On the origin of time - with Thomas Hertog

Discover Stephen Hawking's final theories on the origin of time and the universe, which he and Thomas Hertog worked on together for 20 years.
Watch the Q&A with Thomas here: • Q&A: On the origin of ...
Buy Thomas's book here: geni.us/K2Avz
Perhaps the biggest question Stephen Hawking tried to answer in his life was how our universe could have created conditions so perfectly hospitable to life. Pondering this mystery led Hawking to study the big bang origin, but his early work ran into a crisis when the maths predicted many big bangs producing a multiverse - countless different universes, most of which would be far too bizarre to harbour life.
Holed up in the theoretical physics department at Cambridge, Stephen Hawking and his friend and collaborator Thomas Hertog worked shoulder to shoulder for twenty years on a quantum theory of the big bang that could account for the universe’s life-friendly character.
As their discovery journey took them deeper into the big bang, they were startled to find a deeper level of evolution in which physical laws transform and simplify until particles, forces, and even time itself fades away.
Once upon a time, perhaps, there was no time. This led them to a revolutionary idea: the laws of physics are not set in stone but are born and co-evolve as the universe they govern takes shape.
Find out how Thomas Hertog and Stephen Hawking published this final theory together, proposing their radical new Darwinian perspective on the origins of our universe. In doing so, Thomas offers a striking new vision that ties together more deeply than ever, the nature of the universe’s birth with our existence. This new theory profoundly transforms the way we think about our place in the order of the cosmos and may ultimately prove Stephen Hawking’s biggest legacy.
This talk was recorded at the Ri on 28 March 2023.
Thomas Hertog is an internationally renowned cosmologist. He received his doctorate from the University of Cambridge and joined the University of California at Santa Barbara in 2002. Currently he is professor at the Institute for Theoretical Physics of the University of Leuven and member of the International Solvay Institutes in Brussels.
Thomas has been a key collaborator of the late Stephen Hawking since 1998. Together they developed a new theory of the big bang origin of the universe. He lives with his wife and their four children in Bousval, Belgium.
--
A very special thank you to our Patreon supporters who help make these videos happen, especially:
modsiw, Anton Ragin, Edward Unthank, Robert L Winer, Andy Carpenter, William Hudson, Don McLaughlin, efkinel lo, Martin Paull, Ben Wynne-Simmons, Ivo Danihelka, Kevin Winoto, Jonathan Killin, Stephan Giersche, William Billy Robillard, Jeffrey Schweitzer, Frances Dunne, jonas.app, Tim Karr, Alan Latteri, David Crowner, Matt Townsend, THOMAS N TAMADA, Andrew McGhee, Paul Brown, David Schick, Dave Ostler, Osian Gwyn Williams, David Lindo, Roger Baker, Rebecca Pan
--
The Ri is on Patreon: / theroyalinstitution
and Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and TikTok: / ri_science
Listen to the Ri podcast: anchor.fm/ri-science-podcast
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/editing-ri-talks...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter
Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link.

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

Need more Thomas? Watch the Q&A here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mnisqGV6qtVmqck Also - we want to hear from you! What lectures and topics do you want to watch on our channel? Let us know in the comments ⬇:

[@kennethemmanuel3065]

I want to see more on the chemistry of relatively unknown elements. Also, some topics on material science.

[@smlanka4u]

@@kennethemmanuel3065, If you wish to study real science, then read this: verifying the origin of everything. It is outstanding.

[@generaltheory]

Need DETAILED TIMESTAMPS... AN HOUR x MANY is A LOT!!!!

[@generaltheory]

I mean for now it all really looks like an absolute waste. Won't watch.

[@generaltheory]

Quoting Richard Wagner and Darwin. Jesus... Such a megalow level

[@juaneduardoherrera8027]

I like this fellow Thomas. An intelligent humble human explaining a difficult obscure subject. Thank you Tomas.

[@bobhoward4945]

The spookiness of entangled photons, JWST observing massive galaxies where they don't belong, holographic properties; the universe is a strange, mind-bending spacetime. Great lecture!

[@dosesandmimoses]

Great lecture. Thank you Ri for posting these- lifesavers for inquiring minds! Gratitude

[@mahatma_gaudi2938]

👍

[@corsaircaruso471]

Brilliant lecture. A new perspective for me, but one I look forward to testing and see being tested in future decades. Bravo.

[@LynxUrbain]

Nice to SEE him give a lecture! Just today, I listened to a podcast interview with him on "France Culture"!

[@NalitaQubit]

Dr. Hertog, this was thought provoking and informative. Thank you very much.

[@EdMartin-qk2tj]

This lecture was absolutely brilliant. I was amazed how Dr. Hertog weaved together the work he did with Stephen Hawking across cosmology, quantum mechanics, Darwin, Newton and Hannah Arendt. Sheer genius.

