It seems that people don't understand this was not a conversation after a random meeting in a local bar. The big clue is that there were at least two cameras present.
I have heard about about Alan Guth for 50 years. I never expected to hear him explain in his own words his reasoning of how hyperinflation must have taken the universe from the size of an atomic particle to the embryo of our relativistic universe, with the creation of all the mass and energy we see today. My favorite quote -- "energy density equals geometry!" Thanks for making it possible!
Yes he does. I recognize him and I live mostly outside this world of physics, just as meaning hovers over these words but is outside them. That IS everything -and I totally recognize and appreciate him. So there you go! That constitutes universal recognition outside the world of physics. 🤔 I hope this ameliorates your lamentations. Thanks 🙏🏻 😂🙌
@@spiralsun1 Thanks, but truly, he doesn't have that recognition, you can ask and maybe 1 in 100 people know about him; 1 in 5 know about Lebron James, or Justin Bieber and that is sad.
No, he is not a genius because he is insane. His inflation theory is based on mere insanity, not on actual reality. I proved the universe is not expanding to insanity in a post, while these geniuses just keep inflating their expansion insanity since they were in highschool and now theyre one step from the asylum and still cant prove anything they say.
Exactly:) they posted a video of nick bostrom few days ago, he looked completely different I almost couldn't recognize him, but I cant complain and won't
@@infiniteuniverse123 I suppose the reason for wanting to know the date is, there might have been some advance in knowledge and research since the video was made. In other words, the information might be out dated.
"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology." ~ Carl Sagan
@@liberty-matrix We live in houses and don't know how to build them. Same could be said for roads, growing food, forging pots and pans, building/fixing cars, etc.... It's call a civilized society because of "specialization". Love Carl but that might be the weakest quote I've ever heard from him.
Another good video from Robert Kuhn's channel Closer to Truth. I love Alan Guth's personality. His reasoning is complete with it's spot on brevity. I can't help but wonder if the very beginning involves TIME... No event, no Strand of Quantum Possibility exists without time being involved. It might not be a result of the Big Bang, but rather the Progenitor of All. Even matter might have been localized to enable TIME to have something to push itself against. And that very matter was able to slow down the Expansion Rate after awhile to the SOL... and this enabled physics to begin.
(0:20) "The numbers are uncertain cause we don't know how much inflation there was." ~ Alan H. Guth (5:49) "One could of course have assumed that the universe just started out uniformly to begin with since we don't really understand the ultimate origin of the universe but there you know we don't have any explanation there ." ~ Alan H. Guth
The universe could have started out as uniform. He simply dismisses that possibility because "we don't have any explanation" for that. That's not a good reason to automatically dismiss the possibility. The universe may have been uniform from the outset, so there's no need for inflation to explain it. Also, it's curious that inflation would have to be fine-tuned to just the right amount so that matter, galaxies, etc. could form. If inflation were much stronger, sub-atomic particles would have flown apart so fast that they couldn't have formed into atoms. He has no explanation for the just-so nature of inflation. Lack of an explanation for his fine-tuned inflation doesn't cause him to doubt inflation, but the lack of an explanation for a uniform universe at the outset causes him to dismiss the possibility of an initial uniformity. He seems to be making arbitrary decisions, for no particular reason, about what he thinks needs an explanation and what doesn't need an explanation.
@@FrankCoffman Do you have evidence that the universe began uniformly? There are obviously reasons they don't think it began uniformly which is why inflation was needed.
@@Bandit19990 ~ I didn't say that there's evidence the universe began uniformly. You missed my point. I merely said there's no reason to assume that it wasn't uniform.
This was awesome. This is a good explanation from looking down the tunnel of radiation in 3 dimensions humans use. They are so amazing. Alan Guth is amazing to listen to. It has an extremely calming and joy-producing effect on me for some reason…🥰 But you can also tell why this happened when you look with new laws and senses. That’s why I am here. It’s my job to teach you that part. So by saying that I am not self-promoting. I’m just doing my job. I mention that because humans have a tendency to insulate themselves from advancing by placing people before themselves as idols, surrounding themselves with known celebrities in various social niches and thereby move themselves to be more in the center of the herd where they are safer. That’s fine. But they never accounted for the slayer of the demons, the coordinator of symphonies that lives beyond the periphery of their visual field by their doing so. They never advance to slay their dragons. When peering at the instrumentation available in the universe for the path of life, that is not a good sign of destiny in eternity. Just saying… Beyond the peripheries of thought, beyond the walls of cities I live, as humans live, interact, and develop outside the wombs of initial gestation in which their lives are assembled. So philosophical 🧐 meandering aside, I absolutely loved this video. Thanks so much for this 🙏🏻❤️🔥
Listening to Alan makes me realize how feeble my own thought processes really are, if I lived to be a thousand years old i could never be able to grasp or formulate the theories modern physics postulates.
Please bring experimentalists on too so we can hear the clever ways they've measured these things, and so that we can hear some of today's measurement problems
The Sanskrit word for the Universe is Brahm, ब्रह्म, meaning, “expansive”; that, the central property of which is expansion. The root for Brahm is brih, to grow, expand.
@@dtrez3866 There is some evidence. Upon marriage, Hindu couples are shown the star Alcor in the Ursa Major constellation. They are told that that star is two people: Arundhati, and her husband, the Sage Vasisht. In reality, Alcor is a twin star, Alcor and Mizar, though invisible to the naked eye. The custom is traced to 20 Century BC. This will be an example of knowing something unavailable to sensory experience, or reason or inference. There are other unexplained insights. Sage Gotama, asked how many grains of sand are there in all of world computed 10^32, a number very close to current “knowledge”. The age of the universe mentioned on Hinduism, represented by a dream of the deity Brahma, closely approximated current estimates. The Buddhists stated that human consciousness samples the world once every 20 ms. This is also the frequency of Omega waves.
@@hershchat Notice "they are told the star is two people", there was no mention that there was another star there which no one could see. And, what exactly would they tell us about what "the universe" is in their minds? Where exactly is it said that the universe was expanding? For someone to understand that the universe is expanding, that would need some idea of what the universe is. If all they could see and perceive was their universe, nothing inside their universe was expanding. Hubble discovered that galaxies were expanding. Until then, no one knew what the universe was to be able say it was expanding. And for Hubble to learn the universe was expanding, he needed to see beyond the milky way. I would just like to know who knew that there was a beyond the milky way before Hubble.
