Where do particles come from? - Sixty Symbols

Professor Ed Copeland discusses the origin of particles - including talk about inflation, re-heating, the Big Bang, and oscillons. More links and info below ↓ ↓ ↓
New paper by Ed and collaborators...
Formation and decay of oscillons after inflation in the presence of an external coupling, Part-I: Lattice simulations: arxiv.org/abs/...
More Ed on Sixty Symbols: • Ed Copeland - Sixty Sy...
Ed's trilogy on the sofa: • Ed Copeland Longer Int...
Ed discusses his career on the Numberphile Podcast: • An A-Class Reject (wit...
Reheating after Inflation by Kofman, Linde and Starobinsky: arxiv.org/abs/...
Oscillons: Resonant Configurations During Bubble Collapse: arxiv.org/abs/...
Patreon: / sixtysymbols
The University of Nottingham physics: bit.ly/NottsPhy...
Sixty Symbols videos by Brady Haran
Animation by Pete McPartlan
www.bradyharanb...
Email list: eepurl.com/YdjL9

[@sixtysymbols]

More Ed on Sixty Symbols: kzbin.info/aero/PLcUY9vudNKBNtF1y-sneLuyCTE-Mda561

[@conanobrien1]

Can you ask professor to explain the "flat" universe bit? I didn't understand most of what he was saying, but that part wasn't logical at all to me.

[@jormam69]

@@conanobrien1 curvature of space can be measured by measuring angles. Say you have laser beam and direct it with mirrors in such a way that the beam makes a complete triangle. In a flat space the sum of angles in such triangle would be 180 degrees, same what is used in Euclidean geometry. If the space has a negative or positive curvature, the sum of the angles in such triangle could be larger or smaller than 180 degrees

[@watchmobiletvnow]

Have you changed microphones for recording or changed compressor, audio sound to polished and weird. Ed´s voice sounds different.

[@conanobrien1]

@@jormam69 Would that be the same (similar) as when they say big objects (black holes or galaxies) curve space-time?

[@tupublicoful]

We need more Prof Copeland on the whiteboard.

[@philanderson5138]

Love hearing Brady's questions - it's like having a representative for physics interested amateurs like me - but asking the right key questions. amazing video as ever...

[@biopsiesbeanieboos55]

It’s the opposite of political interviews, when the journalists always seem to be half asleep and never ask the most obvious questions.

[@joetec6674]

My favourite Sixty Symbols professor :)

[@michaelsheffield6852]

I do like his delivery

[@xlimonade]

Ye, mine too.

[@SarmonOflynn]

His disposition is just so different from the image I have in my mind when someone says "physics professor," and it is wonderful.

[@jaybertulus]

yes

[@garyhuntress6871]

All the presenters are excellent, but i must say he is my favorite too (Tied with Sir Martyn I suppose)

[@Rubrickety]

I eagerly await the Ed Copeland workout video.

[@Altorin]

Flatness is best described with triangles. Triangles made in flat space are 3 angles that add up to 180 degrees. Very very large triangles measured across the observable universe likewise would have 3 angles adding up to 180 degrees.

[@LeeKennedy-cc6il]

The distribution of matter is uniform. However time displays a different distribution of matter indifferent at time.

[@nitinjaglan]

Professor copeland is the professor we never had in uni/school but one we always wanted. Great to see him again on 60 symbols

[@iridium8341]

Inflation their is stupidest coping mechanism invented. It's funny his name is Copeland too.

[@robertelessar]

Maybe call the initiation of inflation "The Cold Open".

[@sjzara]

That’s brilliant!

[@SarmonOflynn]

In Universe Res?

[@JustinWatersJustinWaters]

If it's within an eternal inflation model, call it the "quick stop."

[@aretorta]

Naaah, I suggest The Blow Out.

[@SarmonOflynn]

@@aretorta prolapsed singularity?

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

I love how he talked so enthusiastically about those ocelots.

[@jacobscrackers98]

Yes, they love to vibrate when they purr.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

@@jacobscrackers98 THIS! YES! 🤣😂🤣😅

[@chaunceyfeatherstone6209]

Baboo...?

[@kendemajoros4617]

Yes, like a new David Attenborough

[@Simon-xi8tb]

ocelots give me the shits

[@jajssblue]

This is the best condensed explanation of the inflation model I've heard. Great science communication.

[@kendemajoros4617]

Yeah, most understandable of all I heard too. Incidentally, the only one also.

[@SpriteGuard]

"you need a better term for the start of inflation" I feel like this is a good point to incorporate the term Horrendous Space Kablooie, introduced by the Watterson-Calvin-Hobbes paper.