[@Styka66]

Thank you, Dr. Hertog, for all of your contributions to the advancement of science

[@zombiedad]

Bloody excellent. ❤❤

[@0ptimal]

Great talk. Fun to listen to.

[@helmann9265]

Awesome one, thanks 🌾🌠

[@jennifertate4397]

Thanks for the wonderful fascinating lecture/video. I think of the possibility that actual design can be scattered throughout the Universe in a random way with various general or "local" order that also allows for anomalies, somewhat like each of us 8 billion humans: there's the basic order of the human body, and there are also anomalies, like being the tallest man or woman to live, etc.

[@neilmorton9163]

Wonderful inspiring and uplifting lecture. The book is worth getting to give more details: I decided to listen to the audiobook over the last week or so which has been a brilliant experience. It comes with a PDF of the graphics so is ideal. Thanks for an excellent lecture and book.

[@pavangaonkardonigadde]

Amazing😮

[@reneheijnen3804]

Exceptional and excellent

[@alex79suited]

I like the analogy with the tree, but their are many trees and there's also many galacty, so I agree many bangs all starting from the seed which is the blacksphere. Very good, now we're getting somewhere carry-on.

[@maxnao3756]

Brilliant!

[@njhoepner]

Having read both of their books, and seen both of their RI lectures, I'd love to see Thomas Hertog and Laura Mersini-Houghton in the same room discussing their two theories of the origins of the universe(s) together. I find hers a bit more plausible, since Hertog's seems to me a bit too much like the anthropic principle, and it seems to rely on eliminating causality (at least causality with a chronological direction), but I would love to see them discuss/debate the issue together.

[@FXCartel]

Thank you for providing us with plenty to think about an ponder on. The royal institute are a beauty

[@kamranjansyed565]

Good job. This matched exactly as my mind.

[@GibbonsTake]

He just like me Fr

[@carloszambrano4202]

A REAL sciencetist does not close his mind to new ideas or theoris, he surches for the truth no matter what.

[@rickscanlon5816]

Thanks!

[@matthewweflen]

There were provocative images and ideas in this lecture, but ultimately it did not flesh out those ideas, offer any testable predictions, or even offer any conjectural explanations. Does an observationally driven universe have more explanatory power than a single universe or a multiverse? What constitutes an observation?

[@ankeunruh7364]

I guess it was more about communication... Testable predictions won't be forgotten - we're in the thick of it by testing global temperature against predictions from some decades. Let's observe and write that new book...

[@fuzzmeister]

I really enjoyed that. Thankyou so much for sharing 😊.

[@bigboicreme]

Cool

[@barrymoore4470]

A friend of mine just days ago informed me that the new consensus among theoretical physicists is that the universe conforms to holographic principles, that a holographic model best explains the evidence we have from quantum mechanics of how fundamental reality is structured and functions. I haven't yet independently discovered confirmation of this purported consensus, but beginning at 42:07, Dr. Hertog explicitly discusses a holographic conception explaining the universe and the perception of time within it, further adding that holography has been a dynamic focus of research and speculation in theoretical physics for some two decades now. Quite serendipitous to see and hear this right now!

[@PietCarlos]

This guy is brilliant. Thank you for coming out. 😂😂

[@janwind4265]

What a beautiful lecture about the universe and mankind. Difficult but satisfying. But Puck Futin.

[@profcharlesflmbakaya8167]

This quantum beginning of theory of the universe is fascinating as may be in tandem with my theory of universe beginning somewhere like on earth's surface but via interaction with quanta from light oscillates back and forth between classical and quantum states in a relationship at infinitely fast equilibrium. What this means is that the universe could either start classical or quantum ; suggesting retrocausal relationship and even alignment with the Sir Penrose's cyclic universe and leaving some room for further thought to subsequently garner some kind of scientific unanimityt!

[@dan6151]

This is an exceptionally good lecture. It touches on the most important thing about science: how do we know what we know?

[@moonshoes11]

@@windowbreezes Created?

[@liamcarter7597]

@@windowbreezes species like us are just conscious expressions of the universe. For all of the reasons we appreciate conscious understanding in our personal lives, the universe also appreciates that conscious understanding. It opens up entirely new dimensions of reality. The unconscious mind is forced to be a physicalist, but the conscious mind gets to be an idealist. Just as the cells in our body unify to make an organism with concrete goals and actions, we too play a similar role to the bigger picture of the universe.

[@Screaming-Trees]

That's more an epistemological question.

[@rubncarmona]

@@windowbreezes I think you're looking for biology, mate. Try Robert Sapolsky's classes at Stanford here on youtube. Pretty mind blowing as well!

[@philharmer198]

@@liamcarter7597 HUMANITIES existence will always matter . To us .