@@dtrez3866 thanks for your point of view. You realize of course that convincing you isn’t my objective. As Roark said to Keating, “I don’t care”. You’re right in asserting a different standard of evidence for science. If my job was to do research on astronomy in a modern astronomy program, then I too would not rely on these two examples that I provide. Science hews to the epistemology of empiricism, and the metaphysics of objectivism. That is one metaphysical position, and a necessary & useful one. It is not, however, the only, sufficient, or the most satisfactory one. Consider how human-intelligence is counterpoised to empiricism. When I throw you a ball, and your arm moves to enable your hand to catch it, there isn’t any objective Newtonian (or Relativistic) calculation taking place. Intelligence models reality subjectively. It’s based on learning within self referential framework. It is being discovered that AI can “solve” heretofore unsolved problems (three body, multibody problems), but do so like human int does: subjectivity, with no objective theory or formula adduced to explicate the solution. A trained AI might pronounce that a certain star is in fact a dual star. We’d know what inputs it made the decision on, but not what it “knows” that helps it reach that ascertainment. This is conjectural sport. No one comes to harm from empiricism, such as yours. It’s a fine metaphysical standpoint. Emmanuel Kant and his ilk would, in their critique of pure reason, recognize the flaws in your reasoning. As did Nagarjuna, in his Mula madhamika karika, a few centuries before Kant. There are the intuitions of time (appearance, existence, change, passage), space (location and extent), & identity (one, many, associations) that are non-sensory. But that doesn’t add carrots to your soup. Understood. I know most people ignorant of Kantian polemic argue back that they can prove that time, space and identity are firmly sensory conclusions. It is OBVIOUS to them, “trivially true”. It’s not mine to educate. One can only suggest and recommend.
👍⭐That was truly excellent. Taking indescribably complex ideas and making them fascinating and even slightly understandable to amateurs like me is 5 Stars for both Gentlemen. Outstanding.
Easy. Mandelbroth set. A never ending infinity of infinitys, all branching inside one another containing an infinity of secrets. What else can you ask for? your imagination can go for another drink. ;)
@@Mr.Not_Sure I’m not implying that it was actually infinite, I’m just imagining it being that way. But in the end, the “single point” before the Big Bang even having a certain value is paradoxical regardless. What asigns that value? We don’t know.
He is also a very good teacher. Some 30 ya I took his class on the early universe, as an out-of-area class. It was pretty cool. Interesting factoid: at the time his office was something like 2 feet deep in papers & books. I think I followed his model afterwards! lol
If we look at the redshift, you would say that we are in a stable universe with shrinking atoms. With shrinking atoms, our clock also runs faster, equal to the increase in frequency, because of this the shrinking goes faster and faster and explains that the accelerated redshift, due to the faster clock, stars emit less light in the past, increasing the distance and size misjudged and material is missing.
Will anyone explain from where did the space coming for expansion of universe ? If unlimited space is there then all physics collapse cause as per our knowledge, there should be a limit or rule for every physical movement. But what rule apply for availability of infinite space for expension of universe?
Inflation explains away most of the problems with the big bang. I still think it explains the MBR so well it gives me chills. To think that entire galaxies formed from the tiniest variations of density in the big bang inflated to the current size is amazing 👏
How does it explain light traveling through a space that expands much faster than light ? How does it explain the flat geometry of the universe, which is not at all like an inflated baloon as these big-bang idiots claimed for decades until recently when their cosmic balloon has popped ? Or the lack of anti-matter, which according to the big-bang there should have been equal amounts of matter and anti-matter created ?
This video has a completely wrong title, because it does not explain why the universe expands, but why the expansion of the universe is likely a correct theory
My theory follows the multi-verse theory - perhaps the universe(s) has forever been expanding ..maybe there was never a beginning and there will never be an end...just like matter/energy/consciousness cannot be created nor destroyed - that is because the universe is the same. To infinity and beyond!!
@@jamesdavison6290 Perhaps there was no beginning. If there was no beginning, there was no ‘before’. It’s like trying to think rationally about infinity. Or pi.
Sentences beginning with "We will never know" are suspicious to me as they have been proven wrong time and time again. You can not know how ingenious people (or maybe even AIs) can get.
Exponential growth and a ratio of one everywhere, flatness and uniformity. How could that happen, unless the expansion was not in our three dimensions ?
Could inflation be a runaway dark energy that does not have any gravity / dark matter to counteract it? In which case maybe gravity is needed for entropy to increase, without which entropy decreases, as may have happened from inflation to big bang start of universe?
Inflation is intrinsic energy of empty space. Dark Energy and inflation are intrinsic properties of empty space. An empty Cosmos would natural inflate because there would be a uniform gravitational field.
@@jamesruscheinski8602 A gravitational field is curved space. A uniform gravitation filed does not have the gravity to pull things together so matter would just continuously fly apart.
@@kos-mos1127 flying apart (motion) would quickly ruin uniform space. Black hole sublimation or polar jet blow off scattering would seem more consistent/plausible considering our current best observations (cmb) than with a magical point of near Infinite density- would also be the minimal entropy possible (hot). Seems like a god fearing persons last stand. Just seems cyclical or there would be an ending. Crunch? If there was a “start” i would propose that it was the first time matter and antimatter were flung far enough from each other that they have never reannihilated or the horizon that could be created from such an event. (Event horizon of black hole)
I'm often confused as to why scientists use years as the measurement of time shortly after the big bang. How can the 400,000 years immediately after the big bang be considered the same length of time as the 400,000 years leading up to today? Surely the 'yardstick' length measurement changes as spacetime expands? So the constraints of light speed may also have changed, due to spacetime not being as expanded? Or am I missing something? I assumed time was generally non-linear?
This is such interesting stuff. It’s a shame the comments are so terrible. Around 5:50 Guth says the universe could have just started out uniform, but then he dismisses that idea in favor of inflation. I wish he had elaborated!
Speculative? yes… Untestable?? Humans just shot a 10 billion dollar infrared telescope into space to test this hypothesis. I think the Big Bang is just a horizon problem. 13.8b years is probably the amount of time it takes for light to degrade below a measurable amount of energy. The plank length/energy limit to optical information? Probably already has a name
I never did understand how they judged 1 sec, 1 hr, 100 million yrs after the big bang. Before expansion, there was no time. During expansion, wouldn't there be some time dilation effect? It makes you wonder.
