How Did the First Atom Form? Where did it come from? | Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

[@ArvinAsh]

Correction: At 12:26, Helium-3 should have 2 PROTONS and 1 NEUTRON. Sorry, we missed this in editing. Dozens of you noticed this discrepancy. I am delighted that so many of you are "on the ball" and so observant! Thank you for that. Also, regarding the shape of the "tube," this is just for visualization of the timeline. The universe is not actually shaped this way. The universe does not have any overall curvature, as far as we can tell.

[@santiagoblancosheridan5304]

Yes Arvin, clever is one who question himself, than others that only obey !!!

[@michaelblacktree]

Just out of curiosity, what wavelength would the CMB have been originally? Was it visible light, UV, X-rays...?

[@time-mechanics]

Light - Time in it. Seek ...

[@Hyszy]

@@michaelblacktree Gamma I would think. When particle anti-particle collides, it produces two photons of very high energy, in gamma range.

[@lebigmac74]

Just noticed it and already wanted to complain ;-) Can't you put some text over it to mark it? I thought this is also possible after uploading a video

[@theVortex380]

Big bang nucleosynthesis was always a confusing thing to wrap my head around. It’s amazing how easily you explained the whole thing without losing any key details.

[@radrook7584]

Really? Then why is he saying that no one know where the singularity came from? ?

[@habe1717]

@@radrook7584Because that’s true? Anyone that claims to know where the singularity came from is lying

[@loverslanenyc]

Soooo a cluster bomb resulted in chimps resulting in you?...ok

[@geraltderivedroite]

Incredible the amount of things which happened in a duration so short we can't even realize what it represents... As usual Arvin your video is perfect, so humble, your voice is so relaxing, your explanations so clear, your animations are fantastic... I'm french but you speak so well and smooth i understand everything, you are the best of the best Arvin, thanks a lot !

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks a ton! I hope the French subtitles help.

[@geraltderivedroite]

@@ArvinAsh i will be honest, they help :)

[@bettekavalec1454]

This man is a REMARKABLE teacher!!!

[@miansahib9590]

And to think that this all was a chaotic event or series thereof. Amazing how humans are getting close to understanding that there must have been an ENGINEER behind this ULTIMATE ORGANIZATION, and we still have to add the story of life to it.

[@ArvinAsh]

If there is an engineer, he is incompetent because there are much easier ways to create the universe than the way it was done.

[@us3rG]

​@@ArvinAshlol now your trying to play God 😂😂😂

[@itapinfomaps6233]

Romans 1:20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. 22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish

[@djbenje4019]

@@ArvinAsh "Easier ways to create the universe?" Why don't you explain some of these ways, oh master of creation?

[@djbenje4019]

The more I learn about how the universe EVOLVED, and how 'magical' DNA/RNA are in 'creating life', and how incredibly complex and ingenious life and life functions/organs work... the more I'm convinced that there MUST have been an 'engineer'. This sh*t don't happen all by itself, randomly. 'God' crafted every detail of matter and forces such that the universe would EVOLVE, and life-giving particles would EVOLVE, given the right conditions. I'm in awe of the level of intelligence and power it must have taken to 'engineer' this world, and then life.

[@stevesalt8003]

The most detailed yet digestible explanation I've heard. Excellent work.

[@kevinkonig3892]

"We don't know" Yeah easy explanation. Or what part of the "explanation" was so digestible ?

[@balasubr2252]

@@kevinkonig3892 The part where he says, "there was immense amount of energy" - doesn't it make sense to ask where did the energy come from? All these explanations have a time, even if you only refer to it as "t-" All these are language centered - which is to say it has nothing to do with anything "actual" - just modeling of various concepts/theories as explorations using the medium of language, which is yet another layer of distortion - silence by far is the "explanation/understanding" of everything cosmological!!

[@blekkmark]

@@kevinkonig3892 You have the Ying and Yang symbol as an avatar; he is talking about the knowledge and mystery at the same time.

[@kevinkonig3892]

@@balasubr2252 Does it make sense to ask where something comes from if you have no idea what that something is and have never seen it actually never even showed that it has intrinsic properties of it's own ? I'm not sure but I don't think so. I find it really annoying if people talk about energy as if it's an entity with intrinsic properties. Well it's supposed to be model and concept that represent what actually is as closely as possible. I agree that many of them today have nothing to do with the actual but that's not because language is a thing. If we are not playing semantic games we should be able to handle the distortion layer that comes with language without bigger issues. But silence is pretty much the opposite of an explanation isn't it ? And the question in my head is already noise.

[@kevinkonig3892]

@@blekkmark "Knowledge" I don't care about peoples knowledge. I don't trust it. I tried to know things and there are only very few things I can truly know so I've got a hard time believing others when they claim they managed to do so. Might just be assumed knowledge.

