Sean Carroll - Did the Universe Begin?

[@cnucaptjoe]

Of all the channels that I don't understand, this is one of my favorites.

[@zameelvisharathodi7859]

😂😂

[@fredb2022]

Well stated

[@bdi_vd3677]

You're cool

[@Tamagumo]

Which others do you recommend? Haha

[@shivmalu1]

Hahaha. That's nice

[@willbrink]

Dr. Carroll is always a favorite due his style and ability to explain such topics to us mere mortals.

[@2fast2block]

How did Sean begin? 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.

[@kona1940]

Professor Sean Carroll is the communicator. He's the best at placing his thoughts right in front of you. Never heard anyone explain things so clearly that you actually can understand those things that were off limits to most folks until the professor showed up

[@davidsfuntimes9899]

Sean has an easy way of making complicated theory sound reasonable/understandable even to a layperson like me.

[@2fast2block]

Sean is a liar. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.

[@pauldance7387]

Sean is the very best, at least for me, he explains complex ideas in a simple fashion allowing us non-scientific people have a glimpse into his brilliant mind.

[@alwaysflat7996]

Paul Dance yes speak for yourself, to me he doesn't have a brilliant mind, he hasn't explained anything or where were you? Unless you were listening to someone else.Tell us what did he explain with this brilliant mind of his?

[@williamesselman3102]

@@alwaysflat7996 he explained nothing

[@williamesselman3102]

Turns out, we know as much about our existence now as we did when we inhabited holes in the ground and traced our shadows on cave walls by the Light of the fires we had started by rubbing sticks together.

[@pobjedaistine2177]

He explains what ??

[@michael7v6]

Dude is off the charts smart.

[@Uhmjustdudeguy]

He came to my school to speak about his book. I got invited by the philosophy department chair to eat dinner with him and Sean Carol prior to Dr carols talk. I got to have him clarify how an egg how’s the potential to break and then reform and return back to your hand when thrown on the ground. He’s truly a clear communicator of complex ideas.

[@Softspokenassassin0024blocc]

Steven Christensen that is cool as fuck I really like this guy

[@NikoGoran]

There isn't a better science communicator then Sean Carroll,quite impressive,thx

[@ricomajestic]

Brian Greene is better than all these guys!

[@naimulhaq9626]

Because mathematics (the mind of the designer) is at the root of the theory of multiverse (deduced by string theorists), explaining no beginning to the infinite stretch.

[@NikoGoran]

Naimul Haq sounds like something Deepak Chopra would say,lolol

[@naimulhaq9626]

***** He is paid by the media to preach atheism. He thinks fine tuning to be the most powerful argument of the theists, and is paid to prove otherwise, claiming to know five reasons why FT is 'rubbish', thereby debunking the standard model, while providing not one scientific reason. One of the reasons he cites is why do we feel sick if god is benevolent. Money can scream.

[@john_ron]

How do u know he's being paid to do that?

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Although not my favorite, this guy baffles me with his 100% perfect speech and flow of speech.. I can't detect any flaws anywhere in any of his videos. Not even an "uh" . I believe that is one indication of an extremely high IQ.

[@guntherultraboltnovacrunch5248]

I was marveling at the same thing. It is as if he is reading a teleprompter in his mind.

[@JohnSmith-ms4xd]

8:20 right before "inflation is a wonderful theory". but you're right, it's remarkable how well he flows and what he says coheres.

[@federalfarmer1741]

Mithani and Vilenkin also show mathematically that Carroll's idea--it's not a theorem--simply isn't probable.

[@JohnSmith-ms4xd]

Federal Farmer Carroll addressed Mithani and Vilenkin's paper here: www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/09/25/let-the-universe-be-the-universe/

[@arturoponce6657]

Paul Freedman tell me about it. He gave a lecture at my college today, and he is one of the best speakers. He answered any question so thoroughly and gallantly.

[@philjamieson5572]

Sean is the man to choose to answer the big questions. His clarity, knowledge, and and honesty are refreshing.

[@2fast2block]

You're as shallow as Sean is. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.

[@chokin78]

@@2fast2block and you are as arrogant as the next fundamentalist... Good job Einstein

[@2fast2block]

@@chokin78 and that was somehow evidence that got around the laws I gave. You make a perfect Sean follower.

[@chokin78]

@@2fast2block Such a truckload of nonsense. Nowhere do the LoT imply a supernatural intervention. Such a leap of faith for a petty conscience.

[@2fast2block]

@@chokin78 again, you won't give details, you just assert things with no evidence to back it up. Sean does the same, say things with NO evidence.

[@utah133]

I like listening to brilliant people.

[@a-dutch-z7351]

Hello.

[@sdr4701]

You should listen to Jesus.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@sdr4701 Why would anyone want to listen to a mythical character? And more importantly _how_ would one listen to a mythical character?

[@stefantherainbowphoenix]

@@sdr4701 If he showed himself and gave an interview, I'd listen to him, but only if I could understand him. I don't understand Aramaic, you know?

[@EinsteinKnowedIt]

They actually don't talk.

[@Heart2HeartBooks]

I think the James Webb will give us more definitive answers.

[@TheDizzleHawke]

If they ever launch the dang thing.

[@HelpMeFindTheseSongs]

What kind questions do you have that you hope the Webb telescope answers?

[@soufianefariss]

It still isn't up there

[@cookimonster1251]

@@soufianefariss apparently getting shipped up the canal yes wear that big boat was stuck recently in the middle East god knows Y

[@schuey999]

The James Webb will never live to take a single picture.

[@endover422]

'We cannot trust General Relativity because it leads to infinity (at singularity)' => therefore the Universe didn't have a beginning, it is infinite - hmmmm.........

[@lumen8r]

Sean makes me feel okay to not understand. Which is very calming to me.

[@pipedreams57]

Infinite complexity is my understanding of the universe and it grows with each minute, which is simply the way the natural world works.

[@eternalme6077]

I LOVE IT! It's nice to hear the humbleness AND truth in the phrase ' We do not know.' Thank you for Posting this Beauty.......🎸💚

[@kuronekonova3698]

"Humbleness" is a rather unsightly word; use humility instead.

[@joehinojosa8314]

Even if you believe Creatio Ex Nihilo, I gotta admit I love to learn from Sean. He flows like a waterfall and his eloquence,is calming

[@williamesselman3102]

Not knowing never makes me calm.

[@bozo5632]

"I'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question."

[@seffundoos]

I absolutely love these conversations, thanks to everybody involved! Hopefully you have the capacity to continue this series long into the future.

[@jeffreyzimler7978]

Agree

[@2fast2block]

What's there to love? 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.

[@seffundoos]

@@2fast2block Cool story bro.

[@2fast2block]

@@seffundoos well who knew well-established science was a 'cool story'? I always thought it was science. Sean can sure take down the IQ of people.