In case anyone wondered, it’s “Doctor Alan H. Guth”, not Mr. Guth, not anything else… please give the Doctor (one of the most intelligent persons on the planet) his well-earned professional respect and title. Ty.
Riddle me this, how can they tell it's expanding? What if it's gaining speed enclosing? How can they tell where's the center etc. If they see it expanding it could be the opposite from where they are looking from.
Did the entropy during inflation go from a higher entropy to a lower entropy (lower to higher temperature)? What is needed for entropy to go from higher state to lower state?
Given that inflation produced energy leading to big bang start of universe, in principle could find a way to measure energy from inflation, if could figure out what type of energy it would be?
The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.
One of my thoughts to the subject is; What if the invisible cosmos already existed? and a world of diversed particles flying around until a rare unification crashed together causing the big bang. The enormous created heat at its expansion molted with particles of the invisible cosmos creating visual galaxies and so on. The remaining invisible cosmos is a steady body that existed before the big bang. The particles that builds space play a role in the expansion. Could it be?
The cosmos is empty to our vision, but it may be full of diverse particle that builds a compact body. The question is; do extreme heat like from a nuclear explosion, caused the creation of galaxies by burning through the cosmos structure causing all kinds of particles to melt and form stars, galaxies, planets, komets, asteroids, and meteors? I think that gravity would slow down the expansion, that's why I dont think that the cosmos has to do with gravity. Maybe some particles influence the movements of suns, planets, moons, and their orbits.
@@jamesdavison6290 well, a big bang out of nothing, out of nowhere, is hard to comprehend. There must have been some nuclear fusion, if, the theory of a big bang should be true. And I can imagine a cosmos, that's transparent, permeable, unless its heated up that out of particles elements forms, and are the results of what we call universe.
A rippled space-time would help explain dark matter and filaments of galaxies...and curved "downward" space-time would help explain dark energy (along with space-time "relaxation")
In the case that inflation led to big bang start of universe, does the universe explain everything that comes from inflation, such as energy and whatever else, or is there something from inflation left over after taking into account the universe?
Would Inflation be needed to explain the near uniformity of the CMBR if the universe is really about twice the age we usually assume, 13.8 billion years?
Q: If there is a redshift of light in the universe because of distance, then galaxies that move away with constant velocity seem to move away with acceleration. If so, the bigbang-theory is possibly wrong?
The universe could have started out as uniform. He simply dismisses that possibility because "we don't have any explanation" for that. That's not a good reason to automatically dismiss the possibility. The universe may have been uniform from the outset, so there's no need for inflation to explain it. Also, it's curious that inflation would have to be fine-tuned to just the right amount so that matter, galaxies, etc. could form. If inflation were much stronger, sub-atomic particles would have flown apart so fast that they couldn't have formed into atoms. He has no explanation for the just-so nature of inflation. Lack of an explanation for his fine-tuned inflation doesn't cause him to doubt inflation, but the lack of an explanation for a uniform universe at the outset causes him to airily dismiss the possibility of an initial uniformity. He seems to be making arbitrary assumptions about what he thinks needs an explanation and what doesn't need an explanation. He assumes, for no particular reason, that there's a problem with the conventional big bang (which he assumes wasn't uniform), and then he offers a solution (inflation) without any explanation for why it works so perfectly and why it's better than simply assuming there was no real problem in the first place.
The whole damn thing is just counting angels on the head of a pin. Put that funding and brain power towards practical research until we run out of problems; then, in our spare time, we can concentrate on the philosophy of the beginning of all things.
Honestly someone just shout out Bugs Bunny! and it would be as true as this explanation. It's not criticism, I totally appreciate this super deep dive, the amount of thinking and reading and study required to even consider things like this let alone come up with a coherent theory like Guth does here. But for us, all flesh and blood and have to pay our bills, it means no more than Bugs Bunny.
Can it be determined the speed of inflation expansion before big bang start of universe, in contrast to the speed of dark energy expansion after big bang start of universe?
Just because we can see planets moving away, doesnt mean that this we call space is expanding. If it is, and i dont think it is. whats it expanding into?
So... A particular "law" of physics will not allow the transmission of energy fast enough to account for the uniform temperature seen in the CBR.... So let's postulate Inflation (which breaks every single "law" in physics to solve the problem). Not sure I get that logic no matter how cool Guth is.
When universe started with big bang as inflation was ending was a minimum / lowest entropy for universe due to the high temperature generated from the end of inflation energy?
I’ll wait until the Webb is up and running ,before running my mouth again. That’s just me. I’d love for everyone to be wrong , and we find out something completely new about cosmic inflation.
Regarding _Our observable universe appears flat..._ If you took a blown up balloon and measured out on its surface a spot a billionth of a pin point thick, would that area appear flat or curved?
Maybe it's expanding because space. We are only here because space. The inflaton field is a field in space. If it wasn't for space there would be no inflaton field. Which came first space or the inflaton field. I love tautologies.
Allan, the Houdini of physics, makes magic happen. Inflation explains smoothness, but what Allan, conveniently, does not tell you is that it needed smoothness to begin with, but how is that possible? Also, your 1979 paper does not mention 10^-5 accuracy in the CMB fluctuations.....tell us about all the tuning you have to make to make Inflation work....hmmm......
The inability to think multidimensionally restricts our mental powers to the point where science is reduced to mathematical equations based on our three dimensional experience. This leads to irreconcilable contradictions. The big bang could be the result of a white hole, the far end of a black hole in other dimensions or it could be the result of a prior big crunch. Assuming our methods of measurement are correct which is a big assumption the universe appears to be expanding due to forces pushing it apart from within or pulling it apart from beyond what we can so far detect. If we live on some sort of curved multidimensional surface then its curvature could limit how far we can see just as the curvature of the earth limits the distance we can see from the surface. If there are other dimensions how do we detect them? How do we travel into them? And if we ever do, how do we get back to report what we see for the first time? Nobody knows yet. Maybe maybe never will. There may be things that affect the universe that are beyond our ability to explore.
In favor of your theory is that our visible universe is surrounded by an event horizon in which distant objects are receding at a speed greater than light. However your idea is not original.