[@AmricanEagl]

I’m a space enthusiast and I have been so since I was little, I have read and watched hundreds of books and videos about space. Hands down this video is one of the most informative, and detail oriented videos I’ve ever seen yet! Thank you for posting

[@Priestitude]

You cant learn anything from space comic books.

[@vishalingole2602]

What is space? A quantum field?

[@DhakaiyaHunter]

I have three questions 1. When matter and antimatter annihilate each other and they turns into energy, what happens afterwards? What happens to that energy? 2. If that energy remains in our universe, can they be transformed in matter or antimatter? 3. Like matter or heat, can energy create blackholes as well?

[@kenlogsdon7095]

I'll offer my answers if you like. 1. The products of matter-antimatter annihilation are typically bosons such as photons and gluons. Depending on the amount of energy involved in the annihilation including particle masses and kinetic energy, other particles may be created as well. This undoubtedly was the case until the annihilation process resulted in mostly photons being created that were subsequently scattered and absorbed by the sea of hyperplasmic fermions that remained. 2. Energy can in principle be converted between one form and any other. That includes mass-energy, kinetic energy, EM radiation, etc. For example, a gamma ray photon of sufficiently high frequency, and therefore energy, can transform into an electron-positron pair. 3. Black holes are typically the result of a sufficiently dense concentration of mass-energy of matter in a relatively small volume of space, due to gravitational effects. Gravitation, as you probably know, is the reflection of the presence of any form of energy, referred to as "spacetime curvature".

[@esajpsasipes2822]

@@kenlogsdon7095 Kugelblitz

[@ronniedahlgren2733]

For your second question: yes, but it is unlikely. I can recommend one of Sabine Hossenfelder's recent videos where she discusses why decay happens in one direction: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j5fJkGyZlKyfnKM

[@alphagt62]

All good questions, your head is in the right place.

[@charliemeyer6475]

Answer #3: An energy/photon only black hole is called a kugelblitz.

[@MegaAduffy]

i just love how easy arvin explains things so everyone can understand it.thanks my G...onelove.

[@crilou]

marvellous presentation .For the first time you learned me how was done the "recombination" between electrons and nucléons to form the atoms. well done !

[@rizdalegend]

The bigger question is what was outside the singularity. Empty space? What is nothing? Infinite amount of time beforehand, but why then?

[@ArvinAsh]

Yes indeed, that is a BIG question that we don't have answers for...yet.

[@AurelienCarnoy]

What is outside of your consciousness? The question of outside generates a perception that there is a division between the inside and the outside. To simplify our body is a moebus strip. The inside of our intestin is still outside. The concept "outside" is a concept ti cut the univers in manageable chunks. It is useful when we find it useful. There it is revealed that concepts are action. And disappear when not used. Like denial is an action. Its effect ceases as soon as it's purpose is done. The univers was different to the one doing the denial, and thus the univers was diferent. I am pointing out our responsibility in asking a question. How ir shapes carves an answer out of the univers. In a zero dimensional space, You are that point To see it you creat space To articulat it You are generat time. How? Like a bud creats a leaf or a flower or a baby. By cutting. Carving and unfolding what was never folded. By forgetting who we are and identifying with puppets we are so fond of. 😻😍😘💗💖💓💕

[@voges1001]

I’ve always wondered that.

[@vudusid8717]

I prefer Sir Roger Penrose's theory's on that.

[@michaelfrusciante4923]

If Something is Nothing then Nothing is Something. How can Something come from Nothing. That Mirracle Is Trully God✨🙏

[@xenorac]

This answered a lot of questions I never knew I had! Great work as always!

[@waterproof4403]

This video didn't say where atoms came from

[@sicfxmusic]

@@waterproof4403 9:40 delete your comment before you embarrass your entire family tree

[@waterproof4403]

@@sicfxmusic tell me where the universe came from... tell me where did what ever caused the big bang came from? Also what was before that and before that

[@waterproof4403]

What was before that too

[@sicfxmusic]

@@waterproof4403 OK so you are that guy 😂 why are you even watching science videos?

[@Kedvespatikus]

There is quite a big error at 12:27 where the 'one proton - two neutron' nucleus is labelled as He-3. That is tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. Helium nuclei have two protons.

[@MusicalRaichu]

The dialogue said "helium-3" so it was meant to be 2 protons and 1 neutron but instead showed it the other way around.

[@Kedvespatikus]

@@MusicalRaichu Sure, He-3 means what you wrote, but the dialogue said nothing about numbers of protons or neutrons in He-3. Therefore it can be misleading for those having little or no knowledge about chemistry (youngsters, for example).