[@seffundoos]

@@2fast2block If you had credibility you would be in front of the camera showing me equations and evidence to back up your claims. But you are not. You are going around the largest cesspit of human interactions (the KZbin comments section) trying to get in arguments with people about god whilst picking and choosing parts of science to quote in your two-liner arguments. I don't care what you have to say. You have zero credibility. I have already put far more effort into this response than dickheads like you deserve. Get a life.

[@brigham2250]

I can listen to Sean Carroll read a toothpaste tube and be enthralled for hours. As for his comments that our universe may have come from something else, I not only agree but have made comments like this elsewhere on the Internet which are met with hostility, not by religious people but by non-believers (of which I am one). And it was about two years ago, before I ever heard Sean Carroll make comments like this, that I emailed him through his website making similar comments but never heard back. I think he should have taken a minute to respond. Still, I love to listen to him and will buy his new book.

[@mobiustrip1400]

yup, I'm the same....an atheist and subscribe to the idea that the universe exists forever.....Google "everything forever".... some pretty interesting thoughts (and no, this is not some truth contest bullshit, just stratospheric philosophy)

[@udaybhanuchitrakar8812]

+Mobius Trip 'I'm the same....an atheist and subscribe to the idea that the universe exists forever.' sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/06/04/problem-with-an-eternal-universe/

[@ericday4505]

Mobius Trip If the universe is eternal, then why is it running out of useable energy, and how did we arrive at this time now. There is no way that the universe is eternal.. And laws of physics, fascinating that they might be, cant cause anything. There is no" before" the beginning of the universe, no .

[@MartTLS]

Eric Day How do you know ?

[@sleepy314]

I emailed him a 'thank you for taking time to explain things to us ignorant lay people' and got a polite reply.

[@jamespoff8632]

one of the best 9 minutes of my life

[@Bobcat-1967]

It's like trying to remember before you were born. I'm going to have to roll another one.

[@no_one8224]

The Anchor looks like when Einstein had a haircut.

[@mrdragonage7446]

@fynes leigh moron or sth? His photos are all over the web

[@mrdragonage7446]

@fynes leigh u high?

[@zelmoziggy]

He looks like Allan Arbus.

[@johnraba8669]

If the universe came out of empty space you still have to answer how did empty space get created. Even empty space has physical properties. You just kick the can further down the road.

[@goldenwombat2159]

What you have to try and accept is that these concepts do not exist in the world that human brains evolved in, we simply do not have the capacity to understand nothingness because 'somethingness' is all that any human or conscious being has ever experienced. Our brains have evolved in an environment on earth, we have not evolved to understand these concepts as its simply not evolutionarily favourable. Scientists can describe it but understanding the concept is whole different thing

[@Emanresu56]

Well no, if time doesn't exist there doesn't need to be any beginning of anything.

[@johnraba8669]

If time does not exist you still must deal with how the fabric of space itself came to perpetually be. Space and time, however, were created at the big bang. Even if you believe in a multiverse each pocket of reality creates its own space and time as it expands.

[@johnshannon9656]

@@goldenwombat2159 This is rubbish. Everyone can understand the idea of a "nothingness". We all know how zero is used in mathematics but it's a relative concept. It's just that "nothingness" doesn't exist. If it did, it would be a "something".

[@goldenwombat2159]

@@johnshannon9656 you've just proved my point, 'if nothingness exists it would be something' you are therefore truly unable to grasp the idea of nothingness, and neither am I!

[@ronaldp.vincent8226]

"I believe it was empty space." "Empty space has a temperature, meaning particles floating around." So, not empty then...

[@freedapeeple4049]

That's what I say. Space is not a thing that is affected by events, it is the place where events happen. If the "universal expansion" is a real thing, it is something happening IN space, not TO space.

[@justdave9610]

@@freedapeeple4049 with general relativity Einstein showed that space is not just a static background, the imaginary grid that things happen in, but something that is dynamic and that can warp and that interacts with matter through gravitation

[@freedapeeple4049]

@@justdave9610 I still say that those are things happening IN space, not TO space.

[@pillsareyummy]

Freeda Peeple Space is a ‘thing’, that’s been shown empirically.

[@ronaldp.vincent8226]

@@pillsareyummy I think the question is what empty space is. Even if space only has a Higgs field, it is not empty.

[@robis7238]

So, at 7:55 he entertains that a beginningless universe or an eternal inflation creates unsolvable probabilities, which make perfect sense because math breaks down at infinity. But then at 9:08 he states that a universe with a beginning is also unsolvable. Poor guy.

[@seangrieves4359]

Isn't it nice to know? but not knowing, knowing you don't know, leaves a revelation of limitlessness potential..

[@donalddenison8896]

The big question is not how things got this way, but why is there anything at all?

[@africanandproud6792]

That's a good question

[@fivish]

infinite space time needs infinite energy and that came from somewhere and it cant mean turtles all the way down!

[@haggismcbaggis9485]

Perhaps, absolute nothingness does not exist and nothingness is inherently unstable. If the cosmos is infinite, this would hold true.

[@donalddenison8896]

@@haggismcbaggis9485 Dear Sir: No matter to what stage one goes to, one must conceive in some way that outside time, outside of space, outside of being as we can understand it, there exists some entity of perfect communion that for it's own reasons, out of nothing created everything, and moreover sustains and works within this creation with his own minds. It also follows that without the participation of this entity/being everything would cease to exist. From this basis we may posit that this perfect and all powerful being is not only the highest form of being possible, but that it has multiple aspect to it allowing intercommunication within it's unity. I cannot in my mind conceive of any entity that does not have internal communication. This entity is as far back or perhaps forward as I with my limited mind can conceive. You can call it what you will, I choose God, moreover a Triunine God that communicates with itself in always especially with love, whatever we conceive as love. It is a willful phenomenon in my thinking that this entity, or as I choose to call it has seen fit to out of nothing, create everything. I don't understand it, but out of nothing was created everything including space and time. I don't understand it, but I do believe it is self evident. It is for these reasons that I gave up trying to understand the Universe and it's Creator. I just stand in awe of it and especially it's creator.

[@haggismcbaggis9485]

No, one does not have to 'mustly' conceive all of that.

[@Dino_LIVE_]

Did he just contradict himself? At 1:31 he says things can’t be infinite. At 2:06 he talks about eternal models of the universe

[@hensonsf2701]

Eternal and infinite are not the same concept.

[@Dino_LIVE_]

@@hensonsf2701 sort of because they have no beginning or end

[@hensonsf2701]

@@Dino_LIVE_ They’re not the same thing.

[@Dino_LIVE_]

@@hensonsf2701 how can an infinite exist in a finite universe? The universe can’t be eternal as well.

[@hensonsf2701]

@@Dino_LIVE_ Infinite is not a quantity. Real numbers is an example. Look them up. Cosmologists would beg to differ. Many models that show an eternal universe and our local presentation had an inflation some 14.5 billion years ago. That’s not the same thing as beginning.

