Paul Steinhardt - How Did Our Universe Begin?

Beginnings are momentous, the beginning of the universe especially so. How did the beginning of our universe happen? Cosmic inflation is the theory that an exponential expansion within the first tiny fraction of a second generated everything that we see, all the vast galaxies, stars and planets. What’s the evidence? What’s the meaning?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on the beginning of the universe: bit.ly/3Ft0b2f
Paul J. Steinhardt is the Albert Einstein Professor of Science at Princeton University and Director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University, where he is also on the faculty of both the Department of Physics and the Department of Astrophysical Sciences.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@redriver6541]

These are my favorite videos on this channel. Anything that deals with WHY.... I can watch all day.

[@OtaBengaBokongo]

the Jews were created simultaneously with the big bang

[@shenanigans3710]

This not really a "why", this is more a "how".

[@redriver6541]

@@shenanigans3710 if you learn how....you'll eventually figure out why. If you ask why enough times you eventually end up deep in theoretical physics. But I get what you're saying.

[@Flowing23]

amazing conversation.

[@bertharius9518]

What's the annoying noise in the background? Why is the resolution of the video so low? Why does the camera keep moving around? Why are we here? What's it all about? Questions, questions.

[@hillcresthiker]

Human brains have a tendency to see things having beginnings and ends whereas this cyclic universe makes more sense, in that there is no beginning and the universe has always been here and will be here forever.

[@suatustel746]

You're right as we're corporeal beings always ask questions begins with 'why, how, when, what..

[@adityganguly4021]

When we have no answer we have to believe it has no beginning.

[@dustinellerbe4125]

Wonderful! Makes a lot sense with what data we are given at this point in time.

[@Jaggerbush]

Oh wow. This makes me recall a PBS Nova with Brian Greene and he explains membranes bouncing off each other but this here is a much better explanation and done so with mo graphics. 👏🏼 👏🏼

[@jerrybatsford9689]

I like listening to these theories and I'm not saying someone shouldn't be exploring them, but I can't help but think of Buddha's parable of the arrow. A man is hit with a poison arrow but refuses to receive treatment until his questions about the arrow and its origins are answered, and then he dies.

[@sohamjoshi9527]

there is always someone else who can investigate about the arrow's origins.

[@havenbastion]

The universe never began. It was always here.

[@sohamjoshi9527]

i like this theory more that the one in this video :)

[@strongfoot2009]

*How Did Our Universe Begin?. No one knows and everyone keeps on guessing* .

[@abelincoln8885]

No. Everyone keeps ignoring what the evidence and facts actually show .... because they don't believe God created the Universe less than 6000 years ago. The Universe & Life ... are thermodynamic Systems. A System is a Function ... with purpose, processes, properties, form & design ... made only by an intelligence. All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions ... and originate from the SURROUNDING System which must provide the matter, energy, space, time, laws & intelligence to exist & to function. See. We have always known that anything that is a Function can only be made by an intelligence ... and have known for over 120 years the origin of any thermodynamic System. Most choose not to .... believe in the God of the Jews & Christiians and His 6 day creation and the 7th Day will belong to God ... in a world with a 7 day week. smh.

[@therick363]

@@abelincoln8885 the evidence and facts actually show….NOT what you claimZ

[@abelincoln8885]

@@therick363 lol. The Universe is a thermodynamic system ... is NOT a claim, but a fact.

[@therick363]

@@abelincoln8885 wasn’t talking about that part

[@abelincoln8885]

@@therick363 lol. That part ... proves the Universe & Life are Functions made by an intelligence. Again. The Universe a NATURAL System ... that originates from the SURROUNDING .... unnatural System which must provide the matter, energy, space, time, laws & intelligence to exist & function. The Surrounding system ... must be Unnatural ... otherwise it is a Thermodynamic System and must originate from the surrounding System. Facts ... that everybody is ignoring because they don't believe God (intelligence) created the Universe( Function).

[@eryksylvan801]

Great solution to Fermi’s Paradox- the cool aliens already jumped shipped to another brane.

[@stevepierce6467]

I know that's true! The only aliens left in that smoking crater in my backyard are the nerds and misfits who could never get a girlfriend or boyfriend.

[@douglinze4177]

Fantastic… I love it… The First time I heard this idea was on “Through The Wormhole,” with Morgan Freeman… The next day I had the artist on my wing, I was a Juvenile Justice Youth Counselor in my previous life, draw out what now I know to be “Wolfram Combinators,” but then, I just gave them a sketch and said manifest it and they did… A giant Universe painted on the community foyer wall, hahaha- they said we could paint our wing walls so we went all in, I bet management was like, sh@t, didn’t think of that, hahaha…. Then I had my guys paint 3D skyscrapers on my office wall… Now then- this “Membrane/Membranes” sound like Entanglement’s to me even when separated… The Gap between the Branes could be a “Well” that Collapses like a “51.84 Degree Slant on a Pyramid… This would Create a Concaveness that would meet that gap definition, even inside itself, but I have 100% Confirmed this Concept using my Vedic Digital Root Compressed Vortex Based Math… I have created 3D Pyramids on a flat substrate that literally falls in on itself while it is pushing (Tension/Pressure) whic when I do my numbers, Magic Appears… Literally! “5184-4815= 369 My Theory is 100% Confirmed With 100% Perfection… Now, I am going to learn computer programming and electrical engineering, since I have discovered “PERFECTION” using my Imagination… I have discovered “The 369 Phi-Pi “432 Hz” Hydromagnetic-Sonoluminescent Atomic Universe built via Implosion Vortex Wave Dynamics, Compression and Radiation, from Pyramids popping into existence as 369 Electric Vortex Circuits, “Mobius Circuit”… This explanation makes the “Branes” that our brains perceive, well at least mine does due to “ZERO VORTEX WELLS”…