[@MichaelPiz]

Well then. I've been following physics with a rather close layman's interest for about 45 years and this is the first time I've heard that the "hot big bang" came _after_ inflation. Quite a revelation for me and it makes me want to see an episode of Sixty Symbols or Numberphile where someone with the level of knowledge of Dr Copeland is in the middle of this sort of explanation and suddenly stops, gets a blank, mildly puzzled look on his face, says, "I've just thought of something I hadn't before," and goes into some furious computation which results in the solution to a heretofore unsolved physics/mathematics problem, yielding a massive breakthrough in the field. So let's get crackin' guys!

[@crappymeal]

You're got roughly a one hour in 60 years chance of that happening 😅

[@schawo2]

HBB is not equal to BB. BB was BEFORE inflation, HBB is just a new fancy term for saying "after inflation".

[@MichaelPiz]

@@schawo2 Hm. I must have misinterpreted what the video was saying. I'll give it another look. Thanks.

[@dan.j.boydzkreationz]

It's because the whole thing is still conjecture and we really don't know whether there even was a beginning

[@walesbkb]

@@dan.j.boydzkreationz a "beginning" makes no sense for the universe.

[@mpmpm]

This is complicated.

[@askani21]

That's why it's fun! Fun is measured by the size of the aneurysm 😂

[@NeonsStyleHD]

WOW!!! That was by far THE Single BEST video this channel has produced in the last 13 years! It was deep, didn't dumb it down, explained it beautifully and filled a bloody big hole in my understanding of cosmology! I can't thank you enough! I can't wait to see what happens to the expansion rate of 1/H as Dark Energy becomes better understood; assuming I'm still here! BIG *_Thankyou!_*

[@swagatsauravmishra]

Excellent video! 🎉 Many thanks for the kind reference to our work (and our new paper at the end). Ed and Brady rock !! Will think of a new term for the start of inflation in our next paper :-)

[@robertelessar]

I'm just going to give a second plug for my suggestion "The Cold Open", like the pre-credit scene in movies or shows. ^_^

[@TheGeoffable]

If something hasn't yet inflated it must be a period of flacidity? ;)

[@tsuchan]

Without a doubt. Ed is just one big cuddly hug of physics.

[@DonDueed]

I'll nominate "The Big Breath", such as one would take before inflating a balloon. It would make the creationists happy and maybe they'd shut up for awhile.

[@funkbungus137]

is there a name for the sound you make right before you blow up a balloon? like ya know, the gulp of air you take as you lean back slightly and tilt your head up in preparation for blowing it up. Insufflation is the only word that comes to mind. though that's an imperfect fit.

[@mastershooter64]

Okay, we're having this conversation. So...when a mommy particle and a daddy particle love each other very much....

[@beebhaz]

Cant daddy particle love another daddy particle?

[@WilliamLeeSims]

Too funny! I came down to suggest the name "Conception".

[@johndeaux8815]

​@beebhaz as long as they they're both positive (or both negative) they should get along quite well

[@NicholasEllis-rs3nx]

This is like an early Christmas present i adore Sixty Symbols (10 years goes by Fast!)

[@MoneyChanger02]

…a stork particle brings them a baby particle, and that’s how you create a family…i mean, hadron.

[@aL3891_]

cannot go wrong with an Professor Copeland video :)

[@tiagotiagot]

The curvature of space thing is better illustrated by talking about the principles of Euclidean geometry. There are a few ways to approach it, but for me what comes to mind first is stuff about infinite parallel lines. In a flat space, parallel lines remain parallel forever; in a positively curved space, parallel lines will converge, and in a negatively curved space, parallel lines will diverge. This works the same if you're talking about a 2d surface (the ball and saddle visuals there) as well as 3d space. Gravity introduces positive curvature, and Dark Energy introduces negative curvature, and it turns out it all seems to balance out at larger scales making the Universe as a whole "flat" in all ways that have been attempted to measure it (IIRC, in general the margin of error is so small in most circumstances the curvature is treated as just being perfectly zero).

[@GeoffryGifari]

Did the inflaton field vanish completely (from the Lagrangian?) or is it like the top quark field whose particle can still be accessed at the right conditions? Does it contribute to the universe's vacuum energy density?

[@helvio89]

A reference to a Brazilian scientist, Marcelo Gleiser. Let's go 🇧🇷

[@robsim37]

Parametric Resonance... "Pre-heating" is the technical term... Ummm, Parametric Resonance seems significantly more technical...

[@screamengine]

The real mystery is how does that last bit of toothpaste seem to last longer than the rest of the tube did?