@@RolandHuettmann I think you're right. Of all the things I ever studied Euclidian geometry was a subject I devoured when I was 14 years old. The transition to extending my skills to three dimensions when I got to calculus and analytical geometry wasn't hard at all. My brain works best by visualization and it frustrated me no end that I couldn't visualize beyond 3 dimensions. Then in my mid 20s I invented two tricks. One involved a problem in acoustic fields which is a 6 dimensional problem. I broke it down into two three dimensional problems one superimposed on the other. I have a patent on a device that applies the solution. The other relates to particle physics I was able to visualize as a 4 dimensional problem with a different trick. Evidence suggesting at least 4 dimensions is for me quite convincing. It explains how quantum energy jumps occur and quantum entanglement. Are time and space quantized? The Planck distance and Planck frequency suggest to me in the dimensions we can sense they are. They define the smallest increments in space and time. This creates the problem of how do particles get from one node to another. One day I might publish my theory. Although I'm an engineer I'm an inactive member of the American Institute of Physics. I could just pay my dues to reactivate my membership.
INFLA'TION, n. [L. inflatio.] The act of inflating. 1. The state of being distended with air injected or inhaled. 2. The state of being puffed up, as with vanity. 3. Conceit.
The "Big Bang", if indeed there was a "Big Bang" instead of the "Big Sizzle", as some scientist postulate, need not have been hot but could have been a cold fusion event which I guess would negate the "Sizzle" and just leave the "Big", as in the event of creation as recorded in Scripture in Psalm 33:9 - For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. Anyway, I don't know about exactly why the universe is expanding and I'm taking the word of the scientific community that the universe is expanding but I do know exactly what the Bible (KJV) says about what the universe is expanding into which is a finite firmament beyond which is that infinite expanse in which or of which is found or is all of that unaccounted for antimatter or in Scriptural terms, the kingdom of heaven or Light. The crux of this, my Windham Hypothesis is that the word "earth" in the English translation of the Bible, specifically the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible or in Scripture, which is the most reliable English translation of Scripture, is a homonym that usually means the planet earth but sometimes the word "earth" means the "universe" as in the following verses of Scripture: Genesis 1:1, 2:1, Job 1:7, 2:2, Isaiah 40:22, 65:17, Matthew 6:10, 24:35, Mark 13:27, 2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 12:9, 21:1. Of special interest for some in this current era of ETs, UAPs, UFOs and the like, is Genesis 2:1 which when read with the understanding that the word "earth" here means the "universe", you have the understanding of God having created all of these other species billions of years before he created the man species, the male and the female of the man species which he created for the express purpose of becoming incarnate in these last of the last days. Then too, there is Revelation 12:9 that indicates that a third of the angels in the kingdom of heaven along with Satan, were cast out of the kingdom of heaven and "into" the earth/universe, not to be confused with the noncanonical account in the book of Enoch of those two hundred Watchers. Those fallen angels in Revelation 12:9 was and are so great in number that even with our engineer's shorthand it is still difficult to number them. The video to watch is found on UA-cam by the search - Earth means Universe means Earth or just typing in - earth means universe. The title to this video is - Bible answer for - What is the universe expanding into?
I expected Alan Guth to include the lack of magnetic monopoles in his resolution of problems that inflation solves, because as I understand it that was the problem (the lack of magnetic monopoles) that caused him to come up with this theory
A really good man who oozes enthusiasm and devotion to science. I love listening to him.
He is definitely up there in my top five
I expected Alan to be super smart. What impresses even more is how smart Robert Kuhn is.
I mean, dude has a PhD in Neuroscience
I agree! Robert is the supposed layperson but is right in step with Alan.
It seems that people don't understand this was not a conversation after a random meeting in a local bar.
The big clue is that there were at least two cameras present.
@@482jpsquared
Robert Kuhn is a highly intelligent man. But, “right in step with Alan”? Don’t know about that(imho)…..just saying.
Hahahahaha. Right.
I have heard about about Alan Guth for 50 years. I never expected to hear him explain in his own words his reasoning of how hyperinflation must have taken the universe from the size of an atomic particle to the embryo of our relativistic universe, with the creation of all the mass and energy we see today. My favorite quote -- "energy density equals geometry!" Thanks for making it possible!
Mt. Guth is one of the geniuses of our time, and he doesn't have that much recognition outside the world of physics....
Guth is one of the goats!
Yes he does. I recognize him and I live mostly outside this world of physics, just as meaning hovers over these words but is outside them. That IS everything -and I totally recognize and appreciate him. So there you go! That constitutes universal recognition outside the world of physics. 🤔
I hope this ameliorates your lamentations. Thanks 🙏🏻 😂🙌
@@spiralsun1 Thanks, but truly, he doesn't have that recognition, you can ask and maybe 1 in 100 people know about him; 1 in 5 know about Lebron James, or Justin Bieber and that is sad.
No, he is not a genius because he is insane. His inflation theory is based on mere insanity, not on actual reality. I proved the universe is not expanding to insanity in a post, while these geniuses just keep inflating their expansion insanity since they were in highschool and now theyre one step from the asylum and still cant prove anything they say.
@@GamesBond.007 See my comment with a logical explanation.
My only critique of this channel is that we aren't told when they videos were made.
Exactly:) they posted a video of nick bostrom few days ago, he looked completely different I almost couldn't recognize him, but I cant complain and won't
Time is relative subjective and totally Fantasmigorical in the eye of the truth that is seen by you but not me
The same for me! This video seems from earlier 2000s. He says physicists though Ω=0.2 ten years before, and accelerated expansion just discovered.
@@mohammedphilonous6856
You’re ‘sort of’ complaining…..nothing wrong with that!
It was made an infinitely long time ago
The wildest thing that humans have ever thought of that actually is in sync with our perceptions, curious Alan seems like such a mild mannered person.
Thank you Robert for producing this excellent series!
Another good one, still please would be nice to add information when this was recorded.
You again! 😄
It makes no difference when any of these videos were made. All of the problems have existed ever since the Big Bang theory was created as a fact.
@@infiniteuniverse123 I suppose the reason for wanting to know the date is, there might have been some advance in knowledge and research since the video was made. In other words, the information might be out dated.
@@infiniteuniverse123
If the Big Bang was a fact, it would be called the Big Bang Fact. But it’s not. So, there’s that…..
That's an older one.....but still valuable.
My mind expands when I watch these videos.
Hmmmm?