[@raphe6856]

I respect him for being open to admit "WE DON'T KNOW", but why he wasn't in that mental state while he was writing his book and and kind of force his beliefs into a reader

[@illuderebeliarh1260]

nobody is forcing you to do anything. go watch some logan paul and some shit and relax your overworked mind. it seems you need it.

[@JamesMyddelton]

One of the best videos on this channel

[@golagaz]

Sean Carroll is an amazing teacher. American gem.

[@2fast2block]

He wanks off to his god of nothing and orgasms each time he teaches it can do something. That to you is "an amazing teacher". A complete dumbass with dumbass followers like you is not an "American gem", it's disgusting.

[@ericbrown9900]

Christ. Mind just melted all over my keyboard. That was a good one. And so well explained. How do we get Sean Carroll on Cosmos season 2?

[@computerchi]

You said Christ first 😁

[@palewine]

He has a podcast now, and you can find Sean Carroll appearing in a number of other videos on KZbin

[@johnayres2303]

They seem to hint at Conformal Cyclic Cosmology which is for me the best explanation for the ‘beginning’ of the Universe.

[@alwaysflat7996]

John Ayres it is not an explanation, Hello!! It is not, it's an imagined scenario, has never been proved an explanation is when you have evidence and can give a good explanation, there is zero evidence to support the cyclic cosmology. And even if such thing exists, it's simply pushes the same idea a step further. Science has become a joke, science is now let's imagine anything and repeat it as many time as possible, people will come to eventually accept it as a fact.

[@serhiisietrin9314]

@Chris S if it's "for sure" maybe you have at least something to prove your point?

[@serhiisietrin9314]

@Chris S your argument is just pathetic. I believed in smth that you've said when I was an atheist as a child. Yes, I'm going to take you through philosophy.. But do you want to listen? Or you just want to make fun of christians like me?

[@SupremeCaptainBlaze]

@@alwaysflat7996 sounds like religion to me tbh

[@GuyTato]

@@SupremeCaptainBlaze Oh so you agree that Sean has "faith"

[@georgequalls5043]

If something is infinite, how can it ever become less than infinite?

[@gr33nthony]

There's the real fundamental question

[@emmacavalier]

Because infinity encompasses non infinity. Less than infinity is a part of infinity

[@georgequalls5043]

@@emmacavalier ok, but then where did the rest of the infinity go?

[@pythondrink]

​@@georgequalls5043who said it went anywhere?

[@JungleJargon]

There is no absolute measure of a "second" because it is the expansion of time being referred to.

[@phyl1283]

I used to watch this show on TV on Sunday mornings. The discussions never reached aconclusions on the subjects in question. As to this particular question, the answer I would give without a lot of meaningless discussion would be "we'll never know" because we can't present meaninful evidence other than opinion and "logic" to reach any conclusion. It's the same as the question about whether there is "intelligent" life elsewhere in the universe. The distances outside of our own solar system to other solar systems, even in our own galaxy are too great for us to ever develop evidence that will be supportable because we have no means of communicating or developing proof that there could be a response within multiple lifetimes that any attempts at contact between us and "them" could be established. And furthermore, it doesn't matter. We don't share compatible language to communicate if contact were made and verified to someone's satisfaction. A "conversation" between parties that is spread over 30,000 Earth years is useless. And that is based on how long it would take for an Earthling to travel at the "speed of light" from Earth to Proxima Centauri, the closest star to our Sun. The return trip notwithstanding. We have no means of travel between us and "them" that will get us there and back in less than 600 current lifetimes assuming that everyone lived to an average age of100 Earth years and were continuously committed to the same original effort as their life''s purpose and that they were equally prepared to pursue the same goal. JUST RUBBISH.

[@bg6b7bft]

Did he say at the end that his best guess is based on wishful thinking?

[@SweatyShivers]

No.

[@kjustkses]

SweatyShivers yes

[@kjustkses]

Ψ Ko (you might enjoy the name play) This is exactly what I meant earlier. Obvious or logically plausible is not science. Carroll's model of a future and past eternal universe which still has some form of a t=0 in the middle is definitely wishful thinking. It may as well be interpreted as both universe moving forward in time, as both worlds would perceive time in the same way.. You just end up with 2 Big Bangs (simultaneously) instead of one.

[@kjustkses]

P Sigh Ko I'm more interested in their debates with other physicists. It is kind of hard to find those. I started reading Guth's paper a while ago, then I stopped at the mention of gravitons. I will attempt it again...

[@user-74856]

Yup

[@freedapeeple4049]

Thank you. I have been making this argument for a long time, but nobody wanted to listen. Can't blame them, though, since I'm just some guy on the internet. It's very good, and gratifying, to see a professional talking about it. My pet hypothesis is that Big Bangs are local refresher cycles, and happen everywhere, all the time in a universe which is infinite in both time and space.

[@williamesselman3102]

We live in infinity because Carrol doesn't know if the universe began? He said he doesn't know. If he had evidence for an infinite eternal universe he would show the proof. It doesn't exist. The man is simply speculating and you like his speculations. You are comfortable with your existence based on biased guesswork from a man youve never met who also has no proof.

[@freedapeeple4049]

@@williamesselman3102 You know nothing about me or how or why I think the way I do so stop beaking off about something you are clueless about.

[@williamesselman3102]

@@freedapeeple4049 I know enough to make exactly the comment I made by reading your comment. And you think the way you do Because deep inside there is a high level of discomfort about your existence and you need an answer to rest your human psychology upon, like every human. Sean Carrol's "I don't know" woo woo word salad gives you a feeling of comfort. But, it's only a feeling. Because, he doesn't know. It is rather cathartically comforting understanding that the common new atheist makes comparable arguments without provable evidence, like theists. You new age cavemen should go ahead and admit it to yourselves. In your pursuit of self-deception and denial of God, laying waste to religion as you go, you have formed your own religion, with dogmas, tenants, and religious icons.

[@SupremeCaptainBlaze]

​@@williamesselman3102 i think you're confusing "hypothesis" with "truth". science doesn't seek certainty, while most theistic religions preach certainty as if they've attained it for ages. if a hypothesis that stand the test of time and trial, then *given our current understanding of the empirical world* the theory is valid. keep in mind that i said "valid", not true. new discoveries will constantly shift our perspective of the world and prove us wrong all the time, such as the heliocentric model, newton's three laws, etc. science is not a religion. it functions on reason. religion, on the other hand, functions on faith. if you accuse atheists of living in the comfort of their own self-deceiving stories, you are the pot calling the kettle black.

[@williamesselman3102]

@@SupremeCaptainBlaze right, because you have convinced yourself that Believers have self-deceiving stories. That's fine if you feel that way and don't see it as your own hypocrisy.

[@walterbishop3668]

There would be no result in asking if the universe had a beginning because once u figure out what happened before the big bang you will need to know what happened before the pre big bang and when figure that out, you need to know what happened before the pre-pre big bang , pre big bang to power of minus 100! we need new language and mind to makes us able to think about this as it doesn't make any sense to our current state of mind and science!