[@jipangoo]

I was thinking the same thing

[@iLLadelph267]

i always love Professor Copeland and his giddy excitement explaining the fine details in the maths leading to the speculative conclusions and especially his recognition of their benefits and flaws. he's always ready to answer Brady's harder questions and can point immediately to the maths for any given wonderment. its stuff like this that inspires me to further pursue astrophysics as a career

[@flymypg]

This specific area is worthy of at least a dozen more videos, perhaps with collaborators, such as other channels in the "Bradyverse", and Matt at PBS Space Time. Or perhaps start with a master playlist of the best videos in this area, with new content only to fill gaps and/or generalize the whole. The Hot Big Bang starts with the unification of almost all fields, where at increasing energy levels the electromagnetic and weak fields unify into the electroweak field, and the other fields unify at ever higher energies until all are unified into a single "grand" field. It is thought the Higgs is the second field to separate, preceded only by the inflaton, with the others following in short order. The "Cold" Big Bang creates (or is created with) the unified field (that also includes the inflaton), and it is the separation of the inflaton field that drives the HBB. Or at least that's what I gather to be the case. I've not kept up well with research in this area. As the temperature of the universe continues to drop, each combined field separates in turn, excitations in that field create both the specific force-carrying particles and the particles upon which they act, such as the photon being the force carrier between charged particles for the electromagnetic field, and gluons being the force particles between quarks in the strong field. With other fields for the quark colors and flavors. However, the photons in the plasma presumed to be present in the electromagnetic field when it separates is NOT what we see as the CMB! The CMB was generated much later, by a different mechanism. What determines the temperature at which each field will separate (with cooling) or will unify (with heating)? What determines what happens within each field as it separates? (The Higgs in an especially delicious example.) Professor Copeland shows that even superficial exposure to the math can yield fascinating diagrams that in turn can motivate high-level discussion in a generally comprehensible manner. I had not previously heard of "oscillons", yet quickly comprehended how they fit into the overall picture. More please!

[@dr.merlot1532]

Particles come from Donald Trumps upper part of his right ear.

[@evanm6739]

Ok

[@sorlag110]

There's something real strange going on with the sound, like robotic, sounds like adobe enhanced audio??

[@sorlag110]

14:53 sounds especially like adobe enhanced speech, the way his voice drops down very artificially

[@NicholasEllis-rs3nx]

My 10 year subscription and I’m so excited to see a rare Ed new video dropped Thanks guy!

[@sixtysymbols]

Thanks for your loyalty.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

​@@sixtysymbols 1) When was space-time born? 2) Where the initial insane amount of Potential Energy comes from? 3) If mass is created by interaction with Higgs and that interaction bends space then is gravity the interaction with Higgs?

[@NicholasEllis-rs3nx]

FreeCourseWare from KZbin here in the states has been incredible, with that said your channel and specific content is the cherry on top. Thank you sincerely Sixty Symbols I always recommend the channel to others. Sincerely.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

@@sixtysymbols So he says the system of equations is nonlinear 21:00, right? So I assume whatever system of nonlinear equations he is talking about are PDEs (partial differential equations) or even combinations of PDEs and functional and integral equations. That's what we differential algebraists work on. We work on finding exact solutions. I own three large handbooks by Soviet authors on differential equationd, the largest of which is the 2nd edition of "Handbook of Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations" by Andrei D Polyanin and Valentin F Zaitsev, followed by 2nd edition of "Handbook of Linear Partial Differential Equations for Engineers and Scientists" by Andrei D Polyanin and Vladimir E Nazaikinskii, and 2nd edition of "Handbook of Exact Solutions for Ordinary Differential Equations". The ODE book is especially full of exact solutions of different types of nonlinear ODEs. All of the solutions are obtained by looking at differential symmetries of the ODEs. I still do not understand quite how they are getting these symmetries. The ODE book, but especially the nonlinear PDE book, have excellent sections on the general theory of differential symmetries. But, I cannot match that general theory up with the many many examples of exact solutions they find. I would really LOVE to sit down with somebody to help me work that out together. Nevertheless, one very general pattern that arises from these solutions is that ALL of them can be expressed, parametrically, by a finite tower of intermediate variables, where one variable in this tower satisfies a linear ODE over the differential ring generated by the variable below it. i.e. given G(x,y,dy/dx)=0 there exists a tower v1, v2, v3,..., v(m), t and another tower w1, w2, w3,..., w(n), t and some final common variable, t, below it, such that x satisfies a linear ODE w.r.t. t over Z{v1} = differential ring generated by v1=v1(t) over the integers, Z, with derivation D such that Dt=1, and v1 satisfies a linear ODE w.r.t. t over Z{v2} and so on until v(m) satisfies linear ODE over Z[t]. Similarly, y satisfies a linear ODE w.r.t. t over Z{w1} = differential ring generated by w1=w1(t) over the integers, Z, with derivation D such that Dt=1, and w1 satisfies a linear ODE w.r.t. t over Z{w2} and so on until w(n) satisfies linear ODE over Z[t].

