to
Also, is a failed bubble really a failure if our universe is within a black hole itself ? Thanks by the way these videos are amazing.
The probability of creating something from nothing like our universe is ver y low? Then how can we believe of the existense of infinte other universes?
Well, the energy comes from the condensate.. fields permeate all aspects of space. U cant have space and not have fields. Electromagnetic or of the like
I absolutely love this series
thanks , we appreciate you takin the time to tell us too.
The following is a continuous, unbroken quote. The timestamps do not indicate skips to different times: the timestamps are just meant to help divide the long quote into different times to make finding particular statements in the video easier.
“[8:16]
To see how what I call “tunneling from nothing” is possible, let us imagine we have a closed universe which has 2 ingredients. It has high-energy vacuum, of the kind that you need to drive inflation. Inflation I should say is rapid accelerated expansion of the universe which is driven by this unusual stuff, which is called high-energy vacuum, or sometimes false vacuum. A remarkable thing about this vacuum is that it has repulsive gravity. So when the universe is filled with this stuff, the repulsive nature of gravity causes the universe to expand with acceleration. And the other ingredient is just ordinary matter. So we have this universe with these 2 ingredients.
[9:19]
Now let us imagine varying the radius of this universe. If we make the radius small, the density of matter will grow and then the attractive gravity of matter will dominate and the universe will collapse. If you increase the radius, the matter will be diluted and the repulsive gravity of the vacuum will dominate and the universe will inflate - expand with acceleration.
[9:46]
Okay, now I wanted to start with a very small universe. So suppose I have a very small universe. Classically it would collapse, because of gravity. However, there is an energy barrier between that and the large size of the universe that would make it inflate. But what I realized is that instead of collapsing the universe can do something more interesting. It could tunnel to a larger radius. So it would be a quantum-tunneling process, so the universe will tunnel to a larger radius and will start expanding.
[10:22]
And then I asked myself how small this initial universe can be. Mathematically I discovered that when I take the size of the initial universe to 0, the mathematical description of the whole thing simplifies greatly and what I had was a mathematical description of a universe tunneling from a point to a finite radius and starting to inflate. So a point is no space at all, so basically this is no space, it’s no matter.
[10:55]
And the universe in this picture is created spontaneously from basically “nothing”. I write “nothing” in quotation marks because it’s not a philosophical nothing, because we assume that the laws of quantum mechanics are there, “somehow there”.
[11:21]
There is no space or time and the universe tunnels from this timeless, spaceless “state” into existence. As it appears, the universe has a very small size. It’s filled with this high-energy vacuum and it starts to inflate very rapidly.
[11:44]
The mathematical picture that I had gives the probability for the universe to appear in different sizes and also filled with different kinds of high-energy vacuum, and what I found was that the highest probability is for the largest energy vacuum and the smallest initial size. So the universe appears extremely tiny, but then the high energy of the vacuum and its repulsive gravity causes the universe to expand very fast, and so it doesn’t stay small it becomes huge in [a] very tiny amount of time.
[12:26]Female Narrator: “So how does Vilenkin’s tunneling-from-nothing model differ from Tryon’s vacuum-fluctuation model?”
[12:32]
It’s different from Tryon’s model in two regards.
First, Tryon had a disadvantage that he didn’t know about inflation. If the universe appears as a quantum fluctuation, then a small quantum fluctuation is much more probable than a large one.
[Second,] He assumed the preexisting empty space - preexisting vacuum - and it was not clear where that came from. So the main difference is in the picture: [for] tunneling from nothing there is no space before that and no time.
[13:08]
When we say ‘nothing’ in this context, tunneling from nothing, we don’t mean quantum vacuum - which is actually what Tryon meant. Here we have a state without space, completely, so there is no vacuum.
[13:29]
The laws of physics are assumed to be there, and that’s a great mystery: where they come from and what determines which laws they should be.”
45:12
Oh the SWEET sound of hat-eatting Christian Apologists... my my :D
lol, glad someone noticed.