[@martinw245]

walter bishop No not really. For example prior to the big bang was probably the inflaton field which may have been eternal. And if you favour m-theory, higher dimensional space, which could be eternal. So there may be no pre.

[@nerdfather7361]

This is going to sound stupid as hell, but this topic fascinates me. Prior to the Big Bang, what existed? Just plain darkness? Why is darkness there to begin with? I mean, it can't be comprehend. Nothing makes sense because there should be absolutely nothing, yet there is.

[@martinw245]

Nerd Father "Just plain darkness?" A true void, true nothingness is hard to envisage. But no, its wouldn't even be darkness, it would be nothing, no space no time, nothing. No description would have any meaning. What existed prior to the big bang is a question we cant currently answer, but we do have some ideas. Eternal inflation postulates that prior to the hot big bang there was a "field". We all know what fields are, we have all seen the effect of placing iron filings on paper with a magnet underneath. But actually the entire universe is filled with fields. In fact all particles are just excitations in fields. There's quark field, electron field in fact all particles have a field associated with them. Well inflation tells us that prior to the hot big bang there was an inflaton field, responsible for what science calls inflation. When that inflaton field suddenly stooped expanding exponentially, all that energy went into a hot big bang. But the point is that the inflaton field may have always existed, may be eternal. In addition inflation wouldn't have stopped just once, it would have stopped repeatedly, thus generating pocket universes of which ours is just one. M-Theroy postulates that our universe was born from an eternal higher dimensional space, bubble universes colliding with each other generating a multiverse. So who knows what was prior to the big bang, an eternal inflaton field, an eternal higher dimensional space, a true void... but my guess is that a true void, true nothingness is impossible and that there would always be some kind of eternal realm from which our reality was born.

[@larjkok1184]

It’s safer to assume there has always been something.

[@martinw245]

Trolltician "So you believe in heaven?" If by that you mean a realm with a magical, supernatural deity residing it then I wouldn't say I believe in it or don't believe in it. I'd just say there's zero evidence for it and that the probability is exceedingly small.

[@JohnnyAmerique]

Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is an intriguing theory that should get more attention. Essentially, it says that the infinite expansion predicted in the distant future is physically equivalent to the hot Big Bang of the very early universe.

[@bobrussell3602]

As a non scientist, I first heard the idea that the universe came into existence xyx million years ago. I did not believe it then and I don't believe it now. It's nice that now the scientists are looking for other answers.

[@dan4345]

I wonder if Carl Sagan is "looking down" on us and chuckling.

[@georgequalls5043]

Or he could be looking up sweating and thinking ‘uh oh, I guess I got it wrong’.

[@bernicejenkins1515]

Carl Sagan is dead.

[@SeanMauer]

I think the big bang idea works better if instead of something coming from nothing, it's viewed as something of lesser dimensionality is being produced out of a preexisting infinite dimensional space. so what we experience as the universe is a region of lesser dimensionality and present-only time. our universe is embedded in a much greater one.

[@computerchi]

In either case it doesn't explain anything. Because if it was from nothing then how did it come to be? And if it was part of a greater universe, then how did if come to be?

[@WaveOne11]

+computerchi every time when its discussed that universe came out of nothing it ends with this "nothingness" having radiation etc etc so there is always SOMETHING there.. le fuq

[@stefanpieper3757]

Nice Flag. You lost all credibility.

[@milamarshall9597]

computerchi it wasn’t nothing. All the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny tiny tiny area. That area produced space which the matter was released into.

[@tatern3923]

I've yet to hear a coherent concept of "nothing" in the "philosophical sense".

[@kadourimdou43]

An Universe from nothing seems as acceptable, as a Universe without a beginning. Without out evidence that is.

[@joolartey]

Breath and a Scream vodka and cerebral enhancers are the key to dimensional reality travel but yeah well if the universe came out of nothing then the nothing has to be something yes then that nothing which is dark will have had to come out of something why do we have to just make just the universe the thing that gets created not the thing that creates the universe. If the universe just came out of nothing. Then the nothing also came out of nothing making it out of another nothing which came out of another nothing which came out of another nothing infinite. It has stop at a certain point and at that certain point everything wouldnt matter and all things would be beautiful where our origins wouldnt matter because now we know that no matter what happened we couldnt just be non existant because its seems that there will always have to be a something and even if there is nothing that awareness of nothing is the something because in order for there to be nothing something has to be doing the percieve and experience the nothing 💀💧. Non existance can not experience its self as non existance because it is existance that allows one to percieve anything. The universe and the space in which the universe is in are aware of it self. The real problem or question is why would the universe give life and humans this form of existance or reality. ?

[@martinet1985]

@@joolartey I think the answer to this question is "Just because"

[@phyl1283]

Clarify second "out" in your second sentence, please.

[@phyl1283]

@@martinet1985 You get three gold stars for best comment.

[@kimrunic5874]

What's so difficult for us as a species is to assimilate is the concept of a 'timeframe' that stretches infinitely far into the past and future, given that our personal individual existences are so obviously finite. There must be a discrete relationship between the two ideas/structures but this would be almost impossible for us to grasp given our condition.

[@havenbastion]

We cannot talk about the infinite except with placeholders. Infinity, perfection, certainty, nothingness, are all variations on "more than we can possibly know or understand".

[@winstonchang777]

We are the point in time...Just a POINT...ALL THE TIME

[@maxavail]

Cosmologists still fall prey to this idea of an infinite physical something: infinitely small size singularity, infinitely large density, infinite expansion rate. Truth is the universe is probabilistic and we have Quantum mechanics to prove it. So everything in the universe follows the probability rules, including its beginning and its end. The theory of relativity is an useful approximation at a macro level but when it comes down to explaining physical infinities, it simply fails. And that's because there is no such thing. Everything in the universe exists as likelihood. Existence itself is plotted against a probability function. One can never say with absolute certainty that this or that exists or does not exist. Truth is everything we say to be existing is actually just an extremely high probability of existing (but never probability = 1) whereas what we claim to not exist is just an extremely low probability of existing (but never probability = 0). The universe never began to exist because, before the big bang, it had always existed as an extremely low probability of existence. But it was already "there". Likewise, the universe today only exists as an extremely high probability but never absolute. There is still a chance, unimaginably small though, that it still doesn't exist. The secret to understanding existence is to understand that everything that can exist already exists, has existed and will always exist, but it's plotted on a probability distribution. Each item moves on this distribution from its inception, thru its life and its demise. What we claim exists is simply probability going beyond a threshold which we are hard wired to experience perception thereof. This, I believe, is the only way to reconcile relativity theory and QM. There was never a visible, audible, sensible big bang in any way, shape or form because this event only happened in math realm, which cannot be physically experienced. Physical interactions between fields, particles, began only after the probability of their own existence reached above the mutual "perception" threshold. Before that, the universe was pure math. Just my two cents.