[@MusicalRaichu]

@@Kedvespatikus IIRC he said "helium three". Helium-3 has 2 protons and 1 neutron. The video showed 1 proton and 2 neutrons by mistake, which as you point out happens to be tritium.

[@ArvinAsh]

Yes indeed. Thank you. We missed this in editing. See errata in the description. It should be two protons and one neutron.

[@Casey-Jones]

@@Kedvespatikus smart ass

[@Krn7777w]

This channel deserves more subscribers.

[@KokoRicky]

Just love Arvin's voice and delivery. He's very calm and neutral but he's also clearly very interested in the subject and knows his stuff.

[@thestraynetwork]

Excellent again, Arvin. It's always so positive and happy to see you've uploaded another video, I really do look forward to each one. Your modern direction is great! I would also like to see a few additional videos in your older format where topics like currency exchange rates, travel, cost of living, et cetera

[@Rationalific]

The quality of your videos is astounding! You break things down so well. This is the best explanation of the early universe that I've ever heard. Thank you!

[@donaldgoodnight7853]

It is really good. 😁

[@vhawk1951kl]

how exactly do you define "the universe"? You have absolutely no idea? - No surprises there.

[@Rationalific]

@@vhawk1951kl Wikipedia defines "The Universe" as The universe "all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy." I don't have a problem with that definition. So, actually, I do have an idea. My guess is that you have a different definition that no scientific experiment nor theory is able to look into. If so, that's pretty convenient. At any rate, I do have an idea about what the universe is that I'm referring to, hence my comment to this video.

[@ce1474]

It takes a true master to explain complex info in simple terms.

[@Okla_Soft]

Great video as usual Arvin…. I know I read about this before but my question is this: when we use theory to roll back the clock all the way to the Planck time at t=10^-43 seconds, there is obviously no standard of time to keep track of these events, so what part of general relativity do we use to tell how far apart in nanoseconds the earliest events were. The Higgs field didn’t exist yet so clocks wouldn’t have worked yet since everything was massless, right? Yet we have solid evidence and theoretical basis for marking these events with these very specific times. How are we able to do this? Thanks again Arvin, you rock dude.

[@ArvinAsh]

That's a very good question. Relativity also shows that there is no absolute time, so there is nothing like a standard with which to measure these time frames. 10^-43 just comes from quantum mechanics and is the smallest possible increment of time that can exist mathematically. However, this does not mean that there was nothing prior to this. There may have been, but we don't have a theory to explain it if there was.

[@alphalunamare]

10^-43 is a timestamp consistent with our current theories there is nothing to suggest that it is absolute, it is merely an extrapolation back in time as we currently understand it. The same applies to all the time stamps shown,, but perhaps they get more accurate the nearer they are to today. I am not sure that no mass implies no time since energy existed by definition and clearly Physics assumes changes in the energy distribution hence 'local' states of energy which in turns predicates the 'possibility' of time as a sequential measure of 'state' evolution? As for what part of General Relativity we use then clearly it is the part yet to be unravelled :-)

[@user-k229]

We have to mark these events as before lunch and after lunch. The Big Bang was the gaseous wind that occured as a result of the build up of wind!!!

[@amateurrandomdude5870]

Ty so much, i had that question for years and you put it on the best terms possible, again thank you !

[@PATISLAV]

For me it's interesting to compare this to the black hole. The theories also stop working there. So maybe there are similarities which could be extrapolated to Big Bang, with the advantage that black holes are existing at present day. Although - any theory of what really happens in black hole will probably forever be untestable...

[@lahockeyboy]

You've made me recovery from surgery so much better....thanks, Professor, Arvin!

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks. Wish you well on your recovery journey.

[@dannorton258]

What is 20 minutes into the universe? What is the point of reference? Isn't time distorted close to a singularity? Like a black hole? Is it possible time travels extremely slowly at these high compression points?

[@sevenlineitapinfo2944]

Question, how do you measure "Time" at this point?

[@nadamuchu]

Arvin, thank you for always captioning your videos! Deaf science nerds like me truly appreciate it!! I have a question: at 7:06 you said that it’s possible the massless fundamental particles may have been the leftovers of some kind of inflation field that decayed. Is this a fancy way of saying the fundamental building blocks of life came from the expansion of space itself? I’d love to learn more about the two theories you mentioned here!

[@ArvinAsh]

I am delighted that the captions are helpful to you! Not quite - the inflation field would have been made of inflatons, It would be scalar, like the Higgs field. They would have decayed to form the first particles. There is a Wikipedia page on this if you're interested. I am not an expert on it, I only know about it as a possible explanation for the early universe. It would be hard to prove because we would not be able to replicate it particle accelerators due to tremendous energy requirements.

[@Akshaayswaminathan]

@@ArvinAsh does that mean that the inflation field doesn't exist anymore?