[@sohamjoshi9527]

lol wtf did i just read

[@allauddin732]

With great love and extra care

[@aminomar7890]

To concise: what is going on with double slit experience is related to cycle two (cycle one „so-called material world built within cycle two “) too early to think about that, cycle two is very advanced science, better to focus on deeper understanding of the fundamentals of physics and leave the rest for future generations (multi-generations task)

[@owlpoodle355]

Almost like our universe is occasionally re-for mated and updated with new data or no data. New beginning.

[@liluziBurt667]

The infathomability of infinity predisposes one to believe a beginning is logical.

[@NeverTalkToCops1]

Infinity may be infathomable to you...

[@IntraFinesse]

While interesting, it still doesn't address the questions "What was the beginning" other than - there is no beginning, the universe is infinite in time (in both directions). If the universe is also infinite in spatial directions and always existed then the ultimate question is "Why? And could it have had different properties?"

[@robertrobertson2117]

Time Loop Geometry kzbin.info/www/bejne/oImtlGiuecicjsU

[@waldwassermann]

While it is true that there appear to be a lot of "branes" floating around; it is also true that all separation is fundamentally illusory.

[@robertnicholson1409]

Paul....why don't you just say, I don't know. Now that would be an honest answer.

[@francesco5581]

Theoretical scientists are the only ones who can propose 99,99% probably wrong ideas for decades and look cool in the process.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

It is possible when cientistas picture Universe though arrogance cinism.

[@2kt2000]

Dream job.. like weathermen they get paid to guess, now that's living the dream!

[@johnyharris]

Come on Francesco, that's a rather smug comment considering the remarkable success theoretical physicists have had in describing our reality in great detail. How many spiritualists have described our reality, as in the case of special relativity, in such detail? They play a very important role in furthering human understanding.

[@fortynine3225]

@@johnyharris It looks like theoritical physicist come up with tons of wrong predictions. And no 95% or of the universe we do not know what it is.

[@francesco5581]

@@johnyharris i assume that a spiritualist was not much interested in special relativity... But mine was not an assault to the profession, because when dealing with the fundamental questions is obvious that 99.9% of their theories are/were wrong. As philosophers were probably wrong through centuries... I cant stop thinking that OFTEN they fall in love with their own theory that give them work. books, funds, interviews... Its had to determine were science end and ego starts. The problem is that if i am a plumber and i work on a method of fixing tubes that is wrong i will be out of work in one year.... They can profess for decades ideas (that were lately proven wrong) and they continue happily to work like nothing happened

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

When it is convenient for them, physicists explain the "non-forceful" nature of gravity by the example of the movement of test bodies from the equator to the pole, where geodesic lines close. However, for some reason, this comparison is not brought to an end: south of the south or north of the north pole is the equator, where geodesic lines diverge. Hence, all sorts of cyclical models originate, in which history repeats itself nevertheless - with further time increase! Further, when it is convenient for them, the "non-forceful" nature of gravity is explained by the example of free fall of bodies. But there is no cyclicity here: geodesics close in the center of the gravitating body and that's it. (Born also noted that here is one of the fundamental differences between local and global Lorentz systems, and that a complete theory of gravity is required.) By the way, the feature at the beginning of time, both in closed and open models, has a similar character. The difference is that cyclic models slow down the search for the root cause of the beginning of the universe, where gravity is not necessarily "powerless". P.S. The starting point of physics is the idea of inertia, but "The knowledge of the straightness of the movement of a body left to itself does not follow from experience. On the contrary!" (Einstein). The fundamental difference between inertia forces and ordinary forces of interaction of bodies is that for inertia forces it is impossible to specify the action of which specific bodies on a material point they describe, they cannot be confused with the Dalembert force of inertia, and they are always external forces. (Newton's first law is not a special case of Newton's second law.) GR reduced gravity to inertia by generalizing the first law: the free movement of test bodies occurs along geodesic lines, but the theory did not find out anything new about the nature of the cause of inertia forces. "... the complete geometrization established by GR introduces a hierarchized cosmos on the plane, indicating indirectly the presence of an elusive source." (Tonnelat). It seems that this source of external (external) inertia forces is an "absolute vacuum" - instead of Newtonian "absolute space", which "... as a cause, does not satisfy the need for a causal explanation." (Born). Finally, the search for the root cause became possible after Friedmann spoke for the first time in a scientific way about the "creation of the world", and even then there was an opportunity to abandon the a priori nature of the law (more precisely, the axiom) of inertia, and build physics on a more reliable basis.

[@alexgrimsson6143]

Human empirical reasoning remains thus far at an epistemological standstill when faced with finding ratiocinative answers to such ultimate cosmological questions...which for some people then necessitates the imaginative use of metaphysics or theological 'faith' ... At least the physicist Sir Arthur Eddington had the intellectual integrity to simply admit that that we humans don't know who or what 'created the universe/multiverse' Eddington instead made the honest statement: Something Unknown is doing We Don't Know What..........