[@zaynabbas5404]

maxavail have you read Mullah Sadra?

[@maxavail]

Zayn Abbas No.

[@theotormon]

This sounds like a worldview that would quickly birth the ontological argument.

[@ptuffgong8504]

"We don't know yet". Perfect answer. Throwing God or an invisible man at it because we don't know is, well, stupid.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

Yup, that's all atheists can do: rather than go beyond physics, they pretend that there's nothing beyond physics. Interestingly enough, this is no different from the "God of the Gaps" argument; it demands that inquiry end right at the beginning of the universe.

[@hypnauticamusic]

@@barelyprotestant5365 Actually you have it backwards ... it's only religious people who pretend to know something. You're welcome.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

@@hypnauticamusic the example is literally right in front of your eyeballs.

[@hypnauticamusic]

@@barelyprotestant5365 Lol such a typical and cliche cop-out. Not surprised, though certainly pathetic I must say.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

@@hypnauticamusic do you have something other than middle school bullying tactics you want to say?

[@HumanAndroid18]

Hey Sean, is time real? I don't know but the big bang started at a moment in time.

[@phyl1283]

Did the "big bang" really start instantaneously or was it gradual over a long "warm up". Nobody knows or can know. No one will ever know. Furthermore, no one can prove that there was ever a "big bang" because of the amount of time that has elapsed since it was supposed to have "happened". WASTE OF TIME.

[@havenbastion]

Change is the universal substrate of material reality. Time is measured change and never existed until there was a mind to perceive it.

[@HumanAndroid18]

Time is real folks, we're passing through it all of the time. "Everything that has a beginning has an end."

[@rkinczel]

So infinites dont exist in reality, but the choices are an infitely old universe or an infinitely dense singularity?

[@jimgraf9483]

Limits always limits, only the expansion of theoretical approaches towards the limit of our interests.

[@LoboLocoX]

Basically we don't know shit!

[@tjejojyj]

KZbin Commentator Rick Not quite. Science just defines the boundary between what we do know and what we don’t. The contradiction is we both know more now and have more mysteries we don’t understand. “As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” Albert Einstein

[@michaelnelson3652]

Well, we do know quite a lot, but we don't know whether or not the universe has a beginning, only that there are models for it being infinite and finite. But Carroll has basically admitted elsewhere he doesn't care about metaphysics and is content not going beyond physics, his own field.

[@tjejojyj]

Plur What sort of “shit”? Like a vaccine to prevent polio?

[@LoboLocoX]

Scientist like Sean Carroll will dismiss God and the Supernatural and yet talk about The Multiverse, Observers, and a Wavelength that would govern such "Multiverse." For centuries Shamans that have used psychedelics have described multiple dimensions and in Norse beliefs they believe in a world tree that connects multiple universes as well, and so we dismiss ancient people and say their beliefs are bullshit while we now embrace beliefs that those people believed just in a different form, oh and now we call it "science".

[@tjejojyj]

Plur Putting aside the difference in meaning of “theory” for a scientist and its common usage, that’s one big “just”!

[@andrueworthy2380]

how can space be empty with particles in it? its obviously not empty and where did the particle come form?

[@kittyissu]

You need to learn some quantum mechanics to understand that. There is no such thing as empty space, because of the uncertainty principle. There are always particles and antiparticles creating and annihilating each other on such small time scales, we call them virtual particles.

[@WalterUnglaub]

The spacetime background would have to be populated with fields in their ground state. No field excitations = no real particles. Technically, this would be a classical vacuum (no particles) where virtual particles could exist, but to truly have nothing, you would have to not have any fields to begin with (so, "true" emptiness). It's an open question whether this is possible without removing the spacetime background entirely...

[@kittyissu]

That`s not true. There is never no field excitation. There will always be a creation and destruction of particle-antiparticle pairs due to the uncertainty principle. There is no way around it.

[@giambattistavico1]

the physicists here give you the answer from quantum theory: uncertainty. maybe you can also approach it from a philosophical point of view: nothing is also something. our human brain is wired to order reality through language, which works with oppositions. among these: something vs. nothing. but that is not necessarily (or likely) the way in which reality an sich functions. the opening of Hegel's Logic is in this respect enlightening (in my opinion).

[@dgodiex]

"Empty space" is not empty at all. It's actually pretty full, in such arrange that we perceive it as empty, (in contrast with what we call matter), but solid and so-called-space are both functions of the electromagentic fields.

[@robotaholic]

I wonder if the inflation rate could exponentially increase for infinity. And if so, maybe space got emptier and emptier until atoms were separated from each other so much that quantum fluctuations became extreme and caused a new bigbang for another universe.

[@EvolBob1]

+John Morris - Basically, yes. Now just fill in the blanks with the required maths and you can pickup your Nobel Prize.

[@kevinfairweather3661]

The problem with that idea is, quantum fluctuations are only small amounts of energy, the energy at the big bang was enormous..

[@robotaholic]

Kevin Fairweather but if you think about infinity, some fluctuations at some point are as vast as the big bang

[@EvolBob1]

*****- Interestingly enough if the Universe is not finite then 'Time' must be infinite, otherwise we have appeared and then we disappear, even if the universe lasts for 10^1000 years (in one form or another), when it ends - then it is over. Which is kind of a Catch22 situation ... how did the universe begin if it can only begin once? But if we start over more than once, it must go on forever, therefore 'Time' is infinite? How can that be? (scratches head) - long gone bald.

[@kevinfairweather3661]

What do you mean by, if i think about infinity ? Do you mean, given enough time, amongst lots of fluctuations, one of them is going to produce a universe ? All that energy from nothing, it just spontaneously sprung into existence.. But because gravity and matter cancel each other out, the process does not violate conservation of energy laws.. What happened to the other fluctuations though.. ?

[@arifabd]

At 7:28, he says "Empty space has a temperature which is not quite zero". If by empty space, he was referring to the universe before the big bang (which is what I think he was talking about; because he was attempting to explain an alternative theory for the reason for stuff to be present at big bang ), then that empty space has to be vacuum. In vacuum, there can be no temperature since there are no particles for energy exchange. Seems like a big jump to assume temperature.

[@i20010]

The universe is expanding - into what? Where is it located? What surrounds it? We know so little.

[@GrothendiecksWish]

Into space man, stop twisting easy ideas into complex things for the sake of argument.

[@simonfarrugia26]

My perception is that the universe began as far as I can recollect.

[@francocorelli2298]

A very young Sean Carroll. This interview must be over 10 years or more old.

[@markzambelli]

Sean Carroll... in my eyes he is the singularly perfect scientist to step into Carl Sagan's 'getting-across-complicated-cosmology-ideas shoes'... not the extended-polymath version of Sagan, admittedly, but just as good at instilling wonderment and awe... Carroll is amazing. Thankyou quantum mechanics for letting this version of my consciousness exist in one of the infinite versions where Carroll is a cosmologist... yay.