[@RezonSV]

@@Akshaayswaminathan Yes

[@Ratafak85]

Arvin, we need to clone you, and make you a physics teacher for everyone! :)

[@yourfinalhiringagency3890]

Upload him to a neural link and then again on your smart watch

[@thenimbo2]

12:35 that's tritium not helium-3!

[@ramizr]

yep , I think so

[@joegeorge3889]

Arvin has one of best science show on the internet

[@officialconsciouscommunity]

Arvin.. the visuals are outstanding!!!

[@miinyoo]

I've seen a lot of explanations of atomic genesis and this is actually one of the better ones. In the very least it doesn't assume anything and correctly states that beyond a certain point trying to reverse engineer reality, we just don't know.

[@zeropain9319]

Great video! Nice summary. I really liked the analogy of the universe being the size of an orange at 10-33s. However, I wish you would have continued the analogy with each phase, how much bigger did it get for each step you described?

[@ArvinAsh]

Good idea. Didn't think of that.

[@الحقأبلج-ح9ص]

This is by far one of the greatest videos in KZbin. Hands down.

[@cooking_innovations]

Best presenter. Credit to U Tube 👏

[@gatekeeper88]

I personally believe in the Big Crunch, Big Bang theory - the universe expands until it's "expansive energy" entropies then gravity starts pulling everything in, into one point of by then almost pure energy followed by a Hypernova style explosion. It would help explain some of the heavier elements perhaps that could only be formed with say hypernova explosions of a magnetar the size of Jupiter

[@stevoofd]

Keep them coming! I loved the analogy of the speed needed for gravity to capture something in orbit and the cooled down temperature /decreased energy needed for electrons to be captured in a shell around a nucleus. It’s connecting the small and the large, and the currency remains energy.

[@jimsty5222]

Well said!

[@mmicoski]

Now let's define a new Era of the Universe: the "Yadda yadda yadda Era" 😀

[@GordLamb]

Hey Arvin, can you talk about the density of photons in the Universe? The fact that a star, 100 lightyears away, has emitted so many photons that even 100 lightyears away, at the surface of a sphere 100 lightyears in radius, we are still fully saturated in those photons? The volume of that sphere is incomprehensible, and yet, it's *filled* with photons from that star, and virtually every other in that range, such that we can't move so much as a millimeter left or right without interruption?

[@minijo4289]

According to the interwebs, the average photon density of empty space is around 410 per centimeter cubed, most of which is CMBR, so that sphere is definitely not "filled" with photons

[@1SpudderR]

Hmm? We get the conclusion that Scientists are stuck in the rut....and Universities are pouring more and more new Scientists into the Rut, when they should be encouraging these up and comers to find the “Door” in the rut, not just keep looking over it.....To long stuck in this Big Bang rut, one has to suggest!

[@PetraKann]

Are you saying that a photon has a finite size? My understanding is that photons are not spatially localised entities but exist in a field - in fact they are perturbations in a field that permeates the entire universe.

[@sinajamil306]

Photons are Bosons, infinite number of them can be present in one place.

[@GordLamb]

@@minijo4289 Maybe a better than "filled" would have been "present." Photons from that star are present throughout the volume of that sphere. And that blows my mind, haha. The angle between emissions was so shallow that even 100 lightyears away, along the surface of that sphere, they're still essentially parallel.

[@senpai_6662]

if we compare matter and antimatter to 0=-1+1 and if the void was infinite, could most matter and antimatter go in opposite directions? just like how waves go in different directions... :)

[@robvange]

WELL DONE! Excellent graphics !

[@spacewater5866]

7:45 The entire universe came out of a 😂😂Mexican hat

[@Kylie-wc4gx]

So I recently heard that (and oi forget who) physicists have recreated a model of the cmb in a simulation with more accuracy than ever before, and this is due to a scalar theory of gravity that changes on different scales. Be that as it may, with this "scalar gravity" that acts differently at the quantum (and the inflation epoch) and what we experience as gravity today across the universe, in my unprofessional opinion leaves open the possibility of a 'big bounce', or maybe even cosmological natural selection, as legitimate possibilities. From what we know today about dark energy, and thats essentially nothing, we know its basically 'anti-gravity' - repulsive in nature. and if gravity is just distortions in the fabric of spacetime caused by mass, then maybe it is helpful to think of dark matter as a 'negative distortion to the 4d fabric of spacetime? idk im stoned and im just spittballing the inklings of ideas ive had in my head nd no one to talk shop with haha! I love your videos they get down to the nitty gritty without having to do the math myself! ♥ dont ever let the algorithm change your channel up!

[@anuraagpaul6610]

Why don't you ask these questions in physics stack exchange or similar platforms?... maybe there you will get some relevant links and directions to think 😅

[@Kylie-wc4gx]

@@anuraagpaul6610 hi, um what is this and link pls?