[@badcrab7494]

Good audio team 👍

[@steveunderhill5935]

Until 45:00 ish w distracting background music on max

[@savage22bolt32]

Really great to see a full house!

[@fractalnomics]

NIce. Watching, deciding whether or not to submit my (2nd) paper on the same topic to the same journal. My paper explains this via the fractal. My first paper addressed quantum.

[@Deipnosophist_the_Gastronomer]

Yeah, which journal?

[@Bill..N]

How about an intro to the arguments presented in your paper..?

[@jennifertate4397]

Why, of course you should.

[@Deipnosophist_the_Gastronomer]

@@fractalnomics Excellent, thank you.

[@philharmer198]

Fractal and Quantum . Quantum creates the Fractal .

[@yungsookevinhong7943]

Light is the Constance that bridge logic and emotion together in the concept of life, living, being to communicate in consciousness to share.

[@jimgraham6722]

Good lecture That the big bang event (and it's consequences) that we perceive, is the only one, is as improbable to me as myself being the universe's only sentient being. Everything I see, hear feel, taste and smell, just might be an elaborate illusion. But that is very improbable. That reality and existence is presently hard to understand, just means more work to be done.

[@zachdetert1121]

Hi - super interesting point! I think that we can’t say anything about the probability- by definition we cannot know about anything outside our experience/universe so how could we calculate a probability? However you’re right to draw the parallel- I think it’s that they are equally pointless. There’s no point in living as if you are the only sentient being because it would make life meaningless and it doesn’t seem to really help. Similarly there’s no point to believing in the multiverse because it effectively shuts down further science we could do - it doesn’t add anything or help.

[@euclidofalexandria3786]

Thank you for posting, dont forget Thales of Miletus as well. Find the Joy of the day, and make that Eternal.

[@xp1816]

Anyone know what that violin piece is from that little audio enhanced section at the end?

[@blengi]

I think time can evolve different "phases". That is, outside of a universe the temporal state is different from the temporal state inside of a universe and yet also causally dependent on the greater external frame universes are generically embedded in....

[@cabs7747]

Great video! But please use a DeEsser or multiband compressor when mixing the audio! The SSS sounds are very harsh and can be perceived as annoying, thus taking away from the great information shared in the speech. If you need help mixing it, I'm happy to help!

[@zenography7923]

What's doing the 'observing' in the earliest stages?

[@LucBoeren]

15:00 This middle curve which supposedly represents our universe reminds me of the penguins who separate from their family and walk toward the mountains, i.e. certain death, in the Werner Herzog doc Encounters At The End Of The World

[@bobrussell6131]

I dont know if you will actually read this(I hope so), but I am amazed by your work with Stephen Hawkins and I am really trying as a layperson to grasp the essence of your top-down view of the universe, but more importantly, the evolutionary aspect you apply to it. Evolutionary pressures are incredibly powerful and I totally get how they might work, but from a cosmological viewpoint where are the eternal environmental pressures that create your evolving universe? You mention symmetry breaking which as far as I am aware is a completely defined process underpinned by the need for random mutations to introduce the selective element. Where does that come from in cosmology? When symmetry breaks why does this read to selective variation and ultimately what placed the proto-universe in such a high state of order that such breaking of symmetry could lead to so much complexity. When water freezes complexity diminishes, when it melts complexity increases but there is nothing to constrain that complexity (well I guess a cold surface will cause it to form a liquid which is somewhat more constrained and less random than a gas!) Sorry I am rambling, I would love to have some clarity though.

[@philharmer198]

The Universe is not evolving , we are . Humans are Evolving . For the better I hope .

[@yungsookevinhong7943]

Time is a concept of consciousness relative to existence by the perimeters of gravity which is an idea of ratio to a constant in life. Where the definition of 1 is defined.

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

13:50 Almost all peoples have myths about the beginning of the universe, but the first scientist who spoke about the "creation of the world" (literally) is Alexander Friedmann, who, with his solution of Einstein's equations, gave a scientific explanation to this phenomenon. Moreover, without any astronomical observations, he was able in his article (1922) to theoretically estimate the age of the Universe: about 10 billion years. (!) Friedmann's student Gamov also calculated (1948) this value as 1-10K without astronomical data, that is, before the detection of the relic radiation. (!) P.S. Hawking, unlike his students, knew about Friedman's work, and as a sign of respect visited his grave when he was in St. Petersburg.

[@michaeljames5936]

No idea if this in any way relates to your overall theory, re evolution of laws, but I've thought that maybe when that singular force/space fractured, possibly there are only certain combinations or relationships between the products of that fracturing- the forces, particles, dimensions, particles which are compatible with each other and if 'G' were a bit too high, either something else would shift, or the effect of the other constants etc. would force it to it's present value. Maybe things could have worked out differently, but always in a combination that resulted in a Universe, much like ours, with me in it.