[@jemberalmojuela2487]

So, Paul model still requires beginning with a bang then. It still consistent with GR, because GR itself is only talking to our universe as either expand or contract.

[@akumar7366]

I like Sir Roger Penrose CCC theory.

[@suecondon1685]

Me too.

[@fineasfrog]

Quote from Lawrence: "We use these kinds of 'brain' to discover those kinds of 'brane'." So what is the brain which is giving us this discovery of the branes? What we refer to with the word 'brain' points to an appearance in our experience, an appearance in consciousness. If we use the word 'brain' without being aware of what the brain is as this appearance in consciousness, we keep ourselves and our understanding limited by always starting with unquestioned assumptions that are only partially true. Always we are dealing with these contents of consciousness that depend on the coherence of consciousness. If our way of observing, thinking and knowing is dependent on the coherence of our consciousness, then we need to ask the question: what is a method or way that will allow a radical transformation of consciousness into a radically more coherent state (configuration). We know through structure yet we don't ask the question: "What might it mean to know structure itself instead of only knowing through structures?"

[@66sandymurf49]

Absolutely amazing 👏 the clapping of 2 hands could start a baby universe? Just like the brains CLAPPING making our HOME the universe we live in amazing 👏

[@ericfan9149]

- Branes clapping (ie: membranes)

[@66sandymurf49]

@@ericfan9149 my mistake

[@10penpaper]

I think we have an "Insane" problem here. We need to understand that as Human Beings we in a certain way have become pathetically obsessed with the Idea of reaching to the "Ultimate" Truth. From ancient times this has been our actual REALITY, which is nothing but chasing this notion that Ultimate Reason for Creation of this Universe exist, as if this notion MUST be there for this Universe to run in such a Systematic way. It is just nothing but our incapacity to Comprehend and Accept the Idea that the Universe may not have any Reason Or System, but may be just a smooth and simple flow of existence. Scientists, Philosophers, Theologians all have chased this Idea and almost felt a compulsion to come up with an All Inclusive Explanation of the Reason of our existence. We feel finite if we can't find it out, we feel alienated if we accept that Universe is a Magic, because our senses provoke us to be focussed on our past and future, as this deep insecurity of the fallibility of experiencing the present becomes meaningless for us. Our brain could not accept meaninglessness as it immediately experiences an unbearable lightness of being, a torment that we could not tolerate. And that is why we invented Mathematics or discovered the same in some subaltern language.

[@misterhill5598]

The universe is the sum total of all Space, Time, energy and transition. As such, it is neccessary for the universe to have no beginning and no end. Human has a beginning and an end. Human is just a very very very small part of the universe. The universe is eternal.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

Who was the Parents of our Universe ?

[@itsgoingdown803]

Something shlt us out and here we are

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

branes exist in future, present and past?

[@delta40031]

I believe this might be an old interview, these ideas have already been abandoned

[@andrewmasterman2034]

‘An infinite past with a finite future’

[@endoalley680]

How do you get beyond speculation?

[@culturalross7847]

Do you value your life? Do you find meaning? Is there a purpose/end goal to all this? 2 minutes of mind-blowing truths: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i4qynqermNyUnKM

[@vincestar4840]

Why is someone putting together an IKEA desk in the background?

[@asifiqbal2776]

Mind-blowing!

[@karimshariff7379]

Covered all the questions a lay person might have about the theory. One question: Is what he described the same as cyclical universe that his collaborators Anna Ijjas et al are working on?

[@archieboyce6843]

Cyclical great one day I’ll be back

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

Phase gravity lhc

[@thomasridley8675]

Yes, we don't know what happened beyond a certain point in time. We may never know. Doesn't his model lean more in the direction of us being an accident of chance ? Or does it form a new intelligence in each new cycle ? 🤔 Wow ! Speculation is fun !

[@thomasridley8675]

@@realitycheck1231 Cyclical doesn't mean that they will a copy of the last one. It means a new beginning with every new version. And their is nothing that says that every cycle will have the same out come.

[@thomasridley8675]

@@realitycheck1231 😎👍

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

do branes have energy?

[@sohamjoshi9527]

when you say this might happen after every x number of years... it doesnt make sense because time itself is not absolute... so x number of years based on which location ?

[@tonyatkinson2210]

Ours .

[@sohamjoshi9527]

@@tonyatkinson2210 i believe time exists only when matter does ... so how is it possible to put a time on this event in the first place when the matter has not been created till the event has occurred.. these kind of claims seem too superficial... just say every trillion or some large number of years and done .. this stuff is not reasonable

[@joeosp1689]

A quote from the stage play Axis of Beginning: “The only thing real about the Big Bang is that the theory acknowledges that the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang is based on data supported by probabilities, massive, burdensome lifesavers, full of what-ifs that need continuous maintenance, keeping the idea afloat. Such as the flatness problem, the horizon problem, and the mono-pole problem. All in all, that’s a lot of dark stuff to sweep under the cosmic rug and still call the universe clean.”

[@jareknowak8712]

11:20 - critical issue: what caused the first inequality, how the symmetry was broken?? By what?

[@tonyatkinson2210]

Quantum fluctuations ?