Mine does on L.S.D.
"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology." ~ Carl Sagan
@@liberty-matrix
We live in houses and don't know how to build them. Same could be said for roads, growing food, forging pots and pans, building/fixing cars, etc....
It's call a civilized society because of "specialization". Love Carl but that might be the weakest quote I've ever heard from him.
Alan Guth is brilliant! We need to get Ed Witten back on here.
Is this the most intelligent conversation held by human beings
Love the way his mind works. What a great interview
Another good video from Robert Kuhn's channel Closer to Truth. I love Alan Guth's personality. His reasoning is complete with it's spot on brevity. I can't help but wonder if the very beginning involves TIME... No event, no Strand of Quantum Possibility exists without time being involved. It might not be a result of the Big Bang, but rather the Progenitor of All. Even matter might have been localized to enable TIME to have something to push itself against. And that very matter was able to slow down the Expansion Rate after awhile to the SOL... and this enabled physics to begin.
I love to listen to Alan Guth speak
(0:20) "The numbers are uncertain cause we don't know how much inflation there was." ~ Alan H. Guth
(5:49) "One could of course have assumed that the universe just started out uniformly to begin with since we don't really understand the ultimate origin of the universe but there you know we don't have any explanation there ." ~ Alan H. Guth
Yes, great scientist intellectually honest, even though quote miners will take him out of context.
@@Bandit19990 "I always quote people smarter than me." ~ Quote Miner
The universe could have started out as uniform. He simply dismisses that possibility because "we don't have any explanation" for that. That's not a good reason to automatically dismiss the possibility. The universe may have been uniform from the outset, so there's no need for inflation to explain it.
Also, it's curious that inflation would have to be fine-tuned to just the right amount so that matter, galaxies, etc. could form. If inflation were much stronger, sub-atomic particles would have flown apart so fast that they couldn't have formed into atoms. He has no explanation for the just-so nature of inflation. Lack of an explanation for his fine-tuned inflation doesn't cause him to doubt inflation, but the lack of an explanation for a uniform universe at the outset causes him to dismiss the possibility of an initial uniformity. He seems to be making arbitrary decisions, for no particular reason, about what he thinks needs an explanation and what doesn't need an explanation.
@@FrankCoffman Do you have evidence that the universe began uniformly?
There are obviously reasons they don't think it began uniformly which is why inflation was needed.
@@Bandit19990 ~ I didn't say that there's evidence the universe began uniformly. You missed my point. I merely said there's no reason to assume that it wasn't uniform.
This was awesome. This is a good explanation from looking down the tunnel of radiation in 3 dimensions humans use. They are so amazing.
Alan Guth is amazing to listen to. It has an extremely calming and joy-producing effect on me for some reason…🥰
But you can also tell why this happened when you look with new laws and senses. That’s why I am here. It’s my job to teach you that part. So by saying that I am not self-promoting. I’m just doing my job. I mention that because humans have a tendency to insulate themselves from advancing by placing people before themselves as idols, surrounding themselves with known celebrities in various social niches and thereby move themselves to be more in the center of the herd where they are safer. That’s fine. But they never accounted for the slayer of the demons, the coordinator of symphonies that lives beyond the periphery of their visual field by their doing so. They never advance to slay their dragons. When peering at the instrumentation available in the universe for the path of life, that is not a good sign of destiny in eternity. Just saying… Beyond the peripheries of thought, beyond the walls of cities I live, as humans live, interact, and develop outside the wombs of initial gestation in which their lives are assembled.
So philosophical 🧐 meandering aside, I absolutely loved this video. Thanks so much for this 🙏🏻❤️🔥
Listening to Alan makes me realize how feeble my own thought processes really are, if I lived to be a thousand years old i could never be able to grasp or formulate the theories modern physics postulates.
What makes a person smart?
Our understanding is the one expanding not the universe but rather spreading.
Guth rules
Fascinating and terrifying
…..ohh yes.
Please bring experimentalists on too so we can hear the clever ways they've measured these things, and so that we can hear some of today's measurement problems
The Sanskrit word for the Universe is Brahm, ब्रह्म, meaning, “expansive”; that, the central property of which is expansion. The root for Brahm is brih, to grow, expand.
Is there any evidence that anyone believed the "universe" was anything other than what they could see with the naked eye?
@@dtrez3866 There is some evidence.
Upon marriage, Hindu couples are shown the star Alcor in the Ursa Major constellation. They are told that that star is two people: Arundhati, and her husband, the Sage Vasisht. In reality, Alcor is a twin star, Alcor and Mizar, though invisible to the naked eye. The custom is traced to 20 Century BC. This will be an example of knowing something unavailable to sensory experience, or reason or inference.
There are other unexplained insights.
Sage Gotama, asked how many grains of sand are there in all of world computed 10^32, a number very close to current “knowledge”.
The age of the universe mentioned on Hinduism, represented by a dream of the deity Brahma, closely approximated current estimates.
The Buddhists stated that human consciousness samples the world once every 20 ms. This is also the frequency of Omega waves.
@@hershchat Notice "they are told the star is two people", there was no mention that there was another star there which no one could see. And, what exactly would they tell us about what "the universe" is in their minds? Where exactly is it said that the universe was expanding? For someone to understand that the universe is expanding, that would need some idea of what the universe is. If all they could see and perceive was their universe, nothing inside their universe was expanding. Hubble discovered that galaxies were expanding. Until then, no one knew what the universe was to be able say it was expanding. And for Hubble to learn the universe was expanding, he needed to see beyond the milky way. I would just like to know who knew that there was a beyond the milky way before Hubble.
@@dtrez3866 thanks for your point of view. You realize of course that convincing you isn’t my objective. As Roark said to Keating, “I don’t care”.
You’re right in asserting a different standard of evidence for science. If my job was to do research on astronomy in a modern astronomy program, then I too would not rely on these two examples that I provide.
Science hews to the epistemology of empiricism, and the metaphysics of objectivism. That is one metaphysical position, and a necessary & useful one. It is not, however, the only, sufficient, or the most satisfactory one.
Consider how human-intelligence is counterpoised to empiricism. When I throw you a ball, and your arm moves to enable your hand to catch it, there isn’t any objective Newtonian (or Relativistic) calculation taking place. Intelligence models reality subjectively. It’s based on learning within self referential framework.