[@invariant47]

it feels like seeing the professor after 100yrs

[@GeoffryGifari]

Would be cool if there were a 3D simulation of curved space and objects in it, so we can experience it more vividly

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

So he says the system of equations is nonlinear 21:00, right? So I assume whatever system of nonlinear equations he is talking about are PDEs (partial differential equations) or even combinations of PDEs and functional and integral equations. That's what we differential algebraists work on. We work on finding exact solutions. I own three large handbooks by Soviet authors on differential equationd, the largest of which is the 2nd edition of "Handbook of Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations" by Andrei D Polyanin and Valentin F Zaitsev, followed by 2nd edition of "Handbook of Linear Partial Differential Equations for Engineers and Scientists" by Andrei D Polyanin and Vladimir E Nazaikinskii, and 2nd edition of "Handbook of Exact Solutions for Ordinary Differential Equations". The ODE book is especially full of exact solutions of different types of nonlinear ODEs. All of the solutions are obtained by looking at differential symmetries of the ODEs. I still do not understand quite how they are getting these symmetries. The ODE book, but especially the nonlinear PDE book, have excellent sections on the general theory of differential symmetries. But, I cannot match that general theory up with the many many examples of exact solutions they find. I would really LOVE to sit down with somebody to help me work that out together. Nevertheless, one very general pattern that arises from these solutions is that ALL of them can be expressed, parametrically, by a finite tower of intermediate variables, where one variable in this tower satisfies a linear ODE over the differential ring generated by the variable below it. i.e. given G(x,y,dy/dx)=0 there exists a tower v1, v2, v3,..., v(m), t and another tower w1, w2, w3,..., w(n), t and some final common variable, t, below it, such that x satisfies a linear ODE w.r.t. t over Z{v1} = differential ring generated by v1=v1(t) over the integers, Z, with derivation D such that Dt=1, and v1 satisfies a linear ODE w.r.t. t over Z{v2} and so on until v(m) satisfies linear ODE over Z[t]. Similarly, y satisfies a linear ODE w.r.t. t over Z{w1} = differential ring generated by w1=w1(t) over the integers, Z, with derivation D such that Dt=1, and w1 satisfies a linear ODE w.r.t. t over Z{w2} and so on until w(n) satisfies linear ODE over Z[t].

[@trespire]

So if I understand, we now differentiate between some initial singularity and a "hot" big bang ? Wasn't aware of that. Seems everything starts and ends with scalar fields, while everything else is just a consiquence. Can't be easy to present such complex ideas in a simplified way for others to be able to grasp, great team work by Prof. Ed Coperland & Brady.

[@Ian.Murray]

Is there some sort of effect or compression on Ed's voice in this particular video? It almost sounds like his audio is clipping or he's been autotuned.

[@benoitb.3679]

Yeah! I was looking for this. Sounds like it been pitched down or he's got a cold or something

[@benoitb.3679]

I'm not complaining or trying to be rude!

[@viceyyy]

Glad I wasn't alone in this thought. Feels like there may be distortion from any audio level normalization is my guess, since Ed isn't wearing a microphone and his distance from the mic probably isn't constant

[@pmcpartlan]

Mic broke, so we had to fix up the camera audio the best we could

[@romanieo]

This is Terrence Howard with a degree. Where is Eric Weinstein? 📡

[@lobohez7222]

Q:Whats this thing that cause magnets to attract each other? A: We dont really know Q:what happened 13.8b yeara ago? A:that we know precisly well, Universe apeared out of nothing just like that.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

Nope, both answers are "we don't fully know"

[@XXusernameunknownXX]

Great video. He always makes these complex concepts understandable.

[@droppedpasta]

I had been wondering what Dr. Copeland was up to. I don’t understand it, but it’s good to hear from him anyway

[@robdevries2621]

We need way more Ed Copeland on this channel!

[@mxlexrd]

The idea of the universe being flat must be one of the most misunderstood concepts in physics. I can't count the number of times I've talked to laypeople who have heard this and think it means the universe is a flat plane. Unfortunately I don't think the professor's answer to your question innthis video helped that cause. Maybe this warrants a special video in the style of your old "does light slow down in glass" video, to set the record straight.

[@1104Tea]

in all fairness its not a very intuitive concept and it can be difficult to explain to people that you might call a layperson. I get the ideas needed and its still sometimes hard to wrap my mind around the idea of it.

[@mxlexrd]

@@1104Tea Yeah, I've tried to explain large scale spatial curvature to a few different people with mixed success. The classic analogy people always use is the surface of the earth, but extending to 3 dimensions is tricky. One guy didn't even believe me when I said parallel trajectories on earth come together. Plus there's the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic curvature...