[@anuraagpaul6610]

@@Kylie-wc4gx Hi! So, few minutes ago I have sent two links regarding modified gravity, dark matter and dark energy, but unfortunately I can't see my own comment. I guess my previous reply is held for review, so it's unlikely that I can send links to other websites . Anyhow, if you want to get some technical answers to these questions you can search for specific phrases/key words in physics stack exchange. There you can find links to useful resources. Physics SE maintains library of Q&As on various topics in physics. If you want to ask your own question you have to create an account. I have benefitted a lot from this forum in these past few months! Just google Physics Stack Exchange

[@Rangvald8909]

@@anuraagpaul6610 what websites do you recommend for this? I’m a lifelong physics / chemistry lover, I’d love to just read people talking openly about high-level physics on a website like that where I can ask my own questions.

[@javiej]

Dark energy is not negative gravity, they are fundamentally different concepts. Dark energy is theorized as vacuum energy of space itself, while gravity is caused by external energy sources

[@Kombivar]

"The greatest story ever told", and told the way everyone understands - Awesome video Arvin! I can see you having a cup of tea with Nile DeGrasse-Tyson right now :)

[@aaronarmstrong9776]

Tyson is a sell out. He lets politics get in the way of science and then as a cop out, he morphs into a philosopher.

[@dr.foxysocks2459]

the greatest story ever told was god creating the universe in 7 days and sending onto us his only son to be sacrificed for our sins PRAISE HIM!!!!!

[@julianpizano5586]

@@dr.foxysocks2459 🤭🤣

[@kristinehayes4885]

@@dr.foxysocks2459 you mean the greatest bullshit story ever told.

[@siemkamsteeg4536]

Best account ive ever seen I really been enjoying these videos even though I’m in highschool and understand only 10% or so

[@AR-MM93]

What might had been surrounded around that very first starting point.... What a video... Great work of explanation

[@lifeasReno]

The more I hear theories like this make me believe in a creator more and more

[@ArvinAsh]

If you believe in a creator, you have faith. If you are true believer, no amount of science should dissuade you from your beliefs.

[@Thebestoneever_]

This is called “fitra” in Islam. Every human is born with this “natural inclination in believing a God” but it’s corrupted by the society or the environment we grow up in. I invite you to study Islam and lear more about your creator.

[@us3rG]

​@@ArvinAsh speaking knowledge smd the all knowing is how we have science

[@rcherrycoke7322]

So who created Allah ?

[@rcherrycoke7322]

Answer: that cunning rascal Mohammed

[@YouObviouslyLoveOpet]

I always have questions popping into my head when I watch your videos. Is it possible for antiparticles to decay/ change into neutrons then into particles? How do we know that there's not some galaxy or region in the universe made of antiparticles? Would that be possible? Do you think it would be possible that some force we know today can breakdown into two separate forces?

[@KatjaTgirl]

Hold on, 1 proton and 2 neutrons make up helium 3? Isn't this tritium? Don't we need 2 protons to name anything helium?

[@dnyalslg]

Yes, you’re correct. I just noticed it, too.

[@ArvinAsh]

Yep...we missed it in editing. thanks. See Errata in description.

[@shashankchandra1068]

In which epoch was quantum field(the first,earliest QF) was created?was it in planck epoch or GUT epoch or Electroweak epoch or quark epoch or other epochs OR at instant of bigbang?

[@ArvinAsh]

When fundamental particles first appeared, there would have been fields.

[@shashankchandra1068]

@@ArvinAsh but in which epoch? Name needed

[@albanbislimaj6638]

You are awesome, really mi d blowing. Now my question is where do you get all that informatiin that you share. Becouse it seems to a lot of work.

[@Garrickk100]

I know “god of the gaps” but this origin of the universe really does feel to me very strongly of a creator.

[@garethhanby]

Eh...why? You assume a consciousness where none is necessary and conveniently missed out the "who created the creator" problem.

[@Ibn_battouta]

@@garethhanby لاااا🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️ الله أوجد مفهوم الخلق نفسه يعني قبل ما يخلق الله الكون الكون كان خالي من مفهوم الخلق والله اوجده من العدم مفهوم الخلق زي الزمن والمكان المخلوقات تمشي على هذا المفاهيم إلا الله لنه اوجدها الله أوجد الزمن فمارح يتطبق عليه مفهوم الزمن والله أوجد الخلق فارح يتطبق عليه مفهوم الخلق والله أوجد المكان فارح يتطبق عليه مفهوم المكان أرجو أن تقرأ تعليقي

[@rejectevolution152]

