What Was There Before the Big Bang? 3 Good Hypotheses!

Sign up for ESET Home internet security for FREE: www.eset.com/us/protecting-ar...
ESET is sponsoring the STARMUS festival in Bratislava, Slovakia May 12-17, 2024: www.starmus.com/
TALK TO ME on Patreon:
/ arvinash
REFERENCES
Video: A Universe from nothing: • What came before the B...
Video: Eternal Inflation: • Eternal Inflation: The...
Multiverse Theory: tinyurl.com/2cv2qxbm
Math proof universe can come from nothing: tinyurl.com/np2vrty
Paper of above: tinyurl.com/223t86z6
What came before big bang: tinyurl.com/y7g4pgwp
CHAPTERS
0:00 Big bang: Lamda-CDM model
3:09 Sponsor: ESET
4:22 Cyclic universe
5:33 How likely is cyclic model?
7:53 Multiverse: Eternal Inflation
11:27 Universe from nothing
15:23 Why can't we answer this question?
SUMMARY
What came before the Big Bang? what happened before the big bang? Since time is thought to have started at the big bang, asking what happened "before" is like asking what is North of the North pole? It may have no meaning. But there are three good theories.
One is the idea of a cyclic or 'bouncing' universe, where the Big Bang is just the latest of many beginnings, in an eternal series of cosmic expansions and contractions. The universe begins from an initial tiny state (a singularity?) in which all the matter and energy of the universe is contained in an infinitesimally small volume. The universe then expanded, and after 13.8 billion years is at its current state. It will keep expanding for perhaps billions more years, and then it will contract for another long period or time until it is tiny again. And then the cycle repeats itself over and over again for eternity.
But the current rate of expansion of the universe is not slowing down. It would need to stop and reverse at some time in the future. But that's not what we observe. If the lambda cdm model is incomplete, then the cyclic model could be correct.
Another hypothesis about what came before the Big Bang is a multiverse, where our universe is just one bubble in a frothy sea of universes, each with its own laws of physics. There are many types of multiverses, but this one stems from the theorized concept of eternal inflation.
The idea is that there exists an infinite spacetime that is expanding faster than the speed of light. This is what we call inflation. Inflation is believed to have occurred in our universe shortly after the Big Bang for an extremely short period of time But in this short time, the universe expanded by a factor of 10^78 in size. Since quantum mechanics ensures that there will always be some randomness, it’s possible that inflation could last a bit longer or shorter than expected in different parts of the universe.
In the 1980s, Paul Steinhardt, Andrei Linde and Alexander Vilenkin realized that the exponential expansion of cosmic inflation, although it stopped in our part of the universe, could continue in other unobservable parts of the universe. And if that’s the case, then the universe we are familiar with, may be a very small fraction of all that exists. It could have stoped in other parts of the universe, forming other bubble universes. This could go on for eternity. Our universe would be nothing but a very tiny part of an unimaginably larger whole.
Another theory is that our universe could have come from nothing. At the subatomic level in empty space, particles are popping in and out of existence all the time. These are virtual particles. They borrow energy from the vacuum and give it right back so quickly that no conservation laws are violated. Energy is conserved.
Cosmologists have speculated that even in a universe where no matter, space or time exists, as long as the laws of quantum mechanics exist, spacetime itself could have emerged in a quantum fluctuation, because in quantum mechanics, anything that is not forbidden by conservation laws necessarily happens with some finite probability. If we live in a closed universe, like a sphere is a closed universe, then all the positive energy of matter is perfectly balanced by gravity, which has negative energy. So, just like with virtual particles, no net energy is created.
Just as virtual particles come in and out of existence without breaking any conservation laws, a small empty space could come into existence probabilistically due to quantum fluctuations. And since time is connected to space, time would follow in this nucleation.
A scientific paper authored by 3 Chinese physicists, titled “spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing,” was published in 2014, which showed a mathematical proof of how this could happen.
#bigbang
#time
Why can’t we turn the clock back just a little bit further and figure out what happened just a tiny fraction of a second before the Big Bang? because current understanding of physics breaks down at the singularity, the moment that predates the Big Bang.