@@PhilHalper1 The burden of proof was never on me and yet...
NOM NOM NOM
So if the big bang created matter AND space, where were these vacuums housed? (i.e. what did they permeate if there was no space?). I hope i phrased this in the correct way to reflect my question. Asked differently, what is the medium in which these quantum fluctuations occurred before the creation of space (and matter)? If "nothingness" contains inherent field fluctuations, what were the crests and troughs of the waves moving into?
High energy vacuum? Were does that come from? Wave function collapses? Why when does a wave just collapse? I've never seen a wave collapse. Waves keeps waving. I think this stuff is still too much for us to understand. And by us I mean me.
In this video Alex Vilenkin argues for the Everett interpretation of Qm which has no wave function collapse so I guess hes agreeing with you.
@@PhilHalper1 Sean Carroll just had David Albert on his podcast and they go over Everett's work - discussing pretty much what you're asking at one point OP.
@@ChasingChevy yeah its a great podcast , really love it. David Albert is awesome , a really profound thinker. However, i do think he got this subject wrong. he said a universe from nothing was from a vacuum fluctuation, but thats Tryon's model and not Vilenkin's. A common confusion.
@Chris Manzi books will disappear and reform out of nothing
Not easy to know where everything comes from.
ad. Wave function
The square (see complex conjugated ) of a wave functions describe the probably position to find a particle. When you find it or grab it, which is a measurement. The wave function is no longer probabilistic.
We have found the particle and we say that the wave function has collapsed.
Watching again, I bloody love this series! More please Phil.
thanks
WHY WOULD ALL THESE MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURES EXIST AT ALL?
Absolutely brilliant content, graphics, organization and delivery of material. The editing is superb. I love this democratization of media outlets through UA-cam channels like this. You put mainstream networks to shame.
thanks so much
Thanks,put some thoughts into perspective,what a mind this genius has.I think I will have to view this vid several times for me to get a grip of it,great stuff,serious brain food,yummy.
glad you liked it
I'm hungry aswell . And confused
Theories such as this always sound more impressive in a
Russian accent !!
WoW ...this was an amazing video...it would be great to combine it with some ambiance chill out music and cut it ...sort of an art peice.
Listen to it like a really long work of art. A bit like what the did to David Lerry and his acid trip experiences in the 90s.
Thanks
I haven't yet had the time to watch the video. But vilenkin is a genius and this video will be deep as hell..
Hope it meets your expectation, please come back and let us know what you think.
WHY ARE THERE ANY PARTICLES AT ALL?
Because God sneezed.
"First there was nothing. Then it exploded."
The story of my life. The problem is that when nothing explodes, it turns into shit.
I think Netflix should make programs like this, they would be very popular in.
Best videos on UA-cam.
thanks very much
I had a vacuum fluctuation watching this.
I call it the Zero Sum Infinity Wave-function
15:04 I think it should be clear that decay processes are simply reactions. So there is definitely a cause. The probabilities aligned where the energy of the reactants was greater than the required threshold energy at that moment. It could be a solar neutrino, or a high energy gamma ray, or some other confluence of energy particles and waves passing through the universe. So, it turns out this was not supportive of Dr. Vilenkin's argument.
Maybe there are dimensions that contain infinite unimaginable dimensions. Maybe a dimension is such a human construct that there are universe's where you eat dimensions for breakfast.
Maybe you are only here because the condom broke. What is your point?
Wow very thorough! You guys asked almost every question i could think of. Thanks for the great content
you are welcome
HOW DIS ALL THIS GET STARTTED IN THE VERY BEGINNING?
You must progress away from notions of "the very beginning."
NeverTalkToCops1 no he must not, if that kind of dumb reactions is what all the other scientist would have gotten and moreover adhered to, we would know nothing. There is either a beginning, or there is not. Both are problematic for science, and coming up with theories that contain untested elements is one thing, buth building on those until the point you feel like you have to make the general public believe that the issue of beginning and “what was there before” and “outside the universe” is not relevant in order for you as a scientist to be able to make sense about some parts of your theory, is just dumb.