[@williamesselman3102]

Nope, no religion going on here.

[@federicopettinicchio]

The cool thing is that if the universe doesn't have a beginning the present is a feature of consciousness, not spacetime. It's much less challanging to posit a beginning because it's hard to even understand what the present being a product of consciousness would mean. For those missing a piece here, if the present is a feature of space-time and the universe didn't begin the present could never get here, which means it was already here, hence we experience the present because that's how we experience and not because the present exists, strictly speaking. Which would create all sorts of new questions, like what does it even mean to die if the present isn't real, do I just experience my life back from the top in some sort of loop? Does it change or is it static? All very curious notions spring forth if the universe didn't have a beginning. It's easier to think of space as not having a beginning and then time came along, less problematic than the present existing without getting here. In all honesty I think that the question should be does the present exist, because it seems like the compelling question here rather than having it as an implication of the universe not beginning.

[@plbyrne]

Puzzled why you first published these Sean Carroll videos 2 years ago and have just released this one (from the same session)

[@carlgreen5168]

Yeah.....very lame...

[@phleger1]

nothing ever began, its above our human comprehention

[@bobaldo2339]

And if the universe began, I did not notice at the time.

[@TheTheotherfoot]

@@bobaldo2339 We can't help it if you were asleep.

[@baronvonhoughton]

The universe began in 1976

[@andrewforrest108]

Manifestation did not begin, nor will it end..it appears timelessly, boundlessly, and just IS:)

[@havenbastion]

That's Actuality. Reality is our consensus experience OF Actuality. That includes all sorts of filters and understandings.

[@hitmanhatton]

If empty space is infinate and random fluctuations are natural. Then it only makes sense that the cycle of the universe we are in has happened infinate times or that there and there really was no beginning.

[@johnnymentero6313]

Unknowable -----> .

[@trickjacko8482]

Still his own alternative entails a beginning from an earlier universe. How isn't that a beginning?

[@MiteranOfficial]

it is a begening but the question is about the begininning.

[@luvdomus]

A beginning from an earlier universe is just a phase change from one state to another, not an ultimate beginning. Only stories have beginnings, it is just a literary/dramatic convention. When you describe reality you have to start somewhere.

[@trickjacko8482]

@@luvdomus Still that can't go forever

[@luvdomus]

@@trickjacko8482 Would would prevent inflation from continuing to produce universes into the future infinitely?

[@trickjacko8482]

@@luvdomus I guess nothing but it must be a starting point for us to be here right now

[@marijandesin8226]

So in the end his best guess is his best wish :) One has to start somewhere I guess

[@weaverkris9651]

Marijan Desin at least he is trying to figure it out. Would you rather he just guess while invoking nonsensical, imaginary supernatural beings who wave their magic wand? Maybe you just dont understand physics and cosmology. Nor do I, by the way.

[@desiderata8811]

I find wonderful that science searches for the beginning of the universe just using reason, math, observing... just using human mind. I thank this men and women for sharing their work.

[@michaeldeo5068]

I find it wonderful that our Human minds have been created to be able to understand what we are observing in the Creation!

[@corydorastube]

@@michaeldeo5068 That's a big burden of proof you have just shouldered there buddy.

[@michaeldeo5068]

@@corydorastube If you think that Humans minds can arise out of unthinking processes and be able to understand a universe that has also arisen out of unthinking processes, then That's a bigger burden of proof you have just shouldered there!

[@cube2fox]

@@michaeldeo5068 There is plenty of evidence that life evolved naturally, which includes humans. If this is the case, consciousness must have also evolved since humans are conscious. The god hypothesis in contrast doesn't help at all since presumably god is already assumed to be conscious, which would leave us with the task of explaining gods existence, which is even harder than explaining our own existence.

[@michaeldeo5068]

@@cube2fox "There is plenty of evidence that life evolved naturally, which includes humans. If this is the case, consciousness must have also evolved since humans are conscious. " The is absolutely no evidence that Energy/ matter exists without a beginning Or that life is derived from non-life! That is exactly why there are two big gaps in the religion of Scientism through naturalism. The Big bang theory states that the matter/energy we observe today, came from an expansion which is then extrapolated backwards to a mathematical, theoretical, high-density and high-temperature state called a singularity. There is a gap as to were this singularity containing all the energy and matter in the universe came from. There is a gap as to what the universe is expanding inside of. and there is a gap on the cause of this expansion. Abiogenesis, life from non-life, spontaneous generation has been disproved and is not considered science. It is just an assumption that life can come from non-life and then evolve into the creatures we observe today.So to even get to macro- evolution, there is another big gap. Do you see the pattern? Do you see the lack of evidence? "The god hypothesis in contrast doesn't help at all since presumably god is already assumed to be conscious, which would leave us with the task of explaining gods existence, which is even harder than explaining our own existence. " There is a fundamental flaw in your thinking! "God" or the God of gods, the Mighty One over all, IS Existence and the only Source of it. That is literally the meaning of the Supreme Beings name, Yahweh, which has been hidden and taken out of the text for so long. Which is harder, to explain how The Source of Reality as Self-Awareness, could cause our Self-awareness or Non-awareness as the Source of ultimate reality and the cause of our self-awareness? We, individual self-aware, conscious beings are made in the image of the Ultimate Reality, the Source Being that IS Self-Awareness and because that is true, the fundamental reality that pocesses self-determination to be the first cause, that began causality. The Supreme Being/The One who IS the Source of Existence is the only logical hypothesis. All the evidence points to this conclusion, from the Creation, the information and design in the creation. The Laws that govern the Creation. The Laws of thought/Logic. The Transcendentals. Our Moral oughts etc. The fact that trying to exist without appealing to any of these leads to contradictions and absurdity in thinking. Most of all, the Word of Yahweh, makes the truth about our existence, history and destiny known to all who want to know and are not suppressing the truth! Shalom/Peace

[@phillynott2459]

I want to know THE answer

[@deborahhayden1286]

It is not directionally expanding. It is emotionally transforming.

[@xatyiswatom5420]

He said everything was closer together, well, how did everything come into existence? Science proves that there was one molecule, where did that one molecule come from? Some say it all began with energy, how did that energy come about?

[@corydorastube]

Good questions. They will not be answered by someone claiming "God did it"

[@jessewallace12able]

You dont know, in other words.

[@josephking4128]

Can't be known,but can be talked about.

[@chinsinsichilimtsidya3065]

yes, no idea indeed.