[@me1405]

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

[@charleyhoward4594]

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

[@Hocksman]

Well played hahaha!

[@Allen-eq5uf]

The big foreplay

[@annalorree]

You mean the Big Netflix and the Big Chill?

[@PhunnyMunny]

Little foreplay, big bang

[@VibratorDefibrilator]

Or... an eternity of foreplay.

[@Monkey_D_Luffy56]

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

[@badassat69]

Yes, this video is a masterpiece.

[@manicmadpanickedman2249]

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

[@smlanka4u]

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

[@manicmadpanickedman2249]

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

[@manicmadpanickedman2249]

@@smlanka4u s

[@Braddeman]

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

[@Ezekiel903]

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

[@mhughes1160]

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

[@oneknight]

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

[@carlosvigil1868]

Awesome video as always Arvin! Keep going!

[@emergentform1188]

Brilliant, love it, Arvin is legend!

[@majusmanmne]

He truly is. This world 🌎 has talent man!

[@majusmanmne]

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

[@Graeme_Lastname]

Excellent as always. Thanks mate. 🖖😁🇦🇺

[@dp055]

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

[@brianelliott4923]

Your talks are eternally and infinitely fascinating.

[@stephencummins7589]

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

[@arenito2023]

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

[@jensjacobs9050]

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

[@jybrokenhearted]

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

[@johnrap7203]

If that is not sarcasm...

[@Rancid-Jane]

@@jybrokenhearted All of them.

[@KeithCooper-Albuquerque]

Great video, once again Arvin!

[@dr.michaellittle5611]

Excellent video, Arvin. 👏👏👏👏

[@Kretion666]

Great video!

[@katalyst4stem]

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

[@rogumann838]

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

[@katalyst4stem]

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

[@bandongogogo]

Gotta love Arvin!!!

[@cutepuppy9585]

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

[@chrisroser8469]

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

[@cyprianmbelesia2693]

Let's say our knowledge is incomplete.

[@nickowen7406]

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

[@db3536]

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

[@Gelatinocyte2]

Willy Wonka? ... Walter White?

[@live_free_or_perish]

🙄

[@petrovtiganu9904]

I like that one 😂😂😂

[@rfgiowa]

@@Gelatinocyte2woodrow wilson 🤓

[@rightlinepainting1620]

Thank you Arvin ,like always very informative clip

[@macsarcule]

Awesome as always 🙂

[@TaylorFalk21]

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

[@SciMinute]

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

[@terrific804]

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

[@uriituw]

@@terrific804 Science doesn’t prove stuff.

[@Pyriold]

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

[@terrific804]

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

[@cheddar8213]

​@@uriituwall fields of science?

[@constpegasus]

Love ❤️ these videos.

[@sunshinecycling]

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

[@mastahid]

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

[@mentat1341]

god doesn't appreciate this comment

[@cillianennis9921]

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

[@darkoz1692]

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

[@autopilot3176]

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

[@FelonyVideos]

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

[@FittedSheetGaming]

Before the big bang, there was young sheldon

[@alargefarva4274]

Booooooo

[@jimmyzhao2673]

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

[@ThanosFrl]

this was the best video ive ever watched.

[@FAKKER_rap]

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

[@smlanka4u]

Big Bounce models don't need cosmic inflation hypothesis.

[@jeffreyspinner5437]

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

[@brothermine2292]

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

[@O_Lee69]

The pictures from galaxies far away are too crisp.

[@rogumann838]

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

[@fighterofthenightman1057]

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

[@ArvinAsh]

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

[@AndrewBrownK]

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

[@cyprianmbelesia2693]

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

[@cyprianmbelesia2693]

​@@AndrewBrownK I concur with this

[@antonystringfellow5152]

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

[@WillArtie]

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

[@vladvlog9677]

Well explained.