[@muzduz]

Nice performance. :)

[@rickyardo2944]

Where is the link to the recently discovered film... thanks

[@svendtang5432]

I cant understand how we Can see it is for life… we do not see life anywhere but Earth .. if designed life would be everywhere... Lets say that one of the other "entities" of this universe thought like us - a red dwarf star - ohh but see the universe was designed for long lived red stars (which it actually could be because they are the most dominant). A good design is not one that is prone to failure it's one who is ensured to succeed. But great lecture even if it shows that scientist also struggle with dark reality of us just being what we are... a product of the universe not the goal of the universe...

[@coscinaippogrifo]

I love the concept of time and space being emergent from a one-dimensional dot existing at the Big Bang, and the idea that the universe looks "designed" the way evolved species look designed (through evolution), but I fail to grasp how this is putting humankind at the heart of cosmology. I also don't see why it should, as they say, the universe has no obligation towards us.

[@philharmer198]

To your first statement , why do you think this is true ? It isn't , why do you think that it is .? Physically one dimensional physical object can never interact with the three dimensional object , with space . Either we will understand the Universe or we won't . We have have the obligation . Towards Ourselves .

[@elizabethbrauer1118]

I word it a little differently (since I am not a cosmologist): God doesn't know who you are, nor should s/he.

[@josephshawa]

Do colliding gravitational waves interfere like regular waves? I could see how it could be both ways...waves cross and momentarily compliment or interfere with each other. But in this case, it's not waves in the medium.... It is the medium in three dimensions and there is no surface. How do you model that? Like pressure waves deep under water?

[@schmetterling4477]

We model that with calculus. You had it in high school, remember? :-)

[@josephshawa]

@@schmetterling4477 I don't have a problem modeling anything that you can record the data on. My question was more on how can you collect the data. For example, underwater tsunamis are recorded at the surface of the ocean. Not in the medium but outside of the medium. Gravity waves are in the medium we are in the gravity waves, we are not riding on them.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@josephshawa Gravitational waves are modifying the distances between objects. Space seems to compress and expand. LIGO uses a large laser interferometer to measure the change in the length of two interferometer arms that are perpendicular to each other. After general relativity was discovered theoretical physicists were discussing for decades if the effects of general relativity would cancel each other out, so that these waves would be unobservable. Those who said that such cancellation would not happen were correct and these waves are observable, even though it takes quite an experimental effort to do so.

[@garydargan6]

Its interesting that ot was a priest who did the calculations that took the beginning of time back to the big bang. Its even more interesting that while mamy people have concerns about evolition particularly of humans they don't share the same concern about the even more profound implications of the big bang.

[@mrfranksan]

As a dabbler in philosophy and an appreciative spectator of the working of physicists, I have been amused often stumbling across a physicist depreciating philosophy wholesale as obsolete or irrelevant. I mean not calling out bad philosophy or proclaiming the limits of philosophy but dismissing the notion of philosophy. In reality, philosophizing is at least a minor portion of the process of doing physics. So that portion of the project may as well be done consciously and well. Your talk was refreshing in that I infer from the change in perspective a sort of detente that will serve physics investigation well.

[@schmetterling4477]

There is no philosophy in physics. There is, however, some physics in philosophy... just not enough to make philosophers intelligent. You are a great example of that dynamic.

[@mrfranksan]

@@schmetterling4477 The scientific method was forged in philosophy, my friend. Early naturalists called themselves philosophers.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@mrfranksan Why are you telling me that you don't know where propositional logic comes from, Frank? Are you that desperate to appear uneducated? ;-)

[@mrfranksan]

@@schmetterling4477 Wow. So tell me. Where does propositional logic come from? I infer you must have a superior source to mine of your knowledge.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@mrfranksan Propositional logic comes from observation of the behavior of classical objects, Frank. It's the most primitive piece of physics. ;-) Do I have a superior mind? Maybe, maybe not. What I do have is a superior ability to pay attention in school. ;-)

[@chadb9270]

14:00 It is the very first time someone reference the very first time.

[@Bill..N]

Thomas does a great job of outlining the latest scientific perspectives and their genesis in this engaging talk.. In my humble opinion, one BIG question here is whether or not OUR Big Bang is just one in a potentially infinite series . Peace.

[@crtpo1809]

lol infinite series is a nonsensical notion

[@philharmer198]

@@crtpo1809 The Cosmic Web .

[@philharmer198]

The Cosmic Web .

[@crtpo1809]

@@philharmer198 The Avengers.

[@Bill..N]

@@crtpo1809 Why?

[@johnvanderpol2]

If we give up the assukmption life is common, and we are the first in our observable univere, are there more outside our obserable universe, what would be the odds. Currenly we only have a sample of one. But if there are more universes, what would be the chnage of life in them, and could we even know or communicate,as we can't even know anything outside our own observable universe?