@@garethhanby The creator/God does not need a creator. You can not apply the law of biogenesis to that which exist outside of and independent of our universe which must obey these laws. To answer "why is a creator necessary", well aside from the big bang and creation of the universe itself we can look at biology. Based on our current understanding and progress in abiogenesis and genetic research we can safely come to the conclusion that a creator is very necessary. The thing is when we look at operational, demonstrable science it leads us to the conclusion of design. Evolution only works with untested and convoluted theoretical models. For example we contain arbitrary genetic code, how did this come about? We know all arbitrary code comes from a mind, this is a fact. Evolutionist then go on to spew comical theoretical models of how an arbitrary code could naturally form with no evidence, such as the "frozen model". This is just one of the many fatal flaws in evolution and aspects of biology that demand a creator...we could get into the failure of abiogenesis research and the non existence of natural mechanisms capable of forming the first cell, or gaps within the archaeological record such as "the cambrian explosion" or even modern day genetic evidence that corroborates with the Bible such as humans descending from 3 mtDNA lineages/noahs 3 children, or mitochondrial Eve and y chromosonal Adam but ill stop there. Lets not even get into the materialist issues on the cosmological front, they're even worse.

[@garethhanby]

@@rejectevolution152 More "I believe in magic because I don't understand" nonsense.

[@rejectevolution152]

@@garethhanby Ok, debunk what i just said.

[@sandwich-e4p]

GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE! HE CREATED US! HOW CAN SOMETHING COME FROM NOTHING? GOD LOVES US ALL! HE GAVE US FREE WILL! WE SINNED! HE SENT JESUS CHRIST TO DIE FOR OUR SINS! ANYONE WHO HAS FAITH IN CHRIST AND REPENTS WILL ENTER GOD'S KINGDOM!

[@ArvinAsh]

How does God come from nothing?

[@trials-2009]

@@ArvinAsh He was always there.

[@ArvinAsh]

@@trials-2009 So if that's the case, then why is it so hard to believe that the laws of physics were "always there?" - In this case, no fantastical, preexisting, conscious superman would be necessary.

[@trials-2009]

​@@ArvinAsh The universe had a start, even most atheists admit to that. God is outside space and time and has always been there. Also the law of physics have been fine tuned to allow for life to exist on earth. I believe in a law giver, and that is the biblical God.

[@xblackoceanx]

we are in computer

[@bomakrini5189]

yes, that's absolutely true

[@xoiyoub]

How convenient that you are born in the era of computers and the explanation for the universe is computers. Such a coincidence. Not like humans have explained the universe with things that are familiar to them in their own era in the past

[@xblackoceanx]

@@xoiyoub i dont seriously believe that , My personal belief , Conciousness creates reality. Basically a mandlebrot of conciousness. Time is not linear. Every life we live could be within the last minutes of our dying mind in the previous life.

[@xoiyoub]

@@xblackoceanx oh so you were joking about the computers, mb then

[@xblackoceanx]

@@xoiyoub Kind of , we dont really know why we exist overall... From god to simulation , we can keep asking, where did they come from ? Why do they exist ? The only thing that seem logical is infinity. If something is infinite , it does not reqiure a creator. So because of the 2 slit experiment in science and time not being linear, Ill assume conciousness creates reality. Also on Joe Rogan he talked about people doing DMT , people claim to live whole lives on a 10 min. DMT trip. DMT is found in the brain. Usually released upon death.

[@donaldgoodnight7853]

This is one of the best bit of knowledge I have ever seen. In 6 decades. Not my focus. A pleasant surprise nevertheless. Well done, Arvin.

[@Dark-tk9xu]

Also, I am assuming that initially gravity was very very very strong, so time must have moved very slow. So, when you say 1e-12 second or 1e-33 seconds, are those scaled times? Is it possible that that 1e-33 seconds felt like 1000 years?

[@yourguard4]

relative to what? If the universe was homogeneous, then the rate of time was the same everywhere.

[@tommyk222]

No way I can only believe there is a higher source like God who created everything there is just no other explanation because where did the first ever atom come from it just doesn’t make sense God is the answer

[@scummy69]

Yes correct all during school I have said this and finally someone agrees thank you brother

[@szymoniak75]

So where did God come from

[@us3rG]

God is beyond time and space In the beginning was the word, the word was with God, the word is God Let there be light, BANG if you don't know, you can't create Something that knew created all the shyt we study

[@us3rG]

God is beyond particles

[@exlibrisscientia6741]

This channel is perfection.

[@bluthammer1442]

i'm sincerely loving your videos.

[@MMTLP-JON]

2:25 - The "LET There Be Light" Moment❗

[@ErikSmuts]

Best video I have seen yet on the earliest history of the universe! Thank you and well done!