[@jareknowak8712]

@@tonyatkinson2210 There must have been something before the fluctuations, that caused/allow them, right?

[@tonyatkinson2210]

@@jareknowak8712 I think quantum fluctuations are uncaused . Like how virtual particles popping in and out of existence is uncaused

[@007zz]

We just don't know the answer to that. Maybe the question is the problem.

[@dougg1075]

I bet that room smells of old books and mahogany

[@Farsider3955]

🤔…..once again we grapple with the incomprehensible idea of infinity.

[@sunilprinja9913]

Surely, even " branes " must come from somewhere....and, be made of " energy "...?

[@ivanbeshkov1718]

Steven Weinberg said: “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.”

[@scooby3133]

The thing about this question is,. Nothing on this planet needs to know the answer for its survival. We could just stop, say we don't know, then carry on like we have been. However, it's something religions have incorporated into their version of reality.

[@chrisgriffiths2533]

Obviously Many have Considered the Creation of the Universe from a Science Point of View. But Immediately You have the Definition Problem of :- What is the Universe ?. Sure You can Add in what we See and Experience but You Still have the Unknown Full Details which Provide the Universe Definition. Hence making the Science Pursuit of Universe Creation Very Very Difficult. Another Interesting Science Consideration to How the Universe is Created is the Enormous Amounts of Absolute Cold. Which is Slightly Counter to the Big Bang Thinking Supported by the High Heat Sources, Mostly Stars. Theoretically the Heat of the Stars is Caused by the Initial Big Bang Heat. Given there is Far More Cold than Heat. Given Cold is the Absense of Heat. Perhaps the Ratio of Cold Space to Hot or Warm Space is a Worthy Calculation. A Calculation which Should Match the Big Bang Period of 14 Billion Years. Therefore Providing More or Less Proof of the BB Theory. Very Difficult Science Topic.

[@aminomar7890]

The only chance for mankind to survive is reaching cycle two through science (it is real „does exist „) that could take up to thousands of years, the human’s life span is too short, it is the job of multi-generations, it is not the job of one generation to solve all scientific problems ! the job of each generation is to do his best and leave the flag for next generation. Right now it’s better to avoid hallucinations and focus on deeper understanding of the fundamentals of physics. Reaching cycle two means the ability of mankind to survive even during catastrophic cosmological events such as supernova, meteor collides with the planet earth, ….etc reaching cycle two means very advanced technology still too early for such a thing, even just thinking about that.

[@theomnisthour6400]

The universe you are incarnated in is not "your" universe. You don't get your own universe of creation till you reach the god levels of consciousness. Till then, you play the game of souls in the universe of the god you are most resonant with, in terms of the local experiment you are part of, or in a temporary time out parallel universe where you don't do what you would have done to muck up your god's games

[@Smitty65721]

In with a bang, out with a whimper.....

[@J.M_Sterken]

I think the universe never begun, and or ever has a end to it. It's the moment you have been looking for, to determine of what a beginning would look like. Because the moment always starts with it's end back to where the moment can be the moment in the moment for the moment. (The start of the universe = this exact moment) {"Nothing" more "nothing" less}

[@TheWayOfRespectAndKindness]

Humans have a tendency to complicate things. Direct observation will reveal the nature of reality. It’s simply beautiful. 😉

[@briendoyle4680]

Yep ... and no gods observed...

[@sohamjoshi9527]

lol i know right... what membranes ? where did they come from ? why do they collide ? what the hell is being talked about here.. if it cannot be observed i might as well hypothesize about 100 random things that could be happening and tell that we just cannot observe it but its true.

[@I_hu85ghjo]

By that logic earth being flat would be the reality.

[@sohamjoshi9527]

@@I_hu85ghjo you know earth is round because it is verifiable through observable evidence...

[@tonyatkinson2210]

@@sohamjoshi9527 Very little of modern physics relies on observation . It relies on inferences from data Many of the things scientists investigate do not interact with human perceptual systems or produce perceptual experiences of them. Terms like ‘observation’ and don’t occur nearly as much in science anymore . In their place, working scientists tend to talk about data instead .

[@aminomar7890]

There are two cycles for sure (100% correct) so their postulates have no real value (wasting of time) the current understanding of space and time is not only incomplete rather …..

[@suriel8164]

You can't have a verse (uni or multi) without speech or one who speaks...

[@julianelia5730]

And some scientists insist in the failed string theory... these ideas that cant possibly be proven are not theories, they are beliefs...

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

Science can never achieve real beginning. The real living entity can never appear in science.

[@ManiBalajiC]

unless they is a flaw in our logic or fundamentals

[@aminomar7890]

Do your job and leave the rest for future generations (they have minds too to think with!) Science is a very long journey (journey of thousands of years) it is not the job of one generation to find solutions for all scientific problems! and keep hallucinations away of science, science needs rational intelligent entities those work hard and leave the rest for next generations.

[@AmitRay47]

Considering the big bang theory of the birth of our Universe and considering some views on the existance of other universes than our own, Metaverse, are their any Theories/Hypothesis what effect the big bang would have had on the other universes.

[@richardmarcus3340]

Another fool. Keep them coming It's most entertaining.