I was always under the assumption that dark energy was a mystery, but he gives a good explanation as to what it could be and also answers the questions about the nature of the universe such as the size, shape, genesis and if there is a multiverse
Thanks , Im not sure dark energy is really explained in this video, except that its value may be explained by anthropic selection in a multiverse.
WHY IS THER A HIGH ENERGY VACCUUM AT ALL?
Not why, how.
incorrect, it needs to be traced via causality back to the 1st event, how is irrelevent
@@XMIR10C Incorrect! In physics it's a "how" question , not why! This isn't philosophy 101, lol
Sign on the Faculty vending machine: "This machine does not accept coins, just wait".
NAIL ON THE HEAD, THE CAUSE...
Occasionally anomalous paradoxes occur at the macroscopic level; objects appear from nowhere, time shifts, etc. I'd say sometimes the different scales cross behavior
I believe we don’t have the answer yet or ever 🤭
It may be possible to have confidence on what happened before the big bang, whether or not we can ever understand the whole history of the universe is I agree very daunting, but maybe it is not hopeless.
skydivephil the only way is if another advanced life comes to earth and gives people knowledge that’s the only way I can see it happen
@@seagramrip187 Or we could figure it out and be those who reveal the secrets to others in our cosmic neighbourhood. Why wait for someone else? They could be waiting for us, lazy, and disheartened (if they have one - or more!).
@@seagramrip187 you think that we won't "ever" have the answer, but that some more "advanced life" could. That's a contradiction as this lifeform would have had to have gained that knowledge as they develop. You're just appealing to yet another "higher power".
So we DO live in a bubble! Ha!
I do wonder why, exactly, you can't say that the universe could emerge from nothing (in the philosophical sense) spontaneously. It feels sort of like saying "If there are no laws, how could someone possibly get away with murder?"
I've always thought this, to say something cant happen implies a law, but if there was genuinely nothing then there would be no law preventing something coming from noting.
@KLJF That doesn't really answer the question. If you aren't going to say anything useful, what was the point of typing anything out?
-Since this video title have "Multiverse" in it's name we shall consider maybe the universe we talk about was just caused by another universe. That talking about how this universe come to exist not mean talking about the very source of everything.
Personally i think that "nothing" or "nothingness" never existed.That the total lack of something results in something.
That by definition if the nothing exist i't does not exist just because the non existence is the very definition of the nothingness
Yes , we must be very careful with the words we use in this case . What do we call "something" , & why ? By opposition to "nothing" or "nothingness" ? Or something (!) else ? I mean , can we deal with the concept of "something existing" without the duality something - nothing ? Is it a fundamental paradox of our consciousness , or can we break it ? Can we find another alternative ? I agree with you on the point that , if nothing exists , then it doesn't . In this case we have the curious effect that it's equal to it's contrary . May be we can figure out using this property ...
Why would the universe form in sphere and not elliptical, rectangular etc.
Few people know this but it is strongly suspected that ours is penis shaped.
This video has ''nothing'' to offer me.
*”… you don’t know which universe you are in”* 17:48
This may be semantics , but Yes, we know. To work with Schroedinger’s example, if the cat is alive you’re in the living cat universe.
*Before* the quantum “decision,” you are in the pre-decision (MWI) universe.
“You” are going to be in all possible universes, each branch of you thinking it is the “real” you and the others are copies.
…except that as time passes, each branch of you becomes less like the others.
Another word salad technobabble video
sychrovsky: In other words, you don't understand what's being said. I understand some of it. I understand enough to know better than to try to dismiss it because there are bits that are beyond me. I understand enough to know that you'd have to provide more than just a ludicrous assertion to refute what it says.
If you have a scientific point, an evidence-supported scientific argument, against what is said here, present your view and your supporting evidence. Otherwise, clear off!
@@Nai61a Exactly! I struggle to understand these ideas but I don't blame the presenters.
Jesus did it, right?
why do people make playlists with the last video in the series being the first in the playlist
I am excited on the next 11 part!