[@miguelsuarez8010]

The universe is fit for life only in very specific points where the conditions for life are present. We have a sample in our local system: a number of planets and only one (as far as we now) with those conditions. Watching the universe is like a cat watching its tail.

[@Tore_Lund]

So according to Leimatre's notes, the Universe was only 4 billion years old in 1936? Edwin Hubble discovered cosmological redshift in 1929. So that was the rough age calculated from that! Impressive. So Tomas Hertog worked with Stephen Hawking on what was then called the no boundary proposal?

[@muradzulfiqarkhanzada4395]

Love to watch lectures on time pls pulish/invite carlo rovelli in this regard also

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

We've got a lecture from Carlo right here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y2fViKSAnampba8 but of course we'd love to have him back to speak again!

[@profcharlesflmbakaya8167]

Hmmmmm! Xoxo exciting!

[@johnnyziemer5561]

Bohr's view on cosmology creates a paradox in that things are not real until they are observed. The chicken an egg problem. Great talk, got me thinking.

[@philharmer198]

Which he is wrong . Things were real before his existence , or any beingings existence . Observation of the Universe has no part in bringing the Universe into existence . The Universe was already there . It was never not . Space is infinite . There is no paradox . Chicken came before the egg . An egg can not create its self

[@unusualkmc]

@@philharmer198 and who created the chicken?

[@philharmer198]

@@unusualkmc Evolution .

[@hooked4215]

The surprising uprase of Hanna Arendt at the end of the lecture obeys to a condition imposed by the organizers. This is how science works.

[@MTSVW]

If our universe has been finely tuned like a Galapagos finch out of all the possibilities, I’m curious what factors have influenced it most. Gravity? Entropy? Energy? The general direction it’s headed might tell us what it’s accomplishing. Where it’s headed. We see things like the Fibonacci numbers over and over, but it’s not so much purposeful design as a natural pattern that rose to the top because it’s efficient for growth. So it doesn’t surprise me there’s lots of tidy math. Or maybe there is no direction, beyond everything that can happen has/will happen. Maybe defining everything that’s possible is necessary to jump to a higher dimension. Jump outside of the box of time. There, time travel and eternal existence outside of time would become possible. A quantum Wikipedia defining all of existence, that’s a stepping stone to something infinite, everlasting, and self-designing

[@zachdetert1121]

As far as I understand the theory (having read Thomas Hertogs book) - it is supposed to be quantum observation that acts as the selector. So all histories of the universe happen at once, but when a quantum observation is made the space of possible pasts is pruned. The history that we live in today has therefore been selected for by quantum observation and it is laws and behaviours that produce the most observations that live on in the universe now. This is supposed to explain why the natural laws are specifically as they are and also our biophillic universe- there’s also a suggestion that it leads to conciousness or that conciousness is the ultimate wave function collapser (this seems like a bit too much to me but you be the judge reader)

[@williamthomas8135]

when do we get to the headline topic? I get the the tree rings. I was looking more for a non casual explanation.

[@albasitdanoon7211]

It is interesting that Thomas jumped- while talking about the evidence of the expansion of the universe- to 1965 the discovery of Microwave background radiation without saying a word about Hubble discovery in 1929!

[@Screaming-Trees]

Beginning as a concept though just doesn't work. In formal reasoning I mean. How do you reconcile this?

[@cpasa798]

Is it entropy a measurement of how big is the universe?

[@josefnavratil646]

Mr. Hertog, yes, to unravel the mystery of time. I will put my idea on the table: Time is a quantity, a name for a physical quantity that is stoic, does not run "by itself". Only when it starts moving to the time dimension!!!! material object (it can also be a cursor), cannonball, plane, rocket, only then can we talk about time, i.e. about the speed of the passage of time. So "time doesn't run for us, but we run for it", we run "after time", along the time dimension and thereby cut intervals (seconds, minutes, hours, years...) into the dimension. The second view of time, of the course of time, of the pace of the passage of time, is when the "twisted" time dimension (in 3+1 or 3+3D space-time) is unpacked (in the macro world), from the boiling chaos of dimensions after the big bang, and in the microworld the time dimension both collapses and expands. Therefore, the interactions on the Planck scales are linear.- - Try to think with this indicated !!! direction, what do you think?

[@woodygilson3465]

Auto-generated subs are horrible. You'd think RI, with its history and reputation for science communication would spring for a transcriptionist.

[@petersenjessem]

It’s not hard to believe that our observable universe is the product of the formation of a black hole. It seems like the most logical explanation and I feel it best explains the infinite nature of the multiverse. Black hole = universe = more black holes = more universes.

[@yungsookevinhong7943]

Just base on very logic of physics, the expansion should have a balance stage where all the conditions will be balance. Or settle into a stable bond of existence.