[@volbla]

I think i got a better appreciation of "the metric of spacetime" by playing around with simpler metrics. With chess distance one diagonal step has the same length as one axis-aligned step, meaning that a circle (i.e. constant distance from the center) has the shape of a square. With manhattan/taxicab distance one diagonal step is two axis-aligned steps, meaning a circle has the shape of a rhombus. Understanding that the very notion of "distance" depends on how/what we measure felt like a revelation. But curvature is about direction rather than distance (i think). I still don't really understand what the heck intrinsic curvature means. Maybe the best analogy is still the Asteroids video game. It takes place on a flat surface but the edges are connected making it topologically a torus 🤷‍♂️

[@nickdumas2495]

@@mxlexrd Try going with "Stand on the equator; we'll all walk due north on parallel paths. And it then gets crowded by the time you reach Canada." ;)

[@tonywells6990]

It's a really simple concept. Just tell them that 'flat' means all lines on a 3D grid are parallel and straight!

[@slugface322]

In the year 2135 humankind is moments away from energizing the first ever prototype oscillion generator experiment. In an instantaneous manner, human-like extraterrestrials appear and communicate in a non-verbal manner, too the scientists that the prototype generator will be successful in creating another Universe. However this mustn't be allowed to occur. Guess what happens next 🤪

[@frognik79]

Picture an oscillon like a spherical cow...

[@backwashjoe7864]

How much friction does the cow have?

[@Woad25]

Is the cow in a vacuum?

[@MegaOoga]

I love your drive to name things, scientists are spending all their energy on doing science and leaving none left for the creativity of naming things.

[@AdamKlingenberger]

When we let physicists name things, we get “quarks” which have “flavors” like “charm” and “strange”

[@therealpbristow]

@@AdamKlingenberger They need a branding manager, stat. =:o}

[@chaosking911]

"let me ask you a question". "Sure thing, I'll promptly bulldoze through it, without giving an answer, right back to my lil speach". Trash tier educator alarms are ringing loud in this one.

[@djayjp]

An absolutely flat universe is exactly what would be expected if the total energy content of the universe equals zero. Then again there could be a false vacuum (but that's something that would need an additional explanation).

[@Charity4Chokora]

How is this not Roger Penrose's cycler universe

[@nikitaelizarov7444]

When professor Copeland retires, he has an ASMR-artist career waiting for him.

[@NomenNescio99]

Professor Copeland, it's always very nice to listen to this gentleman. There ought to be more content with him on youtube.

[@6099x]

prof copeland is not only very nice, but always very insightful

[@bjarnevarme9830]

My brain hurts 😊

[@creatorsremose]

"...where we think these particles come from." Such an important and wise phrasing... and then there're articles and documentaries stating these hypotheses as fact. I wish more educators were like Prof. Copeland.

[@denisdaly1708]

Lots of science books. There would be no particals without them

[@yanntal954]

17:20 Ah yes, I've heard of these before! These are the cats in the jungle biomes I believe.

[@11_phamxuanhoang70]

this is definitely the most confusing lesson. It's awesome but posing so many questions, like why does the process when the particles got diluted by the inflaton field stop? It's because the potential energy of the field reached a certain frequency at that point. I really need more explanation on the energy, frequency parts, like some example maybe. Thanks Sixty Symbol and Professor Ed a lot for this amazing video.

[@MooImABunny]

Norway. The answer is Norway. There's this small village where they make them particles

[@guyh3403]

Thank you so much! Very interesting.

[@sixtysymbols]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@Don.Challenger]

So, is this resonate oscillation decay the moment when the the swing rope breaks and your mother storms out from the kitchen onto the back porch yelling "Edward, what did you do to your little brother now!" That would certainly perturb all the neighboring fields energetically, indeed.

[@naas_the_serpent]

🐍

[@adamphilip1623]

Very interesting video, by the end it was very intriguing but about a third of the way in the explanation of the diagram was very all over the place and unclear, "this line is one over the size of the universe, actually it isn't, its sort of a rate but it always goes up despite the graph not showing that at all." Very unnecessarily confusing way to talk about it and then went back to referring to it as showing inflation again later in the video which he earlier said it didn't really.

[@JB_inks]

Agreed. Very sloppy, and he lost me a short while after. Frustrating because I think it's an interesting topic but this one missed the mark for me.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

The most direct way to interpret that y-axis is that it is the inverse of the rate of expansion, since H(t) = a’(t)/a(t). So where it’s higher, the rate of expansion is slower, and vice versa.

[@dustypartition]

Would this not give credence to the Big Bounce hypothesis?

[@grins047]

Very informative. I am none the wiser but I really enjoyed listening.

[@DwainDwight]

Ed is a top presenter. great guy.

[@migfed]

Any recommended book about this reheating phase of universe?

[@timburridge3344]

Is it possible the entire process is cyclical? The beginning of our universe was the end of a previous one?