[@praveend4000]

Thinking that there was a beginning itself is an assumption.. Its a limitation of thought to think that there was a beginning

[@meatmasala2656]

What a wise man.👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@redace6649]

He says general relativity is wrong because it predicts a singularity which allows for infinities. Yet he also goes around saying black holes exist, which also lead to the same type of scenario with matter being packed so close that general relativity predicts there would be infinities... smh

[@redace6649]

@Ψ Saying that you "expect" quantum effects to prevent a singularity in a black hole, without understanding how this expectation would result from quantum effects, isn't a demonstration of you having more knowledge of physics than anyone. Furthermore, if you are willing to accept the existence of a cosmological singularity at the beginning, then you are claiming that you don't believe that a singularity is impossible and thus your "expectation" that a singularity could not exist inside of a black hole is not reasonable or consistent with your own logic.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Neil Turok mentioned that the current interpretation of the big bang implies a synchronized reference frame, or in other words a universe that behaves like a clock. Every day has a designated beginning at the end of the previous one and the measure of time sub units depends on universal synch having validity. In infinite time, it is the connection of all information in the ultimate day of existence that has the characteristics that are measurable from the "stastical" nature of wave interference, so entire, (interpenitrating) universes may evolve and disperse within a "mathematically complete" whole; condensing and dispersing in cyclical recombination. This much is apparent by observation.

[@davidwilkie9551]

So we all live in denial? If time doesn't exist then existence does not exist, and everyone is fooled by the illusion of space time. "No time" is what the White Rabbit said on behalf of a certain Mathematician, but maybe he was one of those who thought everything was consciousness without any objective.

[@ricomajestic]

Prove that time doesn't exist!

[@davidwilkie9551]

ricomajestic ? If we know time exists, ..is existence, ..that the physical universe made of clock-like behaviour measures only time, then it's a bit difficult to disprove, but if you are a good enough Mathematician you can try. I would approach the Clay Institute instead of wasting my time on KZbin?

[@danweaver4304]

“Empty space has a temperature” - if you use Quantum Electro-Dynamics to change the definition of “temperature” and “empty space”. These people are treated as intelligent; I think Physicists are rolling their eyes at Cosmologists.

[@johnk7302]

I'm not a hundred percent certain that you grasp temperature.

[@danweaver4304]

J Kimmich - Certainly not. Not the way these fools define it. The classical definition of temperature in thermodynamics has always been “a measure of the average kinetic energy” among all of the molecules in a volume. QM redefined temperature, because it had no meaning at subatomic levels.

[@mk71b]

But then, it is a virtual temperature, lol. Sean gets away with virtually anything, or should I say nothing? I rest my case...

[@whatshisname3304]

its funny how you talk knowledgeably QM and yet you still talk about GOD being uncreated and eternal. I suppose you're going to say QM explains god now. though if you could i would not a believer but it would suggest the possibility of beings living in a different dimension. that would be interesting.

[@unleashed93]

Dunning-Kruger specimen number 1 here, ladies and gentlemen.

[@StoryGordon]

Good question. Nobody knows, but as the story goes, life begins when the last child has left home and the dog has died... Ba-Boom

[@tedgrant2]

One thing we can be sure about is that there will be another advert.

[@DataPastor]

Great and entertaining speculations.

[@diplexskittish4161]

All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning -- Alexander Vilenkin

[@Detson404]

There’s no consensus on that, so right now that’s just one physicist’s conclusion.

[@reocejacobs1259]

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning....all the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” - Alexander Vilenkin

[@maujo2009]

You didn't watch the video, did you? He said, provided GR is correct, which it isn't.

[@reocejacobs1259]

Mau Jo The proof that the universe had a beginning is not predicated on whether or not gr is correct or not. It holds true irregardless of other cosmological theories or assumptions.

[@reocejacobs1259]

Mau Jo www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/s/427722/mathematics-of-eternity-prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/amp/?client=ms-android-verizon

[@emiltchernev1419]

"The proof that the universe had a beginning is not predicated on whether or not gr is correct or not." This is false. The link you provided also does not talk about general relativity or quantum mechanics. Are you even aware as to why general relativity breaks down and what that means for the BGV theorem? Also, have you looked into the numerous plausible models for the universe? Your link only mentions a few.

[@reocejacobs1259]

Emil Tchernev As I said the BGV theorem does not rely on gr. It holds true regardless of the veracity of gr.

[@fourtrees44]

Why is general relatively considered wrong if it has passed all of its tests and and its predictions? Not trolling or anything, genuinely curious.

[@franklipsky149]

TREE FORREST Good question? .We know Newton's laws are fantastically accurate but they are an approximation according to General Relativity because there is no such thing gravity- Einstein's laws require gravity to be replace by space-time curvature and are very accurate for cosmological scales/masses.The equations of GR are partial continuous differential equations .QM are probability equations for the smallest masses (which should not be surprising) observation(detection )requires energy and that implies uncertainty (even if only a photon is detected)Heisenberg quantified this uncertainty Why GR AND QR must be unified they are simply differences of scale plus the systematic errors of scale plus the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle I have not seen the uncertainty principle applied on a macro scale

[@sleepy314]

Tree Forrest, GR is not 'wrong', just limited (to 'big' things). Newton's theory of gravity is not 'wrong', just more limited (to slow things). See LDP LDP reply for more details.

[@jamesgardner9583]

Very good 👍Brother James 🙏

[@johnaugsburger6192]

Thanks

[@bobaldo2339]

So right away, we hear that infinite mass and infinitely fast expansion (a "singularity") can't be right (because of the infinity, but infinite time is just fine? Yeah.....sure.

[@substantivalism6787]

Bob Aldo He knows his shit, you don't know shit.

[@konnektlive]

@Justin Orosz, typical religious behaviour from a wannabe science follower ^^ no explanation, no counter argument no questions no nothing. You know what? You are the same old religious type person who has been born in this age, hence you became a religious atheist. And no I'm not religious not atheist nor agnostic. Yes there are other paths to choose except these 3. Go figure. On the point though, yes it seems like a contradiction, but then again the empirical science is full of contradictions and in fact at the end of the day it's the individual scientist who choose to believe in his or her favourite version of theories. My question is, why scientists use the term infinity without knowing what is actually means? Infinite worlds does not even have meaning, infinite time does not even make sense. Actual infinity means no beginning no middle no end; hence one can not say *our universe* is just one of them. It is just plain wrong, numbers such as 1 has meaning only in a limited mathematical sense, one can say 1 out of 100, or 1 out of 100000 or 1 out of 1(gazillion zeros), but one can not say 1 out of infinite! Simply because based on the very definition of infinity, it can not ever reach a point in time to let the number 1 exist in the first place, in other words, where could be our universe in an infinite universe? Close to the beginning? In the middle? At the end of infinity? See? it's stupid and meaningless. Now personally I think unless science does not change its fundamental epistemological approach we would not see big improvements. We need to properly deal with the problem of infinity in our equations (not just ignore it as of now) and also take the problem of Consciousness seriously and go beyond a limited mostly positivist and purely physicalist approach.

[@JohnnyAmerique]

That’s not actually true. With no mass, as is thought to be the condition of the universe in the very remote future, time ceases to have any meaning. Without mass, you can’t have time/entropy, and without time, you cannot measure scale. The expansion of the universe will therefore truly be infinite, which coincides with the condition of the very early universe. Thus, it has been proposed that the infinite expansion of the far future is physically equivalent to the infinite expansion of the the Big Bang - in effect, the universe forgets what size it is. This model is known as Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, and is gaining in popularity as the predictions of the inflationary model have failed to pan out.