[@KaliFissure]

Neutron decay cosmology The path of least action, physical process solution to black hole paradoxes, dark energy, dark matter and critical density maintenance. Neutrons/mass which eventually contacts event horizons becomes the vacuum energy for one single Planck second then, via topology, reemerges from lowest energy density points of space, deep, where they then decay. The decay from almost point particle neutron to hydrogen gas, the natural course, is a volume increase of around 10^45. This is Expansion, dark energy, lambda. The decay product, amorphous atomic hydrogen, doesn't have a stable orbital electron so it can't emit or absorb photons. Dark matter. In time the hydrogen stabilizes and follows usual evolution pathway from gas to filament to proto star to star until in the distant future it is again about to contact an event horizon. The universe is steady state, evolving locally. A continuous flow down the gravity hill. Event horizons act as energy pressure release valves venting from highest energy pressure conditions to lowest energy density points of space. From aggregated singularity to dispersed distributed diffuse. Then gravity gathered it up again. Neutron decay cosmology. Inevitable.

[@alpachino2shae]

A bit spaced out

[@sunilprinja9913]

It is impossible to explain where all this " energy " came from....so it seems.

[@tonyatkinson2210]

Maybe there isn’t one . Maybe it’s just a brute fact that energy is fundamental to reality .

[@therick363]

I teed it’s one of the most difficult things to investigate. It could be that we will never know with certainty and only have educated guesses.

[@danejensen6064]

Um, no

[@shaccooper]

This is a science of the gaps theory.

[@therick363]

Thought experiments are part of a scientists job

[@shaccooper]

Isn’t his story what science calls religious?

[@johncarter1150]

How did "our" universe begin...LOL!

[@johnterry6541]

What is the fourth dimension? I thought time was the fourth. He doesn’t facilitate it’s imagination for our full understanding of this concept. That’s dirty.

[@havenbastion]

There are three physical dimensions - time, space, and scale. The three spacial dimensions are merely a coordinate system we impose upon it, just like we impose units of time on the process of change itself.

[@e.a.p3174]

The bible says God spoke the universe into the existence. Just plain logic tells me that the universe could not have been infinite. How could we be here today, if there were an infinite number of yesterdays? Furthermore the universe is extremely fine tuned how did that happen? Dr. James Tour who is a brilliant chemist at Rice university stated in one of his talks, the bible has not changed in 2000's years, but scientific theories change constantly. The idea that the universe was created, wasn't fully accepted until 1964, before it was widely held that the universe was eternal.

[@tonyatkinson2210]

Only the religious think the universe was created . I’m not sure why you think 1964 was significant . The religious have always thought it was created. Show me a Christian who thought the universe was eternal before 1964

[@e.a.p3174]

@@tonyatkinson2210 sorry that's not what I said, I said that scientist generally accepted the argument that the Big Bang was the correct theory. Secondly Hindus and New Agers hold the view that the universe is eternal. I am a Christian, I believe in an old universe. Most of my little knowledge come from people like Astronomer Hugh Ross, Chemist James Tour, biologist Michael Behe and John Lennox.

[@tonyatkinson2210]

@@e.a.p3174 I note your sources for knowledge : Christians . Some of which work for Evangelical organisations. You think that’s diverse enough ? By the way - accepting the big Bang says nothing about whether the universe is eternal or not . It’s just the theory about the origin of its current presentation

[@e.a.p3174]

@@tonyatkinson2210 fair enough, Dr. Hugh Ross is an evangelist, and so is Dr. James Tour. Interestingly neither person grew up in a Christian environment. I had several close calls with death when I was young. I can’t tell you why, but I never doubted the presence of God. I concede that for many years I didn’t exactly follow Him. I know now better and have a personal relationship with Jesus. Anyways I appreciate your kindness, even if your views are different from mine. God bless

[@ElmwoodParkHulk]

The universe is a simulation created by the programmer .

[@kilt81]

Looks a little bit “far stretched” 😆

[@Searchthebooks]

Its funny when they say before 14 billions years ago, As if they were there and they saw what happened

[@johngurvan8279]

Just like in the beginning god created heaven and earth plus 1million trillion stars and planets. And before he took a holiday just for laughs created adam and eve. ( from what)

[@Searchthebooks]

@@johngurvan8279 It is logical to say in the beginning God created, Because there is nothing that can make itself. How does someone believe that in the beginning there was nothing and nothing created everything? If I tell you in the begging was nothing and nothing create your phone, its stupid is it?

[@johngurvan8279]

@@Searchthebooks if god is nothing same thing. Who saw him make the universe., how can he make all of that from nothing. All 1 billion trillion stars and planets, where did he get all the different materials, builders yard. You answer is as empty as space

[@Searchthebooks]

@@johngurvan8279 You don't need to see God to know he exists, If you see a building by logic you know there is a builder. In the begging it should be an intelligent designer, if not then Where did mater, space, energy, time came from? And how did the begging start as the called big bang? How can an explosion result in something as wonderful as the universe? Where did life come from ? To believe in the begging was nothing and nothing create everything, this is blind faith and stupid !

[@johngurvan8279]

@@Searchthebooks where did all the material come from for some god to build 1 billion trillion stars and planets, from a builders yard. Where was he living before this task. Who saw him doing all this etc etc.

[@sharonlee7111]

Mostly speculative and unverifiable.

[@sohamjoshi9527]

farther than truth is what it is

[@missusbarkdog]

Um, no.