[@D__Cain]

Can we please leave String theory behind.

[@DrDeuteron]

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

[@Create-The-Imaginable]

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

[@desiderata8811]

Sting likes it

[@Angarsk100]

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

[@iam6424]

What if string theory is really behind it !

[@iggyzorro2406]

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

[@melgross]

Nothing like the steady state universe hypothesis.

[@christianfaust5141]

Danke!

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks so much!

[@surendrakverma555]

Very good information Sir. Thanks 👍

[@johnfrian]

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

[@tonmoysharma5758]

Yes, same feeling

[@juanantonioalbacetecalero6538]

Brilliant!

[@user-hq9yl1gc2q]

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

[@Angarsk100]

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

[@ArvinAsh]

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

[@alsmith20000]

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

[@Gelatinocyte2]

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

[@educatedguest1510]

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

[@nunyabisnass1141]

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

[@rnd135173]

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

[@jpaulc441]

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

[@markl4593]

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

[@michaelpipkin9942]

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

[@efeocampo]

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

[@karelvandervelden8819]

You only have to except infinity.

[@inertiaforce7846]

We're a black hole inside that universe

[@efeocampo]

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

[@LordandGodofYouTube]

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

[@calebsingano6273]

It does 😊

[@stefanogandino9192]

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

[@LordandGodofYouTube]

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

[@stefanogandino9192]

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

[@LordandGodofYouTube]

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

[@cyprianmbelesia2693]

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

[@thisbechris]

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

[@Bo-dachious]

Only the programmer will know.

[@uriituw]

Programmer?

[@DonFinley]

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

[@samsaini379]

@@uriituw he means the one who programmed us

[@uriituw]

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

[@JarethGT]

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

[@brothermine2292]

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

[@wmpx34]

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

[@mw9297]

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

[@darrennew8211]

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

[@Bill..N]

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

[@radovan_mladic]

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

[@bulosqoqish1970]

Very interesting video.

[@TM-yn4iu]

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

[@robunderwood7689]

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

[@ArvinAsh]

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

[@98593le]

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

[@jakegerstein]

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

[@Legend-mg2ry]

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

[@grine6966]

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

[@Faustobellissimo]

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

[@ArvinAsh]

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

[@Faustobellissimo]

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

[@Faustobellissimo]

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

[@adamcummings20]

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

[@ramondejesus65]

Third theory is my personal favorite and makes the most sense to me out of these

[@Vancouverite39]

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

[@vandanakarad1881]

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

[@ashred9665]

IIT sheep

[@Anityam]

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

[@shinoraze]

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

[@shinoraze]

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

[@Stefan-jl3oc]

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

[@mikchrungBLADES]

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

[@dziban303]

also a floating mass of pasta

[@prawnmikus]

A god. I like Kali.

[@Coolie-High]

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

[@dziban303]

@@Coolie-High what're you smokin

[@uriituw]

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

[@aalhard]

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

[@WallySoto-yi8fz]

The Bang Big!

[@jolulipa]

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

[@rogumann838]

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

[@uriituw]

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

[@jolulipa]

@@uriituw Exactly! It does not exist.

[@thefinerbs7157]

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

[@navinbondade5365]

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

[@tomschmidt381]

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

[@TheRealStructurer]

U forgot the Simulation theory 😉 Thanks for sharing 👍🏼

[@MasterKoala777]

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

[@dgr8nikhilsrivastava]

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

[@KF-bj3ce]

So easy to understand and immagin that this is possible.

[@robertngreen6]

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

[@dcabernel]

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

[@Rannsaka]

Great and very intresting video

[@mt-qc2qh]

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

[@BilboSwaggins999]

Love me some Arvin Ash

[@TheKfler]

Good time to watch this is at 2am.