Actually, this video made me more believing in god. Especially, when vilenkin talked about the many-worlds Interpretation which needs an observer outside the universe, who is likely a God!
Also the nothing that created something from nothing needs a lot of QM complex nature laws!
Which also God created and "wrote" that laws of nature.
The many worlds does not need an observer outside of it, that is just wrong.
skydivephil
What about the laws of nature?
Even the fudemantal laws which Max Tegmark refereed to needs a creator.
I think the subject of "laws of nature" is a good subject to discuss in the next 11 episode. ☺️
skydivephil
vilenkin said that in this episode.
@@macmecas5998 no he didn't
@@macmecas5998 why do they need a creator?
Will there be another one? I really enjoy this series..
Yes definitely. And Im glad you enjoyed it. have you seen our new film here? ua-cam.com/video/x9jYH5VIF9E/v-deo.html
What's the use of talking/thinking about the time before the Big Bang, when there isn't one person on earth who can give you the real composition of our current universe??? In my opinion, Archimedes was more of a scientist than most astronomers/cosmologists nowadays. We are back in the time of the natural-philosophers :-(
@Ψ It's all speculation. We will NEVER know what happened during the Big Bang (if there was one). Inflation-theory and string-theory for example can't be called theories because they can't be tested. Scientists should be more honest about their work, like this lady: ua-cam.com/video/oqgKXQM8FpU/v-deo.html
Thank you for addressing this complex and controversial issue and providing some great insight here.
It also reminds me that we have so much fascinating nature and so much still to explore - yet some people turn to books written 1000s of years ago and abandon all thinking and the urge to find out more.
Phil, why did Prof. Vilenkin say the universe came from 'nothing', when in fact it came from a spatial zero-dimensional point? 10:37
becuase in his view that is nothing, perhaps better put nothing material.
@@PhilHalper1 Well, but a zero-dimensional spatial point is physical, right? It is not just an abstraction that represents non-existence. So, how can Prof. Vilenkin claim that the universe came from material/physical non-existence when in fact it emerged from this physical point?
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco they way i see the model its saying space and time tunnelled into being from a state with no space or time .
@@PhilHalper1 But, Phil, even if this 'point' is not space, it is still a physical object. As Jim Gott pointed out in his paper: "[T]he Universe [in Vilenkin's model], we argue, should really start not as nothing but as an S3 universe of radius zero - a point. *A point is as close to nothing as one can get, but it is not nothing."* [Gott & Li, p.41]
So, were the apologists right, after all, when they claim that Vilenkin and Krauss distort the meaning of "nothing" (i.e., no physical objects)? While a point is not a quantum vacuum, it is still a material thing, and so Prof. Vilenkin must explain the origin of this point. Is it eternal or had a beginning? If the latter, then what is the mechanism?
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco the apologists are definitely wrong because they claim the model is just arising from a vacuum, thats not correct. There is perhaps a physical debate between Gott and VIelnkin but note the word "should" thats open to questions.
Just so you know, there is a typo in the video's title: it says "BIg", not "Big".
Great video though, keep up the good work.
oops, thanks , i really didn't see that. corrected now.
Not sure I understand. He said a tiger could not come out of the quantum vacuum because of energy conservation, yet that's ok if the universe does because the positive energy of matter is canceled by the negative energy of gravity. Wouldn't it be possible for a tiger to pop out of nothing since its positive energy from its matter be canceled by the negative energy of gravity? Also, what is the chance of creating a universe with 10 to the 80 particles in the universe vs 2 particles? Why did it create 10 to the 80 particles? Chance? BTW I love the questions she asks, because they would be most of the questions I would ask. Great job.
no a tiger doesnt have net zero energy and neither does the universe unless it has a closed geometry. So Vilenkin's model needs that assumption . According to Vilenkin a small universe is much more likely to fluctuate into existence than a large one like ours, but inflation can turn a very small thing into a very big thing so the model needs inflation as well.