[@therick363]

Um no?? That could be about anything there in the video

[@russellbarndt6579]

Wow, the more and more I get a gasp on physics the more I see it relating to Taoism with a recreative force being perhaps as a God that is not aware of me or you nor itself out of the great void to create the 10,000 things as it say on Taoism that leads to this universe and me and you as we are all including the Our star the Sun and our dark star Sagittarius a....

[@JungleJargon]

You don’t know, do you? 😄

[@shaccooper]

😂

[@therick363]

And you never prove your creator exists or is responsible for things, do you?

[@JungleJargon]

@@therick363 By eliminating a natural cause, the only possible answer is a supernatural cause.

[@therick363]

@@JungleJargon you haven’t eliminated an natural cause. And saying because we haven’t found one makes your god real and responsible? God of the gaps. How about you actually support your supernatural cause with actual evidence

[@JungleJargon]

@@therick363 Look at the impossibility of matter and energy making themselves. Look at the impossibility of matter and energy directing themselves concatenating billions and billions of bits of specific genetic programming. Naturalism is impossible billions of times over! You have no mechanism to make viable mechanisms.

[@georgegrubbs2966]

A reasonable theory but wrong. Our universe is one of many universes that continually spawn from a foundational substrate of energy that is eternal and comprises all of reality and existence.

[@sohamjoshi9527]

where did that foundational substrate of energy come from ?

[@georgegrubbs2966]

@@sohamjoshi9527 It is energy as the natural state of being. It is the "unmoved mover," the basis, the ground; it has always existed.

[@deliyomgam7382]

I have the theory of everything.

[@JungleJargon]

An infinite bouncing ping pong ball? 😳 That’s not science. Time is a fabrication and it’s not a fixed measure. There is no single measure of time in the universe. That means the universe doesn’t have a tangible age. 👀🙄 Duh! We do have a tangible ancient history that is about 5,000 years old. Human history before Noah goes back over 6,000 years. Hello!!!?

[@therick363]

There are structures older than 6000 years

[@electricmanist]

All these oh so clever men seem to overlook the fact that a supreme intelligence, God, (which is beyond our understanding) is at the heart of all that is. Going around in ever decreasing circles trying to prove they know it all, is really quite amusing. The intelligence (and power) inherent in all that is, (from atoms to galaxies) illustrates not only the intricate nature of the universe, but also highlights how little we understand of the true nature of being. (Existence)----Especially our own.

[@therick363]

Saying someone overlooks the fact that….is you overlooking that isn’t a fact. This supreme intelligence hasn’t been demonstrated to be a fact. You overlooked that part.

[@electricmanist]

@@therick363 I find it difficult to understand how someone can look around, not only this world, but the universe at large, and not comprehend the underlying intelligence within and without all its structural entirety. From the microscopic to the boundless universe, there is clearly an underlying order and design--- not to mention the fact it actually exists at all. However, if you choose to believe that everything is without meaning and is no more than an accident, then you are free to do so. Of course, you might like to consider, that if everything is, (as you suggest) is without meaning, where does that leave you ??

[@therick363]

@@electricmanist well I’m sorry you find it difficult to understand that, but that doesn’t take away from how I see things. Saying “there is clearly an underlying order and design”….doesn’t equal there is one beyond the way you view things. Just because we see “order” via the fundamental forces and laws doesn’t equal an intelligence did it. We give our own lives meaning and purpose.

[@electricmanist]

@@therick363 Well as you say, 'we all see things in different ways'- but that doesn't preclude the fact that some see things that others might not. Nevertheless, the order and 'construction' of the universe (not to mention its inherent power) to me,shouts of an intelligence behind it all-- an intelligence far beyond our limited understanding. Add to all this are the almost limitless arrays of personal experiences we can undergo while in this world---not to mention others ! Since we are all part (a creation of All that is) , what better way to 'experience 'our' creation. Just one more point, although you dismiss the concept of 'order and design', behind all that is, maybe you might consider just why all (everything) isn't merely chaos ? After all, order of any kind suggests an underlying intelligence, don't you think.

[@therick363]

@@electricmanist true some might see things that others don’t-that goes both ways. Yes I understand to you it does that. I’m saying to me it doesn’t and that no one has shown it to be own way or the other. No I don’t think. It isn’t merely chaos because there are laws and rules to the universe. Because of them it makes sense there isn’t “chaos”

[@shaccooper]

“What happens in these cycles…”. What cycles? You sound like a 2 year old. At least you did say “this whole story.”

[@kricketflyd111]

Sounds like a pitiful acceptance to multiverse.