[@larryblazeb1259]

U have some very interesting videos..thank u👊

[@SumitPrasaduniverse]

Brilliantly explained 👌👌

[@rightfootlefthand]

Arvin can you also make a video discussing: what medium did the universe inflate into during the phase t>10^-43s? Was the matrix of dimensions describing x,y,z,t already established, and the universe started updating the scalar values of those dimensions, or, was the matrix itself being constructed as the universe was inflating? If the matrix itself was being constructed, what medium "contains" those dimensions? I.e. is there a medium outside of the universe to contain the dimensions, similar to how a balloon expands into a room filled with air?

[@ArvinAsh]

Well, as far as we know there was no medium in which it inflated. The entire universe is all there is, there is no "outside." The universe simply became bigger as space between any two point expanded.

[@rightfootlefthand]

@@ArvinAsh Thank you Arvin, that was a super fast reply and I really appreciate your answer. There is one other question that has been boggling me: does spacetime have friction? This is somewhat going towards thermodynamics (or lack thereof). If the Earth is continuously falling in the curvature of spacetime caused by the Sun's gravity, why isn't energy being lost to friction, which would result in Earth's orbit steadily decreasing in it's radius? Is the interaction of matter-spacetime one without transfer of energy?

[@usama57926]

Amazing explanation

[@Ihab.A]

As usual, great content! I'm addicted to your channel and I was so happy to see Sabine Hossenfelder also showing one of your videos on her channel! I love collaboration among great channels!

[@brown2889]

I enjoyed this. Arvin, you are a great speaker.

[@jeffstewart1189]

Excellent presentation.

[@shmigelsky]

Incredible video, thanks for doing what you do, these videos are so helpful.

[@carloscastanheiro2933]

Brilliant,thanks Arvin.

[@aniruddhawankhade1321]

Please make a explanation video on space expansion I also have a question why does space does not exist before big bang I mean space is emptiness how can it expand,I know it curved(Einstein's Relativity) but I imagine something that if somehow all the matter in universe disappeared then what left is empty space. Is that empty space still a part of universe or universe does not exist there.

[@ArvinAsh]

We don't really know what existed before the big bang. I don't think anything can be ruled out as yet.

[@JS-fj9ik]

@@ArvinAsh Has the big bang been 100% proven to have happened? Or is the big bang just a belief 🤔?

[@ArvinAsh]

@@JS-fj9ik There is no such thing as 100% proof of anything in science. Big Bang has more than sufficient evidence to support that it likely happened. It is certainly NOT a belief.

[@JS-fj9ik]

@@ArvinAsh The phrase "likely happened" is still a belief. 100% that the science says you will see this comment. 🤷‍♂️NO?

[@us3rG]

​@@ArvinAsh please define nothing? That's what we get without time and space and we can't imagine that shyt, we can't study that shyt scientifically, we can't do shyt about it Did the world come from nothing? No it did not

[@madamvaudelune3298]

How beautiful and full of mystery is our Universe! How dramatic our beginnings. How wonderful is it all.

[@tkrisnadas]

at 08:41 in the video you have said the mesons are quark andanti-quark pairs.You also say that as the universe keeps cooling down the particle and the antiparticles annihilate. My question where did the anti particles come from? were they always a part of the quark-gluon plasma ? i would like to know please.thanks

[@ArvinAsh]

Whenever energy is converted to matter, it converts into matter-antimatter pairs. For example, photons with enough energy can convert to electron/positron pairs, quark/antiquark pairs, etc.

[@nickharrison3748]

Very Nicely explained Arvin the cronilogical events that happened in first second.in slow morion with supporting multi media

[@shardoolmishra2255]

Since time is relative, what is frame of reference for plank time (and other time reference used), which you mentioned when explaining start of universe?

[@ArvinAsh]

Planck time has a minimum value in a non-moving, non-gravitational reference frame, but note that the passage of Planck time in all frames would appear to be the same, only when compared to other reference frames would it be different.

[@nbrown6648]

Excellent explanation - thanks.

[@bendunaway8296]

This video answered questins I had from another oe of your video's. Thanks.

[@cheesbox5415]

Love this channel. Love his voice.

[@rightfootlefthand]

It is interesting Arvin. So we don't know where the original Energy at t=0 came from before the "bang", nor do we understand why it was there. In addition, the universe showed us during inflation causality does not need to be maintained. Why do we think causality should be maintained post-inflation? Is that a true boundary condition? Also, up to t=10^-11s we have massless entities. Could you clarify this? Are you talking about "rest mass"? I am wondering what theory we apply to describe that time-frame, where we have Energy but not Mass. Lastly, in your video you mention at t=10^-11s we have massless "particles". Were these really particles? I was under the impression we have not observed individual quarks in isolation. Do we not have to "observe" to perceive a particle?