[@mhinz80]

If I knew Stephen Hawking, I would always name drop him as my protege. It would be fun

[@stevioa9]

I just made the one thousandth thumbs up!

[@bremensname6057]

textbook performance Michael

[@joshsav-.9080]

the rules of motion that aLLOW expansion such like the universe section we live in is the exact same reason the heart and lungs breath and beat

[@nycpaull]

We imagine a view from outside the universe but we feel what it is to be inside it. Which is more true?

[@sailorr4287]

Tom riddles diary was one of the 10 or 11 evilest rings in the world. What a fascinating analogy.

[@stevejordan1968]

I’ve always struggled with what constitutes observation? Are we saying it requires a consciousness to know it is observing?

[@svendtang5432]

As far as i know from current quant theorist - no the observation is actually a form of entaglement of particles, not someone observing.. because in the early universe quantom theory was also there and there were nobody to observe :)

[@JohnImrie]

No, observation is, I think, having something else react. So a radioactive decay is observed when the radiation emitted interacts with something else.

[@sansdomicileconnu]

if we mixed with quantum physic past and futur are in entanglement if you change the futur you change the past and if you change the past you change the futur

[@nickdumas2495]

For the last 15 minutes of the video I had a picture stuck in my head; some increasingly irate aliens, complaining about those dang humans coming up with laws of physics. "Dangit, the speed of light is a limit? Its gonna take forever to get to Grandma's planet!" "Hey, why does my tiny stuff look so fuzzy now? Humans observed quantum mechanics?!" "Bloody hell, how am I supposed to densely pack my luggage with this holographic limit thing in place? Humans are ruining everything!"

[@manoshih2574]

10 youtube ads allowed in a 52 mins talk, really? necessary? the origin of time is wasted by those ads ….

[@Bolinas1]

The concept of the universe originating from a quantum fluctuation seems at odds with the observed low entropy state of the early universe. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy, or disorder, tends to increase over time in a closed system. This implies that the universe should have started in a high-entropy, highly disordered state if it emerged from a random, chaotic quantum fluctuation. However, the early universe was characterized by an extremely low entropy, indicating a highly ordered state. This contradiction suggests that the simplistic idea of a universe born from a quantum fluctuation does not align with the fundamental principles of thermodynamics and our current understanding of entropy in the context of cosmic evolution.🤔

[@lepidoptera9337]

The universe did emerge from a highly disordered state: the CMB is almost perfectly thermal, homogeneous and isotropic. The total amount of "physical information" in there is just about enough to calculate half a dozen parameters. I don't know why you think that a thermal background is "ordered". The current universe is highly ordered in vast sections that have very little matter and radiation and very small domains that have a lot. What does "the ordering" is gravity in conjunction with the expansion, i.e. the creation of ever more spacetime. At the end the universe does not behave like a closed system. That's just a misunderstanding of the term "closed system".

[@GaryLawrenceMurphy]

I'm really surprised this video hasn't earned a spot on @TheRoyalInstitution page. On the Origin of Time is a paradigm-shattering book, or should I say a symmetry-breaking book, maybe just the next big happy accident that changes everything.

[@euclidofalexandria3786]

accretion for planets and for amino acids stewed in the seas... time delineations, if you know how it manifests then youll know the approx. time delineations... but how may i ask did the earth get so wet with H2O? it couldnt be when the earth began some 4 bill ago, it must have been paspermia?

[@NondescriptMammal]

I wish someone would explain why we are so sure that the cosmic background radiation is the afterglow of the big bang event, it seems like there could be any number of explanations for such a background radiation... but it is always held up as a sort of proof of the big bang, but I can never find an actual explanation why that is?

[@RJay121]

What other explanations?😊

[@philharmer198]

@@RJay121 Plasma Universe and Electric Universe .

[@bio7771]

we do not differ from a desk, a chair, a plant, or a falling down glass. we just have been lying to ourselves for so long, the change is exciting but the road is destructive.

[@mbukukanyau]

James web has put this entire lecture into question by observing light that is far beyond 13 billion years.. actually, whole galaxies that appear far beyond 14 billion light years away.. Modern science is in a crisis

[@iam6424]

​@@unusualkmc What about the problem Hubble constant , is there really a crisis on tht front ,may I ask ? ✌️🏼

[@seabeepirate]

I’ve often thought that thinking of time as the fourth dimension was out of order since without time movement is impossible and without the possibility of movement there is no reason to define space.

[@seabeepirate]

Complete unmoving would be undetectable and indistinguishable from non existence.

[@michaelerison]

Energy propels movement, hence the possibility of dark energy. Time is a consequence of the dispersement of energy. If nothing moved, there'd be 0 energy and 0 time.