[@EricDMMiller]

The beginning of our universe was the end of a cubic Planck length region of a prior universe.

[@bobwagemakers5055]

search CCC

[@PaulG.x]

"Yahweh , what are you doing?" "I'll just be a moment dear, I'm reheating this melon." "Be careful , the microwave has been on the blink lately."

[@testrabbit]

😂

[@luckyluckyy859]

Favourite Professor, calm, focused, competent

[@_______J.Elijah.Lilly________]

Am I asking all the wrong questions here? Is my head screwed on straight? Or chalk it up to truth is stranger than fiction? ok-----ready -----here goes: (follow me on this for a couple more sentences----if you would be so kind) Is detecting "Super Constructive" interference(like a laser through grating) the only way to detect the perfectly "Super Destructive" ? ****(If you are trying to measure waves that have perfectly cancelled------if your measurement device ever reads "0"----does that mean you have found evidence of 2 waves cancelling perfectly? Or does it just mean that you have a reasonably well calibrated measuring device???)** When 2 waves cancel------the result is perfect stillness------to the degree that the interference is perfectly destructive. Super Destructive Interference is not so much of an "emergent property" ............... it is more self-annihilating(or self unravelling if you prefer)--------like a "submergent property" . How do we know we aren't surrounded by "mostly perfectly" cancelling de-constructive energy waves?? (some as big as the universe perhaps)? Everywhere we read as emptiness, stillness, void or vacuum-------if it reads or measures "0" ---it is either means there is no-thing there-- OR just maybe a whole lot of perfect cancellation hiding everything else we have ever been looking for? ****(perhaps even "dark matter" has its roots here: We cant find it because it is perfectly cancelling---perfect de-constructive interference does not seem to leave much of a trace----it is just gone---- as-if it was never there Perhaps what we call matter is merely the imperfections that refused to cancel?)**** Lemme know what you think----I've given up looking for answers and dedicated myself full-time to looking for more interesting questions. Ta- Ta my friend-----cheers!!

[@jhonbus]

The part about the oscillons' role in cosmological phase transition made me think of an emulsion that arises during a chemical phase transition. Phase separation can occur in a solution when a change to its physical or chemical properties means that the lowest energy state will now be achieved when one component becomes a separate phase instead of part of the solution. Sometimes this occurs rapidly, but sometimes an emulsion forms, in which the phases form intermixed bubbles or particles. These bubbles are inherently unstable, since the lowest energy state is for the phases to be completely separate. But they can sometimes take an extremely long time to gradually disappear.

[@carnsoaks1]

If the inflation happens, separating particles of a QCD Model, wouldn't they continue to create particles. Each flux tube stretched until it releases a shower of more particles, commensurately?

[@luudest]

How would the universe look like today if there was no inflation?

[@Scanlaid]

The Big Boiyoiyoing

[@johnnym6700]

"it grew a billion billion billion times over a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a second" How did they measure the growth in such a short time?

[@tonywells6990]

A really really big ruler...

[@uriituw]

Using a computer.

[@johnnym6700]

@@uriituw LOL

[@duncanmcneill7088]

I’ve been wondering that too - how do you measure “time” in a very dense universe and how do you measure distance when your ruler can only exist WITHIN the universe. It seems to me that the universe has always been the size of the universe. Saying it’s the size of a melon seems absurd.

[@markmd9]

I hear so many scientists and professors saying, we don't know this and we don't know that, ask me if you don't know 😂

[@Orenotter]

This isn't science. It's pure speculation. You're just making wild guesses.

[@sp4c1ng_0ut8]

It really isn't They literally do explain how they come to these conclusions

[@jacobcasey28]

More maths on sixty symbols!! This was incredible. We need more of this! There is no accessible physics that show maths!! Please Brady!

[@Luke-mr4ew]

This is profound - one of the first bit of theoretical physics that seems both grounded and groundbreaking. There are so many ideas here I've never heard of - is this an established area of research, or is Prof Copeland giving the pre-amble to a massive publication from his team?

[@tonywells6990]

The idea of inflation (slow roll and eternal) has been around since the 1980's.

[@laserlight568]

Interesting but way over my head. It begs the question of where did the various fields come from? Fields are forms of energy, what generated the energy?

[@GeoffryGifari]

So oscillons to the inflaton field are _not_ like particles/excitations to other fields?

[@scottwatrous]

Any day with a new video from Ed is literally the best day of the year.

[@dlamont2636]

I love this channel so much, and Professor Copeland has a true gift for explaining what I'm sure are immensely difficult topics. Thank you from California for all the great work!

[@nicksamek12]

The animation with the sled reminds me of Line Rider :)

[@as-qh1qq]

"What do you mean the universe is flat?" 😅 Sometimes physicists forget that concepts which are as second nature to them as breathing aren't so to most.