@@PhilHalper1 Thank you for your reply. I think I understand much better now. So the universe started with no or very minimal matter and matter was created later when inflation ended. The potential energy from the inflaton field went down to the lower energy state through either a low roll or quantum tunneling and the potential energy was converted to matter. It must have been a very strong field to produce all this matter. I always wondered why the universe has the particular amount of matter it has rather than, say, half the amount or a billionth.
@@regelder4348 yes in the inflationary scenario that is how things work.
If sound is a vibration traveling threw sound does that mean that the initial expansion of space was in utter silence?
Maybe watch this again, some time I'm less sleepy; I'm not really getting the difference between this 'from nothing' and the 'quantum fluctuation' model. This insists on a Platonic existence for the rules of quantum mechanics, which , to me, is not ' from nothing'.
the difference between the Vilenkin model and a previous model (Tyron's model which is discussed in this film) . Is the previous quantum fluctuation model assume a pro existing space time whereas Vilenkin's does not.
EDGE FOUNDATION:
To arrive at the
edge of the world's knowledge, seek out the most complex and
sophisticated minds, put them in a room together, and have them ask
each other the questions they are asking themselves.
Amazing stuff i will be back to college and study the universe...
You might first want to consider "be back to college and study English".
Headphone warning around 6:40 cuz the Big Bang needed Foley
I thought I was watching a national geographic channel then I realised you have more content ! Awesome 🤙🏼🤙🏼
Awesome video. I finally get tobsee what this guy looks and sounds like
thanks, glad you like it.
The problem is that UA-cam has not put the translation feature in the video
Please translate the video into Arabic
The problem is that UA-cam has not put the translation feature in the video
Big bang is the activation of a picture tube connected to a computer stimulating our universe
Vilenkin says that the Everett interpretation is the only one that makes sense of cosmology, but he also says that quantum events are non-causal. As far as I understand the Everett interpretation it is in deterministic by unitary evolution even though observers run into indexical issues in trying to locate themselves. I’d be curious to hear him lay out further how he thinks about that.
17:00 And then he went on explaining it like that. Nice.
Bit of a circular logic issue where he was describing constraints on the cosmological constant. Says that if it's too large, galaxies don't form, then immediately talks about how the observed constant being right in the predicted range changed a lot of minds. We know we have galaxies in our 'bubble', why would the prediction be surprising at all?
Edit: it's like trying to figure out what weather is likely to cause puddles, looking at the soaked ground, then predicting that it's raining.
@16:19 Everett's many worlds interpretation is wrong and irrelevant. There is no ensemble of universes. It's just a bunch of gravitons, photons, and standard matter. That's it. A soup of gravitons, photons, and standard matter. QM and GR do a fine job of modeling it even though their physical model is wrong.
@@indicasativafusion : Hi. If you are referring to pair production from the quantum vacuum, then I would say, based on reverse engineering nature, that scientists do not understand the fundamentals of nature. What they call a quantum vacuum is a superfluid of graviton particles. Those particles can react and create standard matter. Throughout the universe, we have conservation of fundamental particles and energy. Nature is actually very logical and simple regarding the overall mechanism.
@@indicasativafusion Hi. I am a simple practical person, and in my reversed engineered model of nature, it too is simple and practical. Here is what you need for our universe:
1. Flat 3D space with a mathematical concept of real distance and real time. No curviness required.
2. A huge number of pairs of electrinos and positrinos, each 1/6th charge of their namesake. These particles, and composite particles made from then, are the only carriers of energy.
3. Lots of energy for the particles to carry.
4. That's it. Just release a plasma of those energetic particles in the 3D space and something like our universe will eventually form. (Now whether it actually had a starting point is a different question.)