[@ubuynow]

That's why it's considered space-time. They are not separate

[@michaelerison]

@My Homie, L.E. Munoz That's kind of a minimal response and not really relative to this exactly. Energy and physicality are different states altogether.

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

But if there were a fourth physical dimension, let’s call it ‘u’, would you need time to have movement in that (as seen from our xyz universe)?

[@doom-driveneap4569]

I hope KZbin still exists in 2095, and if it does, I hope I can read this message. April 25th, 2023

[@philharmer198]

Define the origin of time , to you .

[@ramzesii1364]

Great lecture. One clarification. Einstein did not belive in gravitation waves. It was Prof. Trautman who proved gravitation waves from Eintsteins equasion. Generally Einstein was wrong not only about quantum phisics but also did not believe black wholes could exist

[@rkinsey2197]

Energic particles tend to occur where complimentary forces dictate in nullification. Would the big bang(s) inversely pressurize its expanding front, even wisping (fluid dynamics) an accelerated accumulation on a cosmic scale? If so, I philosophize that quantum mechanics would disagree with or misrepresent findings abroad. A pressurizing of expansion unseeable. The leading (shell?) Of the expanding universe would carry the remnants of physics prior and streamline the notable properties of matter [xabc] (density and volume) in planes of forces [ywuv] ( gravity, nuclear) separate of pressure and a corresponding energetic particle [zde] (light, dark energy, dark matter). Do other particles/energetic forces exist other than constitutes? #/nocollegeexperience/ so go easy. I'm obsessed but denied

[@Loots1]

im sure hertog is an amazing physicist and im sure a million times more intelligent than i, however i believe he is mistaken about his beliefs on Anaximander being the first philosopher to try to describe the laws of nature, as someone who has spent a great deal of time studying the Milesian school, I would have to say it goes back to his teacher Thales. Anaximander's philosophy is LITERALLY a direct response to Thales. Thales is the first philosopher at least that I'm aware of that tried to establish first principles and describe the way the universe worked through natural means. Perhaps someone is more well read that I am and can explain why I am wrong in my thinking

[@josefnavratil646]

"Our universe", after the big bang, is a "local place" in Euclidean flat infinite 3+3D spacetime, (ie the state before the big bang, flat, infinite, no matter, no chow flow, no expansion, how else when infinite.). It's the final location that begins-it occurs at the big bang, which is not an explosion, but a change from the previous state to the next, to the plasma state, and that's an ultra-high curvature of 3+3 dimensions of two quantities. It's a boiling vacuum, it's a foam dimensions, i.e. an extremely curved environment; that is, it is a "finite" Universe in an "infinite" flat space-time that "floats" in it. The basic Euclidean network - a grid, 3+3 uncurved dimensions, in the state before the big bang, it is still around us, it exists not only before the big bang, but also after it, it is around us and we and the whole complex universe with matter and galaxies and black holes and gravitational fields, (which are crooked dimensions), we "float" in that flat basic 3+3D network of space-time. The beautiful thing is that even a mathematician will wonder if he doesn't have to explore "how" big is the singularity = "locality-our universe" and will have to recognize the possibility of proposing the reality that in an infinite 3+3D non-curved space-time there are finite localities, arbitrarily large, that is near-infinite and near-zero... Not even mathematicians can determine how large a "unit" is-a unit interval of length or time in an infinite grid grid. That place is "our universe", just one. No nonsense like “multiverses. And the Big Bang was not the creation of the universe "out of nothing" (as string theorists claim), but it was a "jump = jump change of state" from the previous to the next, a "jump" from a completely flat spacetime to a completely curved spacetime.., with extremely curved dimensions , which have been unfolding for 13.8 billion years!!!!, A) They don't expand, but unfold into the global curvature of the "real structure" (The sky full of galaxies and everything we see "floats" the differently curved dimensions of every place we see). B) And simultaneously with the global unpacking, the "local locations" are packed (in the microstructure = in the microworld.) They are packed into matter !!!! They are packed (those dimensions) after the big bang into balls = elementary particles, and these are further packed into conglomerates, i.e. into atoms, molecules, into chemical-biological compounds. Etc, etc...etc, as I have described elsewhere over the years. According to physicists from Di Valentino's team, this anomaly could be explained if the expanding universe had a spherical shape. Which is even the same if the expansion is explained by the "unfolding" of this "initial" curvature of the space-time dimension in the Bang = in a state of arrest in which time begins to pass and expand = the space and time dimensions begin to unfold; this state of space-time of ultra-high curvature of the dimensions of time and length, is a plasma, is a state of foam. In this foam "vacuum boils", on Planck scales it acquires by deformation packing mini-localities = "frozen states" - wave spheres-wave packets that become elementary particles, our human concept, packets that manifest themselves with properties such as mass, spin, charge, etc., etc. (Each particle has a different number of packed dimensions with a different curvature of these; this determines their properties). Then such an initial state of the Universe, the space-time after the Big Bang, unfolds, expands "out" "from the singularity" and still, simultaneously further, collapses, "into itself", into matter. This means that there is a clustering, "combining" of matter elements, such as quarks, leptons, bosons, etc. into even more complex units, into baryons, resonances, then into atoms, then into molecules, into compounds - this is the "packing" of curved dimensions into packages, into more complex conglomerates, and this happens not only after the big bang, but that packaging continues to this day; proteins, DNA... We still have the Planck vacuum around us, "yesterday and today", continuously throughout the history of this ! The Universe..,, all around us in the boiling vacuum of the Planck and subplanck scales, the same processes are taking place as they were a million years ago, as they were a billion years ago and 14.24 billion years ago right after the Big Bang. This entire "local universe" with curved dimensions is nested in a 3+3D grid, a grid of flat Euclidean dimensions. The universe "floats" in an infinite flat space-time. And at the same time, from Třesk there is also unpacking... and packaging... What type of curve do we have for global unpacking, I don't know, probably a parabola, I thought about it 35 years ago...; This text was *twice "deformed" by a translation from Czech to English and back again to Czech and then once again to English..., I am very sorry for the complexity of the text, which I no longer feel like correcting