[@JungleJargon]

There was no bang. The universe is not expanding. The distant galaxies are *not* expanding away from us. An infinitely expanding universe is utterly nonsensical. It’s the *distance* between galaxies that is expanded (not “expanding”) from the effect of general relativity from the lack of matter and mass between us and distant objects. Dark energy isn’t needed to explain the red shift because the lack of matter in outer space explains the expansion of distance between the enormous gravitational wells of very large masses of super massive black holes. Time also speeds up where there is less matter so there is no need for dark matter to explain the faster movement of the outer spiral arms of galaxies. The problem is that they are not taking into account simple general relativity. They aren’t considering the variable rate of time and the differing measures of distance due to the amount of matter in the vicinity. Einstein burned into peoples minds that the speed of light doesn’t change. The units of measurement to measure the speed of light do change over large distances and galaxies cover large distances. That means that the speed of light does change over large distances as observed by us. The speed of light doesn’t change. The rate of time changes and the measure of distance changes… *which effectively changes the speed of light as we observe it over great distances.* Time runs faster in outer space where there is no matter and much less gravity. This is the reason the outer spiral arms of the galaxies move much faster than expected. It’s because events take place at a faster rate the less mass and gravity there is. Distance is expanded in outer space (not expanding). Plasma jets do not stream out five times the speed of light since the distance is expanded away from gravity wells. If the distance within a galaxy affects the rate of time and the measure distance that much, *just think what happens to time and distance in deep outer space where there is no matter in our line of sight!* The distances between us and the galaxies that we see are extreme! Time doesn’t run at the same rate everywhere in the universe. Time runs faster in outer space. It just dawned on me the other day that a thousand years and a single day happen at the same time in different places throughout the universe. It's simple (observed) general relativity. Time slows down and distance is contracted because of gravity where there is massive amounts of matter. Conversely, time speeds up and distance is greatly expanded where there is no matter in vast expanses of outer space. This eliminates the need for dark matter since time is sped up in the outer spiral arms of a galaxy where there is not nearly as much matter. It eliminates the need for dark energy in outer space where distance is expanded where there is no matter. So the result of general relativity is that billions of years pass by in outer space (13 some billion years) at the same time as thousands of years pass by where we are inside of the Milky Way galaxy. ...! Billion of years and mere thousands of years are the same thing *at the same time* in deep outer space and where we are, according to physics and according to relativity. In review, time slows down where we are. Time speeds up with less gravity so the outer spiral arms of galaxies move faster. There is no need for dark matter. Distance increases where there is no matter in outer space. There is no need for dark energy to expand space since the expansion of space is from not having any matter far away from the galaxies. Deep time (billions of years) and thousands of years exist simultaneously in this universe where there is no single rate of time or measure of distance! Just think what could be the reality *when* the photons register with our eyes or our cameras/detectors and there is a collapse of the wave function as seen or detected by us within our dilated time and distance. (Our rate of time is not the universal rate of time, especially for photons.) Conclusion: The time it took for Creation and since Creation in the Bible is absolutely true! Time itself is a (real) fabrication. Only your Creator can perfectly cover for you Himself and remake you again from the inside out by the power of His true word as no one else ever can since all of your mistakes are on and against your Maker.

[@therick363]

Ahhh I see you’ve done the usual copy and paste you like to do all the while ignoring actual scientific data and evidence. Classic creationist cherry picking.

[@havenbastion]

TLDR Time is measured change and change happens more fluidly/quickly where there is less stuff, whether energy or matter (which is just an entangled energy eddy). The red shift and gravity in general is explained by the stuff between those higher order things we can comprehend, thinning as the stuff accretes in those other areas where we can see/interact with it at our scale. Change itself ie Chaos ie Actuality ie Aether is the universal substrate of our scale of reality and the cutting edge of physics is pushing the boundaries of what we can test or reason about how that stuff interacts with itself.

[@JungleJargon]

@@havenbastion I have the redshift being from expanded distance/space where there is no matter between the galaxies or between us and the galaxies that we observe. Distance/space contracts inside of the galaxies and they have recently placed our solar system closer to the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Time also slows down near the center of the galaxy.

[@JungleJargon]

@@havenbastion I have the redshift being from expanded distance/space where there is no matter between the galaxies or between us and the galaxies that we observe. Distance/space contracts inside of the galaxies and they have recently placed our solar system closer to the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Time also slows down near the center of the galaxy.

[@havenbastion]

@@JungleJargon The more stuff there is in one place, the more other stuff tends to stick around that area. That could explain both the red shift as the areas in-between thin, and gravity as a local phenomenon, accretion not attraction, of the underlying substrate of our scale of understanding, sub-quantum.

[@johnnyreggae969]

Typical scientist They just cannot accept there is only one universe with a beginning and an end

[@therick363]

And that hasn’t been proven to be a fact. Part of scientists job is to do thought experiments.

[@johnnyreggae969]

@@therick363 But they never do the thought experiment that involves there being only one universe with one beginning and one end because they would then have to accept the outlandish notion of a creator

[@therick363]

@@johnnyreggae969 a creator isn’t a scientific answer. So since gods aren’t natural explanations why would they use them?

[@johnnyreggae969]

@@therick363 No matter how deep scientist get down the rabbit hole there will always be unanswered questions

[@therick363]

@@johnnyreggae969 I don’t think anyone denies that. But does that mean we shouldn’t try? Why did you ignore what I said?

[@alkatmerc5156]

I’m not religious but come on….The world didn’t happen by an explosion/expansion or luck. That theory sounds just as ridiculous as some religions.

[@tonyatkinson2210]

I don’t think anyone’s saying it’s luck . I think they are saying it’s just a Brute fact . Nothing can’t exist. The pre conditions for the universe to evolve into its current form are just fundamental necessities .

[@Alex.The.Lionnnnn]

Yeah but why does anything exist at all. It doesn't make any sense.

[@havenbastion]

There are two levels of Why question; How? (which is for science), and From what intent? which requires a pre-existing mind. Since the universe is a prerequisite for the existence of a mind, the only meaningful Why questions about the universe are How questions.