It is being discovered that AI can “solve” heretofore unsolved problems (three body, multibody problems), but do so like human int does: subjectivity, with no objective theory or formula adduced to explicate the solution. A trained AI might pronounce that a certain star is in fact a dual star. We’d know what inputs it made the decision on, but not what it “knows” that helps it reach that ascertainment.
This is conjectural sport. No one comes to harm from empiricism, such as yours. It’s a fine metaphysical standpoint.
Emmanuel Kant and his ilk would, in their critique of pure reason, recognize the flaws in your reasoning. As did Nagarjuna, in his Mula madhamika karika, a few centuries before Kant. There are the intuitions of time (appearance, existence, change, passage), space (location and extent), & identity (one, many, associations) that are non-sensory. But that doesn’t add carrots to your soup. Understood.
I know most people ignorant of Kantian polemic argue back that they can prove that time, space and identity are firmly sensory conclusions. It is OBVIOUS to them, “trivially true”. It’s not mine to educate. One can only suggest and recommend.
@@hershchat "But that doesn't add up to carrots in your soup. Understood".
In this context, I am glad that is understood.
👍⭐That was truly excellent. Taking indescribably complex ideas and making them fascinating and even slightly understandable to amateurs like me is 5 Stars for both Gentlemen. Outstanding.
I can’t imagine an area of “infinite” temperature like before the Big Bang.
Easy. Mandelbroth set. A never ending infinity of infinitys, all branching inside one another containing an infinity of secrets. What else can you ask for? your imagination can go for another drink. ;)
Physics does not say that temperature was infinite. It was just VERY hot.
@@Mr.Not_Sure
I’m not implying that it was actually infinite, I’m just imagining it being that way.
But in the end, the “single point” before the Big Bang even having a certain value is paradoxical regardless. What asigns that value? We don’t know.
@@Bassotronics Nah. It just that modern theories stop working at the moment t=0.
@@Mr.Not_Sure It does kind of say that infinite density / singularities exist though.
As time goes by everything expands .....just like my belly!...that's life...🤷♂️
Great talk
He is also a very good teacher. Some 30 ya I took his class on the early universe, as an out-of-area class. It was pretty cool.
Interesting factoid: at the time his office was something like 2 feet deep in papers & books. I think I followed his model afterwards! lol
Thank You for super presentation.
If we look at the redshift, you would say that we are in a stable universe with shrinking atoms. With shrinking atoms, our clock also runs faster, equal to the increase in frequency, because of this the shrinking goes faster and faster and explains that the accelerated redshift, due to the faster clock, stars emit less light in the past, increasing the distance and size misjudged and material is missing.
Wonder how Inflation corresponds/relates to CCC ?
That’s the real question: expanding universe. And, are objects accelerating? What’s the hurry? And, what triggered the velocity change?
Love professor Guth.
Good video
Will anyone explain from where did the space coming for expansion of universe ? If unlimited space is there then all physics collapse cause as per our knowledge, there should be a limit or rule for every physical movement. But what rule apply for availability of infinite space for expension of universe?
Inflation explains away most of the problems with the big bang. I still think it explains the MBR so well it gives me chills. To think that entire galaxies formed from the tiniest variations of density in the big bang inflated to the current size is amazing 👏
How does it explain light traveling through a space that expands much faster than light ? How does it explain the flat geometry of the universe, which is not at all like an inflated baloon as these big-bang idiots claimed for decades until recently when their cosmic balloon has popped ? Or the lack of anti-matter, which according to the big-bang there should have been equal amounts of matter and anti-matter created ?
This video has a completely wrong title, because it does not explain why the universe expands, but why the expansion of the universe is likely a correct theory
Let there be light.
Why does the beginning of the video start out fuzzy?
Please schedule Dr. Roger Trigg of Oxford for your show.
My theory follows the multi-verse theory - perhaps the universe(s) has forever been expanding ..maybe there was never a beginning and there will never be an end...just like matter/energy/consciousness cannot be created nor destroyed - that is because the universe is the same. To infinity and beyond!!
I love to listen to Guth.
We will never know what was the first beginning of everything.
That’s if there was a first beginning of everything. Maybe there always has been something, as strange as it might sound.
Yes, but what happened before that?
@@jamesdavison6290 something
@@jamesdavison6290
Perhaps there was no beginning. If there was no beginning, there was no ‘before’. It’s like trying to think rationally about infinity. Or pi.
Sentences beginning with "We will never know" are suspicious to me as they have been proven wrong time and time again. You can not know how ingenious people (or maybe even AIs) can get.
Exponential growth and a ratio of one everywhere, flatness and uniformity. How could that happen, unless the expansion was not in our three dimensions ?
At many times the speed of light.
Brilliant!
Could inflation be a runaway dark energy that does not have any gravity / dark matter to counteract it? In which case maybe gravity is needed for entropy to increase, without which entropy decreases, as may have happened from inflation to big bang start of universe?
Inflation is intrinsic energy of empty space. Dark Energy and inflation are intrinsic properties of empty space. An empty Cosmos would natural inflate because there would be a uniform gravitational field.
@@kos-mos1127 What are the dynamics of uniform gravitation field and empty space?
@@jamesruscheinski8602 A gravitational field is curved space. A uniform gravitation filed does not have the gravity to pull things together so matter would just continuously fly apart.
@@kos-mos1127 flying apart (motion) would quickly ruin uniform space.
Black hole sublimation or polar jet blow off scattering would seem more consistent/plausible considering our current best observations (cmb) than with a magical point of near Infinite density- would also be the minimal entropy possible (hot). Seems like a god fearing persons last stand.
Just seems cyclical or there would be an ending. Crunch?
If there was a “start” i would propose that it was the first time matter and antimatter were flung far enough from each other that they have never reannihilated or the horizon that could be created from such an event. (Event horizon of black hole)
I'm often confused as to why scientists use years as the measurement of time shortly after the big bang. How can the 400,000 years immediately after the big bang be considered the same length of time as the 400,000 years leading up to today? Surely the 'yardstick' length measurement changes as spacetime expands? So the constraints of light speed may also have changed, due to spacetime not being as expanded? Or am I missing something? I assumed time was generally non-linear?
This is such interesting stuff. It’s a shame the comments are so terrible. Around 5:50 Guth says the universe could have just started out uniform, but then he dismisses that idea in favor of inflation. I wish he had elaborated!