[@SpaceJam_DVD]

B I G M E L O N

[@IJMacD]

The start of inflation could be "The Big Pop". It's sudden, unexpected, and you're left with almost nothing afterwards. The HBB could be "The Big Whoosh".

[@DannyBeans]

Ed's explanation of inflation's effect on radiation temperature reminds me of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy's useful facts about the universe. "Population: Zero. There are an infinite number of worlds, but only a finite number of inhabited ones. Any finite number divided by infinity is so small as to make no odds. Anyone you meet is therefore the product of a deranged mind." Not saying he's wrong, obviously. It's just strange hearing the same reasoning being used in a serious setting.

[@DemonetisedZone]

12.30 you're from Australia you wouldn't have done sledging very much! au contraire Professor the Aussies invented sledging just ask the England Cricket Team!

[@superman9693]

I didn’t get anything but I‘m not afraid to admit it

[@amoswittenbergsmusings]

A fantastic video! One of the best cosmology videos I have ever seen - an I have seen a lot... "You need a word for the beginning of inflation" - how about "creation"? 😎 I do not read the biblical texts as treatises on physics. Yet, I am struck by the biblical "creation" story. I do not exclude the possibility that understanding of these texts and good scientific research may converge in some ill-understood way. This comment is not apologetics but it *_is_* an argument against some creationist readings that ignore the subtleties of the Hebrew text. Following is a "translation" of the creation story in Genesis chapter 1. I carefully take into account the fact that the Hebrew verb system has two forms of the verrb: the perfect which denotes a statem and the imperfect which describes an ongoing development. These two forms of the verb are not _primarily_ temporal notions although they certainly can. After all, we can speak about the past in two different ways. We can speak about what a situation was like, or we can talk about what happened. The verb also has a nominal form, the participle. It is a characterisation and can be either a noun or an adjective. There are two or three more verb forms: the infinitive (construct or absolute) and the imperative. We do not encounter these in the text we will "translate". Here goes: "When at first God had created the heavens and the earth and the earth had become chaotic but filled with potential, with darkness on top of deep chaos, yet a directional force just above the surface of the waters, then God said "Light should become" and light became." Of course, this "translation" is just my own understanding of the Hebrew text, motivated by my understanding of the words and letters. Real translations are completely impossible and anyone who cares about these texts should take the trouble to learn the fairly simple language of biblical Hebrew. Some notes on the words: - The word I rendered as "at first" is בראשית [b'reshit], from the root ראש [rosh] ("head", "start", "first") in a typical Semitic syntactical form known as the 'construct state'. This is a sort of genitive. In this case the second part of the construct state is the entire following phrase. The word has a prefex ב [b] which can be understood as "in", "by means of", "at the time of", "on", "for the purpose of". I have chosen "at the time of" or simply "when". - "the earth had become" the verbal element here is היתה [haytha] from the root היה [h-y-h]. This verb is routinely translated as "to be" but this is almost always misleading. Hebrew simploy does not know the verb "to be" as we have it in English. "The mountain is high" in Hebrew is simply "The mountain high" or "The mountain, it high", never "The mountain is high". In almost all cases the better rendering of this verb is "to become" or "to happen". The King James Version bible translation has introduced into English the phrase "And it was in the days of". It must be understood as "Then the following happened at the time of". - "chaotic but filled with potential": the phrase is תהו ובהו [thohu vavohu]. These are two words that rhyme, connected by the prefex ו [the letter vav]. This tiny prefix is all over the place in biblical Hebrew. The overwhelming majority of sentences in the Hebrew scriptures start with this prefix. It carries a huge semantic charge. It can mean almost any relation: "and", "but", "although", "because", "for", "when", "after". Here I have rendered it as "but" because of the connotations of the two words it connects. - "chaotic": the root is cognate to words that connotate "error", "wandering", "confused" - "filled with potential": the word בהו [bohu] can be understood as a conbination of "bo" and "hu". The former is "in it", "by it", "through it", and the latter is "it", "he". So, the skeleton semantic content of the word can be understood as "in it, it". This comment is already long enough. I won't go on annotating the rest of my rendering, things like the plurality of the "waters", a word that does not have a singular form. I love physics and I love the Hebrew language, the "holy tongue". Your mileage may vary, on both counts ;-)

[@Exngo]

Have some thoughts: 1) Inflation is wrong term :( Initial space injection is better. 2) Dark Energy is wrong term :( Continuous space injection(feed) is better. Singularity shell around the inside of a black hole in which we`re in, keeps feeding in space.