[@junevandermark952]

When I studied Stephen Hawking's theory, that the universe in one form or another always existed, and then studied that there were those back in history such as Plato and Aristotle that believed the same, at the age of 70, that was the end of my religious indoctrination. It all made sense, that if the universe always existed, there could not have been a creator, and it also made sense that suffering of all forms of life, was and is, natural. I'm 83 now, and feel whole just as I am, and I realize that if I try to treat others with as much kindness as each situation in which I find myself allows, I will always feel better about myself. It's as simple as that. “I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” Stephen Hawking

[@Peace-Weaver]

Know that you are loved, fellow Earthling

[@kevinfisher466]

@@Peace-Weaver shutup and stop spamming everyones comments Enough!

[@peterpipe9015]

When the simulation started

[@aminomar7890]

They don’t know, simply because the current understanding of space and time is incorrect thus the concept of beginning and end. this sentence: “even Einstein didn’t scratch the surface regarding space and time thus gravity” is real. they don’t know, and their guessing has no real value!

[@20july1944]

How do you KNOW it is incorrect? Saying that requires knowledge.

[@abelincoln8885]

BS. We know the Universe is a Thermodynamic System. All thermodynamic Systems .... are FUNCTIONS ... and originate from the surrounding System which mist provide the matter, energy, space time, laws & INTELLIGENCE to exist & to function. Only an intelligence makes, maintains, improves, operates, uses & fine tunes an abstract or physical Function. Universal Functions is the Hypothesis for Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy and any Machine Analogy used to prove "Intelligent Design." The Function, Intelligence & Mind Categories ... prove everything is a Function made by an intelligence .... and the Mind of Man is natural (brain) & unnatural (soul) just as Genesis revealed 3400 years ago when God of the Jews & Christians created Man in His likeness with a .... body & soul.

[@aminomar7890]

Because Entanglement has to do with the current incomplete understanding of both space and time nothing more. and because many of them don’t recognise that some constants have to do with so-called infinity, ….. etc they are unable to define something means the lack of deep understanding for instance space and time. they are unable to connect both quantum mechanics and GR because the current understanding of space and time thus gravity is incorrect. to concise: former scientists did a good job but incomplete. No chance to make progress without deeper understanding of the fundamentals of physics.

[@zimpoooooo]

The guessing does have value, even if wrong. With all hard problems we have to start somewhere, and gradually come... dare I say... closer and closer to truth.

[@abelincoln8885]

@@zimpoooooo An intelligence has a mind, nature & free will ... to think, believe, say & do whatever he/she wants with the facts & evidence. The Universe is an isolated thermodynamic System ... with finite matter & energy, fixed laws of nature .. and increasing entropy This is an irrefutable fact. And all thermodynamic Systems... are functions ... and originate from the SURROUNDING System which must provide the matter, energy, space, time, laws and INTELLIGENCE to exist & to function. Only an intelligence makes & improves Functions. This is another irrefutable fact .... that most freely choose to ignore because they don't believe God(intelligence) created the Universe(Function) less than 6 000 years ago.

[@aminomar7890]

All this has no value better to focus on connecting both levels (subatomic and cosmological levels) that could take up to hundreds of years of continuous hard work , both quantum action (Planck’s work) and Einstein‘s work still need a lot of improvement to reach deeper understanding of space and time, actually the main problem is not with time.

[@DrakeLarson-js9px]

Paul is SPOT ON here about the short-comings of much of 'advanced' theory in astro-quantum physics'. His concept of a not sure mindset is, in my opinion, very sound - Sooo, what about inversion physics? Like that found in Mary Fowler's geophysics work? I would NOT cling too closely to 'string theory' or 'cyclic theory' and particularly; '(one and only one) the big bang theory" ... Minute 13-to the end gives one a good perspective of reality in our current theoretical physics in academia!

[@waynehegland1314]

It’s the cleaning lady mopping up the lab room.👍

[@ZeleniMrav]

That is my friend one of the biggest mysteries of our universe! I bet he/she was finished when they stopped filming. It's about observer 👍

[@Factonise]

Theoretical physics and philosophy are merging again. "How did we come about?" is just as profound a question today as it was 500 years ago. I think this problem can be phrased as "What is infinity and how can we imagine something beyond infinity?". If we assume a creator, the same problem arise again "What's the creator?". It makes your head hurt.

[@rizwanrafeek3811]

According to Quran, space and matter came from one unit, both were one unit and they will go back being one unit and go big bang again.

[@rickm5853]

When did the membranes begin and where did they come from?

[@sohamjoshi9527]

hahah exactly my question...

[@aminomar7890]

They want to add other dimensions while they don’t understand space! what is the relationship between dimension and space! former scientists got their titles through their valuable achievements (real achievements)

[@sohamjoshi9527]

agree ... same feeling .. first just understand space, for all i know they dont even agree on what time is ! look at the debates out there

[@aminomar7890]

Constants: one of the main roles of some constants has to do with so-called infinity. Still a lot of work to do and better to rely on future generations (invest in them, because patching techniques will never work anymore „current physics reached its Limits „) !

[@RARa12812]

He is saying what he believe. Not widely accepted theory. Widely accepted theory is cosmological constant is 0.0000....125 zeros and 1. That's it. We have no idea what's next.