[@MasterKoala777]

I hope someone can help me understand this part at around 9:00. Arvin says that if the matter-antimatter annihilation was perfectly symmetrical, then all we would have are photons and neutrinos. But aren’t these matter as well? Photons and neutrinos are particles, aren’t they?

[@asdocneter]

@05:45 : "Prior to this timeframe, we can only speculate". It can thus be inferred that everything that happened *after* 10^-12 s is *not* a speculation. I'm not a physicist or mathematician, but as a medical doctor I know that there are many things that we actually observe and see under the microscope and yet we speculate about the nature of such observations. My question is: how confident are we about the events that occurred after 10^-12 s ? (and if the answer is not "100%", then how far are we from 100% (quantitatively) and what does this "gap/delta" consist of?)

[@ArvinAsh]

There is no such thing as 100% in science. Our theories appear to fit observations, and so far experiments seem to confirm the theories, so they are likely correct. That's the best we can do.

[@adityashinde2368]

Awesome. I like all your cosmic videos. I always love to hear discoveries about our universe . Thank you arvin. Need help I have one topic to discuss on. How should I contact?

[@amalhayachraf9037]

Excellent work

[@anthonydavis7846]

I love how you put the perspective of time passing !After only 20 minutes of cooling 🤯 You tell the big bang amazingly 👏

[@charlesokekearu1763]

8:27 Does cooling cause expansion or shrinkage @Arvin Ash. Thanks

[@billyboybliss]

Have you done a JWST video Arvin? My students need your visionary approach.

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks. I haven't done one on it yet. What kind of students do you teach?

[@catscutie4580]

Best explanation of big bang on KZbin so far love it ❤

[@alfredocampos4502]

Excellent program.

[@marksletters]

Great video !!

[@mawage666]

This video was really neat.

[@rkowlagi]

I simply love your videos. Thank you 🙏

[@Hansi_Hinterseer]

Great job!

[@Faheemsnotes]

Great efforts Love u sir

[@davidsault9698]

The best explanation I've seen.

[@MrLasox]

Getting a thump up because you are trying so hard to making me understand it, but my head are just exploding.

[@robertlight5227]

Well done!

[@notjustbrowsing7002]

At 12:50 in the video "Electron" was mentioned for the first time. Where electrons came from? no mention of it.

[@ArvinAsh]

Where the initial fundamental particles come from is a mystery yet to be solved. They could come from the Inflation field, as I mentioned in the video.

[@notjustbrowsing7002]

When you mentioned 87% protons and 13% neutrons then there is no room left for electrons as something measurable.

[@JustWolt]

@@notjustbrowsing7002 he was describing the ratio of protons to neutrons, not the entire composition of the universe

[@Redrubicon1]

When we talk about the Universe cooling down was the heat lost to something or did the expansion of the Universe mean there was just less heat to fill a larger volume? Does the CMB represent any of that initial heat?

[@achrace.profrichardachara]

I like your candour from the repeated admission that "we don't know before (after)..." My difficulty is with the affirmation that scientists do know what happened in some other times in the theoretical framework of speculation. What, for example, is the matrix or bed or space in which the speculated universe stood before or immediately after the t=10 to the 43rd of a second?

[@achrace.profrichardachara]

If there was such a matrix, can we logically describe what it held or encompassed as the universe and not merely a part thereof?

[@ArvinAsh]

This is a mystery we haven't solved yet.

[@agumaedson1728]

I love the fact that you admit it being speculative

[@nawaztapali3073]

Damn! It's a good video! You managed to explain mind bending theories very lucidly!

[@premiumcarrot]

Hi arvin, could you do a video on what the fine structure constant is? What does dimensionless mean? Is it true that whatever unit we apply to the constants that make up the fine structure constant also returns to 1/137?

[@ArvinAsh]

Yes. It's on my list.

[@genericname6669]

Hi Arvin I recently found your channel and making my way through. Can you plz make a video on few topics - if we see light scattering because of which sun appears yellow or red, why don’t the starts in the night appear different colours. Why they appear white (or red). Another question - can you please explain the concept of C squared in E= mc2. One more question- if we are adding mass to the earth’s mass shouldn’t the space time bend a little further causing further time bend? Thanks

[@ashd1839]

This is a very brilliant way of saying they don’t know how it started. Good old Big Bang theory or incomplete theory rather.

[@drsatan7554]

Most theories are incomplete... To say otherwise is to claim we know absolutely everything about a certain topic and we can't if quantum mechanics are still being worked out

[@humphreywong6618]

Great explanation, with accompanying graphics. Also, extremely tiny tiny error. At about 2:34, you accidentally say "t to the negative 43" when you mean "ten to the negative 43 seconds." Keep up the great work!

[@aravinth007vt]

4:10 What do you mean by information cannot be transferred faster than speed of light? Information here means what?