Here is how it works and it is very simple.
a. when the hot electrino/positrino plasma cools, one composite particle type formed is the graviton. It fills all the 3D space in the spherical shape of our universe.
b. when a graviton is in a reaction, it can split into a fermion and anti-fermion. These can be captured by other gravitons. So a proton is a graviton encapsulating a positron. A neutron is a graviton encapsulating an anti-neutrino. So now we have all the standard matter.
c. standard matter-energy is constantly exchanging energy with nearby gravitons. Those waves travel through the gravitons and heat them (of course it is spreading spherically, so temperature falls of quickly). That exchanged energy is what we call the mass of the standard matter-energy. That heating of the graviton superfluid is what causes convection, i.e., gravity.
So now we pretty much have it all - the gravity pulls matter-energy together, eventually making all the objects in the cosmos, including black holes and supermassive black holes in the center of each galaxy.
Here is the really interesting part - under sufficient conditions the matter-energy and graviton superfluid that are ingested by the SMBH can be compressed to Planck scale, but no further. Incrementally more energy, and guess what - it phase changes back into an electrino-positrino plasma. That plasma can then emit from the SMBH via a jet or merger event and we are back to step 4 above. Everything recycles.
I didn't go into the cosmos surface stuff, but it's just a logical extension.
To see how close scientists are to realizing this, watch ua-cam.com/video/IFcQuEw0oY8/v-deo.html and read my comments there. Gee whiz, they just need to be a little more creative and open-minded and they will realize what I have already reverse engineered.
So, nothing mysterious at all. No dark matter, no dark energy, no many worlds, no big bang, no big crunch, no, no, no. It's just simple.
That all said, it still begs the question of where did the ingredients come from and when did this begin.
Question: *How could the various universes AVOID constantly colliding?*
Prof Vilenkin states that all these nice bubbles are in a much bigger, expanding space, but later describes "failed" universes (for observers) that either collapse back down, or have cosmological constants such that they expand far too rapidly.
*_Given an infinite number of universes, there will be a sufficiently large amount of super-expansive bubbles that will envelope many or most of the other innocent bubble universes (i.e. ours) that happen to be in the neighborhood._*
Perhaps if there is a boundary on the cosmological constant that yields an expansion rate that is far below that of the "space" containing all the bubbles - but why would that be?
the space between the bubble creation is expanding exponentially so collisions are unlikely but not impossible. We do discuss this in episode 4 of this series.
@@PhilHalper1 Thanks for the reply. "Unlikely but not impossible" is pretty undefined, and seems more like a rationale to keep things believable than a theory:
"Exponentially expanding" - how was that determined?
It also doesn't answer my question as to whether there is a limit. Even our universe has an accelerating expansion rate; what's to stop the more extreme from having near "infinite" expansion rates?
Sadly, the excuse of the universe just suddenly appearing in a big bang is actually the intellectual equivalent of a two year old saying 'because.' Math is a wonderful tool for many, many things, but not necessarily everything.
I say there are only 2 possibilities for the creation of the universe: the multiverse, or religious explanations
The excuse that the universe was created is the intellectual equivalent of saying there's an afterlife because we're scared of dying. Maths describes everything given a sufficiently complex model, some people would rather give up and pretend that reality is limited by their own comprehension.
The word "nothing" is tricky because to characterize it as "slang" is not far off. "Nothing" exists only in the human imagination. It is actually a place holder, a word that means the absence of a certain type of thing or class(s) of things - whatever the focus of discussion might be at that moment. When we elevate the meaning of "nothing" to some imagined absolute metaphysical state we are entering the realm of myth and fantasy (the "philosophical Nothing"). The tyranny of vague everyday language affects philosophers and scientists just as it does the rest of us. One example of this is the assumption, built into our language, that everything must have a beginning and an end. Some "things" do have a beginning and an end. This of course depends on how we define a "thing" - a word only slightly less vague than "nothing". But, perhaps not all that we might call a "thing" requires a beginning and an end - let alone a "cause".
The word is self explanatory, just divide. Nothing = No thing. Things are made of matter.
Since the universe exists now, the *potential* for it to exist has always existed. So my question is, why did the potential for the universe to exist, exist, instead of not?
"Not" would be too boring. Nature abhors boredom.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL To "be bored", Nature must exist. Why does Nature exist at all?