But I thought inflation was still incredibly speculative, and there are many competing models of it, most of which are untestable.
Speculative? yes… Untestable?? Humans just shot a 10 billion dollar infrared telescope into space to test this hypothesis.
I think the Big Bang is just a horizon problem. 13.8b years is probably the amount of time it takes for light to degrade below a measurable amount of energy. The plank length/energy limit to optical information? Probably already has a name
I never did understand how they judged 1 sec, 1 hr, 100 million yrs after the big bang. Before expansion, there was no time. During expansion, wouldn't there be some time dilation effect? It makes you wonder.
In case anyone wondered, it’s “Doctor Alan H. Guth”, not Mr. Guth, not anything else… please give the Doctor (one of the most intelligent persons on the planet) his well-earned professional respect and title. Ty.
what year was this excellent interview recorded?
Riddle me this, how can they tell it's expanding? What if it's gaining speed enclosing? How can they tell where's the center etc. If they see it expanding it could be the opposite from where they are looking from.
Inflation and inspiration seem to go right hand in hand.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
Did the entropy during inflation go from a higher entropy to a lower entropy (lower to higher temperature)? What is needed for entropy to go from higher state to lower state?
Entropy has been increasing steadily. The universe was at its peak of organization at the instant of creation.
Question: If the universe speeding up.
Is Time also accelerating?
Does the density of space/time decrease with the expansion of the Universe? If the density remains constant, what mechanism produces that?
Given that inflation produced energy leading to big bang start of universe, in principle could find a way to measure energy from inflation, if could figure out what type of energy it would be?
The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.
We don’t know that it didn’t exist. It may have always existed. Without a beginning. Food for thought, heh?
One of my thoughts to the subject is;
What if the invisible cosmos already existed? and a world of diversed particles flying around until a rare unification crashed together causing the big bang. The enormous created heat at its expansion molted with particles of the invisible cosmos creating visual galaxies and so on.
The remaining invisible cosmos is a steady body that existed before the big bang.
The particles that builds space play a role in the expansion. Could it be?
I think Dark matter reacts to gravity the same as anything else, so it would have also been part of singularity and big bang.
Inflation starts off with an almost empty region of the Cosmos than exponentially expands it.
The cosmos is empty to our vision, but it may be full of diverse particle that builds a compact body. The question is; do extreme heat like from a nuclear explosion, caused the creation of galaxies by burning through the cosmos structure causing all kinds of particles to melt and form stars, galaxies, planets, komets, asteroids, and meteors?
I think that gravity would slow down the expansion, that's why I dont think that the cosmos has to do with gravity. Maybe some particles influence the movements of suns, planets, moons, and their orbits.
You are thinking of the "steady state" theory that Alan Guth annihilated.
@@jamesdavison6290 well, a big bang out of nothing, out of nowhere, is hard to comprehend. There must have been some nuclear fusion, if, the theory of a big bang should be true. And I can imagine a cosmos, that's transparent, permeable, unless its heated up that out of particles elements forms, and are the results of what we call universe.
More logical than collapsing
A rippled space-time would help explain dark matter and filaments of galaxies...and curved "downward" space-time would help explain dark energy (along with space-time "relaxation")
Why questions are of two kinds, How, and From what intent.
In the case that inflation led to big bang start of universe, does the universe explain everything that comes from inflation, such as energy and whatever else, or is there something from inflation left over after taking into account the universe?
Would Inflation be needed to explain the near uniformity of the CMBR if the universe is really about twice the age we usually assume, 13.8 billion years?
I think he's saying if you could manage to make it to the edge of the universe you would find more big bang's as the universe continues 🤔
Q: If there is a redshift of light in the universe because of distance,
then galaxies that move away with constant velocity seem to move away with acceleration.
If so, the bigbang-theory is possibly wrong?
The universe oscillate between chaos and equilibrium when it s in one phase it goes toward the other
The universe could have started out as uniform. He simply dismisses that possibility because "we don't have any explanation" for that. That's not a good reason to automatically dismiss the possibility. The universe may have been uniform from the outset, so there's no need for inflation to explain it.
Also, it's curious that inflation would have to be fine-tuned to just the right amount so that matter, galaxies, etc. could form. If inflation were much stronger, sub-atomic particles would have flown apart so fast that they couldn't have formed into atoms. He has no explanation for the just-so nature of inflation. Lack of an explanation for his fine-tuned inflation doesn't cause him to doubt inflation, but the lack of an explanation for a uniform universe at the outset causes him to airily dismiss the possibility of an initial uniformity.
He seems to be making arbitrary assumptions about what he thinks needs an explanation and what doesn't need an explanation. He assumes, for no particular reason, that there's a problem with the conventional big bang (which he assumes wasn't uniform), and then he offers a solution (inflation) without any explanation for why it works so perfectly and why it's better than simply assuming there was no real problem in the first place.
The whole damn thing is just counting angels on the head of a pin. Put that funding and brain power towards practical research until we run out of problems; then, in our spare time, we can concentrate on the philosophy of the beginning of all things.
Honestly someone just shout out Bugs Bunny! and it would be as true as this explanation. It's not criticism, I totally appreciate this super deep dive, the amount of thinking and reading and study required to even consider things like this let alone come up with a coherent theory like Guth does here. But for us, all flesh and blood and have to pay our bills, it means no more than Bugs Bunny.
Can it be determined the speed of inflation expansion before big bang start of universe, in contrast to the speed of dark energy expansion after big bang start of universe?
Because information is increasing.
Information is linked to entropy. It is all leaking away . . .
1998. The year my belly expanded with pregnancy and the expanding universe.
From small to big ~ like the Universe and then you had a baby which now lives in its own Universe as we all do.
We talkin Walmart fat or McDonald’s fat
The expansion of the universe causes light to lose energy as it traverses distance, where does that energy go?
Light does not lose energy. It is just stretched to cover more space as the universe expands.
@@jamesdavison6290 It's frequency drops, which is a loss of energy, and energy is conserved.
I think the authorities of the Nobel Foundation should watch this video.
Honestly we could use some geniuses running governments around the world. We need a larger population of geniuses .
Just because we can see planets moving away, doesnt mean that this we call space is expanding. If it is, and i dont think it is. whats it expanding into?