[@judychurley6623]

There all sorts of infinities.

[@sleuth2077]

This is why man created gods. Our human minds can't grasp something coming from nothing or not having a beginning and an end. So it's much easier to say an almighty being in the sky made everything and then you don't have to think about the scary unknown.

[@redbearwarrior4859]

In short Sean Carroll does not know if the universe began or not.

[@randomblueguy]

In short, nobody knows whether the universe began or not, and anybody who claims that he knows is either ignorant or lying. Quite possibly both.

[@redbearwarrior4859]

@@randomblueguy I'm curious, how do you know that nobody knows if the universe began to exist or not?

[@williamesselman3102]

Turns out, we know as much about our existence now as we did when we inhabited holes in the ground and traced our shadows on cave walls by the Light of the fires we had started by rubbing sticks together.

[@randomblueguy]

@@williamesselman3102 Not exactly, but I’d agree that we don’t know much from that point on relative to what is yet to be known.

[@williamesselman3102]

I would love to here the conclusion to whatever discovery we have made that has answered any of the big questions we've always had. Maybe you can elucidate for me. Answer just one. Why is there something rather than nothing? Is our universe real? ... Do we have free will? ... Does God exist? ... Is there life after death? ... Can you really experience anything objectively? ... What is the best moral system? ... What are numbers? kzbin.infobRfPkjZ_MtI

[@mynameispaul0530]

anything with a "beginning" can not be infinite

[@zeroonetime]

Unless it happens SIMULTANEOUSLY

[@redskinStu]

Simple as that

[@lawnmowerman7]

if empty space has particles, then it's not empty space

[@michaelnelson3652]

Yep, same problem with Krauss's argument. Empty space/quantum vacuum's etc. are NOT nothing.

[@sapnapaul3477]

Empty space has virtual particles

[@PhrontDoor]

There is no such thing as truly empty space. For decades now, it's been rather a cornerstone of modern physics that the concept of a 'nothing' is a philosophical fiction. You can say that there is nothing in a set of things (like nothing is smaller than zero, but that doesn't mean that a 'nothing' is the thing that is smaller than zero). But the premise of there ever having been an actual 'nothing' is something that physics precludes. The more you try to 'empty' the space, the more energy you will put in, guaranteeing more virtual particles and, after a certain point, even causing the creation of standard particles.

[@martinw245]

Patrick Correct re empty space not being truly empty. But if our space-time was created at or at some time prior to the big bang, then the fabric of reality, space and time, were created at that moment, including virtual particles in the quantum vacuum. So prior to this event there would be a true void, no matter, no energy, no virtual particles, absolutely nothing. I suspect a true void is impossible though, I suspect either an eternal higher dimensional space or an eternal inflaton field was present. Or some other eternal realm from which everything arose. Its important to pint out that Shaun wasn't referring to a true void that generated a big bang, he was referring to a space time fabric like ours, but just empty. As our universe continues to expand, we will reach a point where it too is empty, so akin to a state prior to the big bang. From the stretched fabric of space time a new big bang could occur. Could be an endless cycle.

[@PhrontDoor]

Martin W, before the event? There was no before the event if time starts there. But if you want to pretend/assert that TIME could exist before the event (ie., before time existed) THEN you'd have no way to claim/assert that other things like space didn't exist with virtual particles.

[@anaabdallahbnabdallah5229]

He simply doesn't want to state that the universe has a beginning because the consequences of that statement, not because a scientific evidence.

[@AdamAdamHDL]

ana abd allah bn abd allah No it's because if it has a beginning the puzzle ends. We're stuck having to accept we dont know. If it doesn't the puzzle continues and people get to keep thinking about it. If you're insinuating he doesn't want to believe in God I disagree. There is ample room for believing in God while also trying to solve this puzzle.

[@DudeImWayBetter]

Adam Adam I bet he he damn well knows that hawking radiation comes from outside the event horizon and not the true singularity but he falsely claims that it comes from the singularity to try and discredit the possibility of true nothingness, and that's all he has, it's complete bogusness.

[@AdamAdamHDL]

@@DudeImWayBetter Ok think what you want.

[@DudeImWayBetter]

Adam Adam this isn't a think what I want, hawking radiation doesn't come from the singularity that's a fact.

[@AdamAdamHDL]

@@DudeImWayBetter It's a prediction as far as I am aware. And the people who make these predictions are physicists. Most of the time scientists say stuff that turns out to be wrong, but also they are the ones discovering they were wrong, not commenters on KZbin calling them liars. So yes this is very much a "think what you want" moment.

[@NothingMaster]

This is the most glorified and torturous form of dodging the question that I’ve ever heard.

[@karinas.1320]

How about you get a PhD in physics and tell us your cosmological theory then oh wise one

[@jackhammer8439]

Because time is relative to mass and gravity. The more mass the slower time passes. So if in the “beginning” the universe was infinitely dense how would that effect time and a concept of the first moment in the universe?

[@notlegalinvestigations9055]

One thing is there will all ways be more stuff out there.

[@havenbastion]

In Actuality the universe is undifferentiated stuff doing stuff. It's only things doing things to a mind.

[@vorpal22]

Sean Carroll, I want to have your babies.

[@robotaholic]

he is so good

[@vorpal22]

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks he is utterly amazing. He is definitely my #1 role model and I just love listening to him talk on time and cosmology.

[@1234nateman]

he wants to have yours!

[@naimulhaq9626]

WHY? He fails to explain how science of the standard model explain fine tuning of parameter space by an Intelligent designer succeeded in delivering life and consciousness which empowers our thought to go beyond the universe. I wouldn't want you to have my babies.

[@1234nateman]

You WILL have his Babies!! It is prophecy

[@markusperscheid4278]

It is hard to imagine nothing. That, may be, is the problem. Imagine something is more easy, no matter how small it is. We must look for that something, to get answers. And it is changing all the time , the only truth in our world. To get the reason for changing could lead to an answer, because this is the beeing.

[@nadavdanieli]

Ask: how does a hot dense universe cools down? Since it hot and dense it should stay this way. It's expending! Or is it really?. Maybe it's not expanding but matter get smaller as it "cools off" that energy it emits is what we call space, and space density now increases and continue to increase as we lose energy. Then "empty space" which is just energy may "big bang" again.

[@jeanetteyork2582]

You would benefit from studying classic thermodynamics...just as a start, if you haven't already done so. Just reading a basic text on the subject would answer your questions about the process of cooling.

[@thebatmanover9000]

Hello, my name is Wade!

[@Foolwithouthumility]

Even better news is that that Empty Space is probably Acausal and Aware. Why do we assume that only matter(energy without insentience) and not consciousness can be acausal?