[@kendemajoros4617]

Ah, the gall of trying to explain inflation to the public like this - what a shameless attempt to condescend ... I mean, everyone in the field knows, that no one out there could grasp it, and then you, prof.Copeland have the audacity to come out here, and in 25 mins accomplish the impossible… …but seriously, thank you prof. for taking a swing at it, I never heard anyone communicate about it as you - without getting lost (and losing us) in the detailed analytics of it, etc. You are a powerfully gifted communicator, not “just” your rank-and-file incredibly brilliant mind. :-) Thanks for applying yourself to this for our sakes!

[@bg954]

Whaaaaaaat?!?! After all the videos watched, articles read, etc ... only now do I finally understand the order of events AND the fact the Universe was "empty" before HBB?? Wow ...

[@disgruntledwookie369]

"There is something fundamentally misconceived about trying to explain the uniformity of the early universe as resulting from a thermalization process. ... For, if the thermalization is actually doing anything ... then it represents a definite increasing of the entropy. Thus, the universe would have been even more special before the thermalization than after." - Roger Penrose "Obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penrose's shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation - by a factor of 10 to the googol power" - Paul Steinhardt Inflation doesn't have any empirical evidence and doesn't even solve the fine tuning problem it sets out to solve.

[@miinyoo]

He didn't explain flatness very well to someone who would be prone to "Flat Earth" notions. Flat in the sense of all dimensions including time on the largest of scales (so ignoring black holes and such). If you take an index card and hold it horizontal to the ground. Seems flat. Turn it 90 degrees against an edge. Hmm. Still seems flat. Turn it 90 degrees on the other edge. Yep. Pretty flat. That covers all three dimensions. That's what he means by flat. Time is trickier to demonstrate but it's flat too just in a Lorentz transformation which is I'll admit, difficult to visualize.

[@stewartbrands]

Your question and your problem is based entirely on the assumption that there was a "big bang" and particles did not exist. The only reality produced from that hypothesis is a large number of jobs for people tinkering with ideals of math. It is the hypthesis industry. This video is an ad for that. Buy this speculative hypothesis. Now hiring . Must be skilled in irational numbers and imaginary numbers. You too can become a You Tube speculator.

[@NeonsStyleHD]

Question: I hope someone in the know can answer this. So after the HBB when these fields start producing particles. From what I understand, when they are created, they are virtual particles and created in pairs of matter and antimatter. Since matter prevailed, does this mean the early Universe during this HBB phase was full of black holes that consumed the antimatter particles leaving the matter as real particles?

[@SanderBessels]

The universe is believed to be flat, but it also has a finite volume and it’s “borderless”. If you move in one direction, you eventually end up where you started. The way I like to think about it, is like in these old space games where you have to shoot other ships and avoid asteroids. Your space ship is always displayed in the middle, but the space and everything in it moves in the opposite direction that you are moving in. And in the corner of the screen there is a map of the whole universe where you see your space ship moving, but if you leave the map on one side, you come out on the other side. This game is 2D, but you can easily imagine it in 3D. It’s basically a cube with the opposite sides identified.

[@michaeljorgensen790]

Watching one video: "The great attractor is so mind bogglingly huge that it is gravitationally pulling hundreds of thousands of galaxies, including ours, towards it. The next video: Space on the largest scales is so flat that it boggles the mind. Although these videos might seem to contradict each other.....you are supposed to pretend that they don't. And that is the lesson for the day.

[@lukepoga2969]

There are no particles. They are just localised waves in quantum fields. Why call them particles! Drives me crazy why people still do this.

[@Sarafan92]

Ed's voice sounds different. Hope he's doing okay.

[@tonibat59]

Captivating talk. I wish its all correct, otherwise we'll have to admit that Your math was amazing..Your physics terrible. - Albert

[@iansandiford2011]

Can I ask if there is any theory about black holes drawing matter from the universe that is expanding the universe at all? I have thought for many years that the universe is like a jam filled doughnut with the jam being the matter from black homes pushing the visible universe outwards. Perhaps a balloon may be a better description with the a small portion of the membrane being our part of visible. Anyway, if matter falls into black holes from the membrane ‘black holes’ and that dark matter adds to the ‘balloon’ then would that cause visible expansion in all directions? And would the volume of dark matter pushing outwards against the membrane cause the like of a supermassive BH to not collapse a galaxy but instead find stability. ..? Am an engineer not physicist so apologies if any of the above seems stupid.

[@con-structsolutions2253]

Particles didn’t exist before the inflation. The inflation Ripped them into existence. Think of a fabric or the inverse of a fabric. By stretching or pulling on that fabric when it’s just a yarn ball (in order for things to remain equal) interwoven threads are created.

[@painandsuffer]

Always been just in different states. Plus, just because something is expanding doesn't mean new particles are created to fill that space. (What is) Expanding Universe makes room for what is already there to fill the expansion. Particles appear and reappear. One state to the Universe state.