[@StagvanHeuten]

Very interesting!

[@andrewbatts7678]

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

[@tyamada21]

A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'... My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE. during September 1970.. Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.

[@ianPedlar]

I did enjoy the video

[@drbuckley1]

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

[@colinwinterman]

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

[@flavioptferreira]

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

[@ironDsteele]

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

[@steveg1961]

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

[@ironDsteele]

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

[@astronorthwet636]

The problem with the Big Bang is how does everything become compressed into a single point smaller than an atom? Wouldn’t the universe have to have gone from a solid mass to pure energy? But how did it get into a solid form?

[@jimgraham6722]

Great topic. In an infinite Kuhn Level 8 'nothing' anything is possible, although 'simple' things are more probable than 'complex'. In time, on a scale of trillions of years the universe will decay back to nothing. Proton decay would be an indicator. Against the background of an infinite Level 8 nothing the entire existence of our universe would be just a flash in the pan.

[@thekingofmojacar5333]

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

[@MrTryAnotherOne]

The universe is like a glove being turned inside out.

[@shethtejas104]

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

[@christianheichel]

Seinfeld is still the best

[@ArvinAsh]

Totally agree!

[@shethtejas104]

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

[@uriituw]

Seinfeld is better than any of those.

[@shethtejas104]

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

[@michaelransom5841]

An idea that keeps rolling around in my brain is that the cosmos undergoes a vast and continuous expansion, characterized largely by the influence of dark energy, and this expansion is not uniform; rather, it varies in intensity based on the local density of matter. In regions heavily laden with matter, such as galaxies and star clusters, the gravitational forces are strong enough to counteract the expansive influence of dark energy, maintaining stability within these systems. Conversely, in vast cosmic voids where matter is sparse, the lack of significant gravitational counterforce allows dark energy to dominate. As we are all aware, constant acceleration, even if the force of acceleration remains unchanged, leads to greater and greater velocities, and correspondingly, total kinetic energy, or momentum. within our current framework, the only thing that prevents velocities from becoming infinite are relativistic limits where energies approach a singularity... This applies to matter of course, but what is matter but a region of spacetime with high energy density. Could it be possible that, in nearly empty regions of the universe, the minimal presence of matter and the negligible gravitational resistance, allows dark energy to exert its effect unopposed leading to the rates of expansion is so pronounced that they may be described as inflationary? could it be that periodically, instabilities may occur within these rapidly expanding regions, leading to local decelerations in the expansion rate (singularities). These instabilities could funnel expansion energy into thermal energy creating singularity-like conditions reminiscent of those observed at the Big Bang. Such events introduce a form of drag that mirrors the processes that unfolded after the Big Bang. Over time, as the energy from these events dissipates, the expansion rate begins to accelerate once more. As regions become increasingly devoid of matter, they eventually return to a state of rapid, inflationary expansion. This dynamic suggests a universe in which inflationary and non-inflationary states alternate, driven by the varying densities of matter and the influence of dark energy. The universe, therefore, is envisioned as a patchwork of varying expansion rates, shaping its structure and evolution over cosmic time scales. This model provides a framework to understand not only the large-scale structure of the universe but also the role of dark energy in shaping these dynamics. Just a thought.. who really knows though...

[@donk1822]

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

[@joergweis]

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

[@Gunz_o]

One other possibility (similar to the "Bubble Universe" but more general) is that the universe as we know it is the only thing that we're capable of studying and understanding but that there is a vast (possibly infinite) reality beyond our universe that we're destined to never perceive or be capable of comprehending.

[@raylittle8607]

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

[@MoonWolf_yt]

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

[@ulicadluga]

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

[@GururajBN]

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

[@kaseyboles30]

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

[@dmarckos]

Before the singularity was an image- A design. Inflation is the spread out of the entire image + it's manifestation into 3D.

[@alancook9102]

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

[@ArvinAsh]

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

[@skilltreebusybee]

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