[@asdfasdfasdfasdfzzzz]

Bro

[@philharmer198]

Nonsense just keeps on . Unfortunately .

[@detailsimply3564]

Definitions should not contain the word itself

[@josefnavratil646]

@@detailsimply3564 I don't know what you are talking about. I did not give any definition. Do you see any?

[@josefnavratil646]

@@philharmer198 Have you ever seen or read any nonsense before? Can you quote some?

[@kentolsen2712]

If space itself expands, the paper stars should also expand. I think they do.

[@helicalactual]

To answer professor hawking; I believe the answer, would have been the reason the universe looks as if they were intelligently designed, is due to the fact that the Higgs is not nessicarly fundamental. If the higgs is not fundamental, then the previous “aeons”, maybe not have the same physics, it would look more uniform potentially, until the universe in Which the Higgs finally created a sort of chirality by causing complex structure to form. The complex structures would radiate outward in three dimensions generating “time” but due to the complex structures, it’s chiral.

[@philharmer198]

Explain Space . Space is about room .

[@philharmer198]

I find nothing about the Universe that leads me to think the Universe is intelligently designed .

[@michaelogden5958]

Hmmm. So in the extreme distant past, there may have been laws of physics that were very real at that time, but didn't quite work out - hence becoming extinct? If so, perhaps some of the things we observe a gazillion light years away / a gazillion years ago might be marching to a different drummer, no? 🙂

[@MrTomashek0022]

😊😮

[@MrTomashek0022]

😊😊

[@MrTomashek0022]

😮😮😊😊😊

[@MrTomashek0022]

😊😅😅

[@MrTomashek0022]

😅

[@bernard2735]

Did the laws of physics exist at the moment of the Big Bang, are they emergent, did they pre-exist?

[@NeonVisual]

We can't go back to the actual moment of singularity as all of our math breaks down into infinities, time comes to a complete stop and energy levels go to infinities as the singularity becomes infinitely small. We can work back to trillionths of a second after the event began, can see evidence of it in the CMB, and by using our known laws of physics, but it's impossible to predict that no laws of physics existed because you can only use the laws of physics themselves as a baseline. What you're really asking is if something existed before the big bang, ie the laws of physics themselves, like some sort of stage for the big bang to play out on. That's impossible to answer as space and time itself began at the moment of the big bang. You can't go back any further than the big bang singularity any more than you could go more north if you were stood on the north pole. North becomes meaningless when you are stood on it as it's relative direction goes to zero. North only emerges as a direction when you're stood somewhere else. Likewise the universe began at the moment of the singularity. The singularity is like the north poll at zero. There is no "before" for the laws of physics to come from, because that's where spacetime itself emerges. Our models show that physics can account for everything right after the moment of the big bang, before which all things go to infinities, like north goes to zero when you're stood on it.

[@ankeunruh7364]

No, they did not pre-exist. Without nuclei no nuclear force can act, without light no speed of it can be defined.

[@bernard2735]

@@NeonVisual Thank you

[@colonelkurtz2269]

Albert Einstein made contributions to physics. His brother Frank made well he made a monster.

[@137limon8]

Entanglement suggest that everything @ this moment is connected to the Infiniton (Big Bang) ?

[@137limon8]

Multi-verses includes our Universe + Anti-verse as a set of infinite probables?

[@137limon8]

Sending EM pulse to the point of Creation is so mind boggling throwed off..., but doable.

[@philharmer198]

Upon what can we agree that time is ? Movement , measured . Any objection ? Can time , in and of its self , change the movement of a physical thing ? NO .