So... A particular "law" of physics will not allow the transmission of energy fast enough to account for the uniform temperature seen in the CBR.... So let's postulate Inflation (which breaks every single "law" in physics to solve the problem). Not sure I get that logic no matter how cool Guth is.
I see ultrafast replication of singularity one at a time rather than inflation .
“Why is the universe expanding”? This was never answered in the clip. This is a misleading title.
When universe started with big bang as inflation was ending was a minimum / lowest entropy for universe due to the high temperature generated from the end of inflation energy?
The Universe is expanding because,
it has nowhere to go.
I’ll wait until the Webb is up and running ,before running my mouth again. That’s just me. I’d love for everyone to be wrong , and we find out something completely new about cosmic inflation.
Quark is the God of physics ,it makes everything but cannot be seen/detected.
Prof.Dr Nasir Fazal Cambridge USA 🇺🇸
Regarding _Our observable universe appears flat..._ If you took a blown up balloon and measured out on its surface a spot a billionth of a pin point thick, would that area appear flat or curved?
If the universe is expanding in every direction, it must also be contracting in every direction ??
Maybe it's expanding because space. We are only here because space. The inflaton field is a field in space. If it wasn't for space there would be no inflaton field. Which came first space or the inflaton field. I love tautologies.
does it expand only in its 3 spacial dimensions, or also in its other dimensions (e.g. "expanding" also in time)?
Must be “expanding” in time. The universe has been around for ~13.785 billion years but is ~93 billion light years in diameter.
Its amazing to think, that since this interview has been recorded, tottenham have won zero trophies
Allan, the Houdini of physics, makes magic happen. Inflation explains smoothness, but what Allan, conveniently, does not tell you is that it needed smoothness to begin with, but how is that possible? Also, your 1979 paper does not mention 10^-5 accuracy in the CMB fluctuations.....tell us about all the tuning you have to make to make Inflation work....hmmm......
The space between matter is stretching
Of its expanding it can’t be infinite.
i know why..... wanna know!!!
What if everything stops when the universe stops expanding?
The inability to think multidimensionally restricts our mental powers to the point where science is reduced to mathematical equations based on our three dimensional experience. This leads to irreconcilable contradictions. The big bang could be the result of a white hole, the far end of a black hole in other dimensions or it could be the result of a prior big crunch. Assuming our methods of measurement are correct which is a big assumption the universe appears to be expanding due to forces pushing it apart from within or pulling it apart from beyond what we can so far detect. If we live on some sort of curved multidimensional surface then its curvature could limit how far we can see just as the curvature of the earth limits the distance we can see from the surface. If there are other dimensions how do we detect them? How do we travel into them? And if we ever do, how do we get back to report what we see for the first time? Nobody knows yet. Maybe maybe never will. There may be things that affect the universe that are beyond our ability to explore.
Agreed!
In favor of your theory is that our visible universe is surrounded by an event horizon in which distant objects are receding at a speed greater than light. However your idea is not original.
If there are multiple dimensions we are already part of them. Our mind just cannot comprehend them. Maybe in future?
@@RolandHuettmann I think you're right. Of all the things I ever studied Euclidian geometry was a subject I devoured when I was 14 years old. The transition to extending my skills to three dimensions when I got to calculus and analytical geometry wasn't hard at all. My brain works best by visualization and it frustrated me no end that I couldn't visualize beyond 3 dimensions. Then in my mid 20s I invented two tricks. One involved a problem in acoustic fields which is a 6 dimensional problem. I broke it down into two three dimensional problems one superimposed on the other. I have a patent on a device that applies the solution. The other relates to particle physics I was able to visualize as a 4 dimensional problem with a different trick. Evidence suggesting at least 4 dimensions is for me quite convincing. It explains how quantum energy jumps occur and quantum entanglement. Are time and space quantized? The Planck distance and Planck frequency suggest to me in the dimensions we can sense they are. They define the smallest increments in space and time. This creates the problem of how do particles get from one node to another. One day I might publish my theory. Although I'm an engineer I'm an inactive member of the American Institute of Physics. I could just pay my dues to reactivate my membership.
Universe could not be expanding unless there is infinite space.
What if the speed of light is not constant but proportional to the size of the universe
INFLA'TION, n. [L. inflatio.] The act of inflating.
1. The state of being distended with air injected or inhaled.
2. The state of being puffed up, as with vanity.
3. Conceit.
The "Big Bang", if indeed there was a "Big Bang" instead of the "Big Sizzle", as some scientist postulate, need not have been hot but could have been a cold fusion event which I guess would negate the "Sizzle" and just leave the "Big", as in the event of creation as recorded in Scripture in Psalm 33:9 - For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. Anyway, I don't know about exactly why the universe is expanding and I'm taking the word of the scientific community that the universe is expanding but I do know exactly what the Bible (KJV) says about what the universe is expanding into which is a finite firmament beyond which is that infinite expanse in which or of which is found or is all of that unaccounted for antimatter or in Scriptural terms, the kingdom of heaven or Light.
The crux of this, my Windham Hypothesis is that the word "earth" in the English translation of the Bible, specifically the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible or in Scripture, which is the most reliable English translation of Scripture, is a homonym that usually means the planet earth but sometimes the word "earth" means the "universe" as in the following verses of Scripture: Genesis 1:1, 2:1, Job 1:7, 2:2, Isaiah 40:22, 65:17, Matthew 6:10, 24:35, Mark 13:27, 2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 12:9, 21:1. Of special interest for some in this current era of ETs, UAPs, UFOs and the like, is Genesis 2:1 which when read with the understanding that the word "earth" here means the "universe", you have the understanding of God having created all of these other species billions of years before he created the man species, the male and the female of the man species which he created for the express purpose of becoming incarnate in these last of the last days. Then too, there is Revelation 12:9 that indicates that a third of the angels in the kingdom of heaven along with Satan, were cast out of the kingdom of heaven and "into" the earth/universe, not to be confused with the noncanonical account in the book of Enoch of those two hundred Watchers. Those fallen angels in Revelation 12:9 was and are so great in number that even with our engineer's shorthand it is still difficult to number them. The video to watch is found on UA-cam by the search - Earth means Universe means Earth or just typing in - earth means universe. The title to this video is - Bible answer for - What is the universe expanding into?
I expected Alan Guth to include the lack of magnetic monopoles in his resolution of problems that inflation solves, because as I understand it that was the problem (the lack of magnetic monopoles) that caused him to come up with this theory