Something Strange Happened Before The Big Bang - And It’s Not Looking Good!

[@specialandroid1603]

Our minds are not capable of understanding the truth.

[@creativ3thinker]

Our computers work via us interacting with them through a physical and digital interface without us understanding every microscopic interaction that allows that interface to communicate with out equally complex neurological functions that we equally do not need to understand in order to interface with reality. An interesting symmetry. Every aspect of a hologram holds the reflection of its entire design. As above so below, as within so without and all.

[@noelstarchild]

​@@creativ3thinker Well said, but I do not think we're in an hologram. Just a universe we can only ever begin to understand. Some people think that Earth has been visited by aliens without understanding the Fermi-paradox. Or matter somehow accelerated to lightspeed and beyond. Unless we can learn to fold spacetime(Dune) then all we"ll ever be is Earthbound misfits. I agree with your premiss.

[@Avreniel]

first 7 minutes of "The Episode that Solved Stewie's Paradox" by KZbinr The Theorizer , PERFECTLY explains HOW and WHAT caused big bang + creation of TIME but just imagine SATAN and ADAM doing it instead of Stewie and his dog. could this be the reason why God can't kill Satan but only imprison him? who saved Adam by giving him the knowledge of good and evil thus making him a GOD ? Satan. (ancient serpent) how does your reproductive system look like? if you're a man, it looks like a SNAKE. if you're a woman, it looks like MOUTH of the SNAKE. real God/Observer that imagined things into existence is bigger than we've ever thought!!! the bible also says that God will rule for 1000 years only AFTER imprisoning Satan for 1000 years cmon... this sounds soooo suspicious XD

[@Avreniel]

"stewie's paradox theory" by The Theorizer explains HOW and WHAT caused big bang + beginning of TIME/Multiverse but just imagine Satan and Adam doing it instead of Stewie and his dog could this be the reason why God cant kill Satan but only imprison him? even in the bible it says that "God" will rule for 1000 years but only after imprisoning satan for 1000 years so suspicious..

[@pellestorck3776]

Even worse, there is no definitive truth.

[@angelarose249]

I used to float on my back in a pool at night and look up at the stars. I would feel completely flat like I was floating through the universe!

[@HelloImCrimson]

You are

[@traildoggy]

See the lights of a neighbor's house Now she's starting to rise Take a minute to concentrate And she opens up her eyes The world was moving she was right there with it and she was -- Talking Heads

[@mdshack6371]

Me too

[@Michael-em4if]

You are floating through the universe. We all are.

[@jimmykelly2809]

LSD helps

[@scottterry2606]

Over 70 years, I've thought a lot about "nothing". And there's nothing that can be said about it. You can't even legit say "nothing is" because nothing "isn't".

[@NewToronto]

Nothing happened but that wasn't anything at all.

[@dokskwyr4353]

Reminds me of how ancient Greek mathematicians never conceived the digit zero because they considered the concept of absolute nothingness evil. In the end the number "zero" comes from ancient East Indian (or Hindu) mathematics.

[@robertteh3056]

The important question is where does the energy come from!

[@JimTaylor42]

I have often wondered about dark matter and dark energy. As we can see almost back to the big bang itself surely these two dark things should make that impossible - surely the whole universe will be dark. In my view, these things should be, more properly, named 'invisible matter' and 'invisible energy'. Scientists, astronomers etc are not doing themselves any favours by giving cosmic entities properties that they do not possess. I am surprised that someone like John Lennox has not latched onto this error by now.

[@MrDino1953]

Yeah, they are not saying these things are literally dark in the optical sense, it’s just an adjective expressing how little is known about these forms of energy and matter. It’s analogous to how historians refer to a certain period as the Dark Ages, not meaning the Sun went dim, but that a lot of prior knowledge was lost or suppressed.

[@DanBeech-ht7sw]

Yeah like the Dark Age had no sunlight

[@ronsmith8434]

Sounds all wondrous and magical, but truthfully we weren't here, we have NO idea what happened

[@1linkbelt]

and never will.

[@bigboicreme]

​​@@1linkbeltone day you'll go back and know everything once again

[@commandershepard6189]

Time is not something that can be moved forward or backward like a video in fast forward rewinding. It is a mathematical measurment that describes mass and energy destinations through reference points. Therefor time is relative. HInce Einsteins theories. With this stated, this video does not do justice in educational purposes, but it does give critical thinking and entertainment. But, even though we wern't there during the creation of our universe nor it's beginings, We can use current understandings based on tried and tested theories to speculate it's beginings. We can however, accuretly provide information on it's temperatures from the moment light formed from heat. Anything with a temperature releases infrared light. Which is where JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) comes in... From the point light was formed to now, things tend to have sort of set in stone motion. Because of quantum mechanics, things arn't entirely accurately measurable by time, hince the sort of set in motion. Because of this, we can give a 90+% accurate theory of the universe's beginings, but definitely not it's starting point before the infrared light formed due to quantum mechanics raining supreme.

[@mrhassell]

Roger Penrose knows... coz he followed his nose.

[@hellstromcarbunkle8857]

no, we know MUCH of what was because of what IS

[@Chipper6397]

In summary: We don't know very much, or understand the essence of what exists within and without...

[@djwarlock2873]

If Nothing existed, it would contradict itself; and therefore it cannot exist. Something is therefore the only thing that CAN exist.

[@coreywright6192]

Even if nothing was there ... nothing is something

[@Avreniel]

when u close ur eyes, u cant see the actual "nothing" . U see small chaotic PIXELS inside that "nothing" looks exactly like a disconnected TV program which proves that this is some kind of a simulation!

[@Veed.l0]

Finally, a vid that truly tries to narrow it down through mathematically intriguing deductive reasoning.

[@samuelanselmo4159]

@@Veed.l0 now exactly how do they know that the mathematical is correct for the universe. It’s just theoretical. It’s not true facts. How do you know that the mathematical formula is correct for this. They make this up.

[@alexbunney9085]

I think there’s a black hole cycle. I think eventually all black holes in the universe will absorb each other, and the infinite mass and density will cause another big bang.

[@MTrevek]

It would not have infinite mass.

[@jasonrodwell5316]

What if it the evaporation is the closing of the hole in this universe. It's impossible for a black hole to contain infinite mass, it ate a finite amount of mass. What if there is a hard limit of what can be consumed and the collected mass ejects into a new space time, closing the link to ours in the process? We cannot prove what is beyond the event horizon. The black hole releases radiation, how do.you know the mass input matches the energy output? Black.holes evaporate on timescales longer than the current age of the universe. No one has witnessed one evaporate. Only they leak radiation. what if the interior of a black hole is a pocket with a single entry and a single exit and all 3 spaces are casually disconnected. The black hole is in essence a buffer. Waiting the the mass contained within to reach a threshold to break out into a daughter universe with a new big bang. Spacetime flows into black holes. What if Spacetime its self is.compressed and becomes the basis for inflation? Those hard limits would need to be huge..possibly a once in a universe occurrence that happens long after the heat death if thr universe when enough supermassive black holes combine.

[@tonygraydon]

Is that possible in a asymptotic universe?

[@jasonrodwell5316]

​​@@tonygraydonwhy would the curvature properties of the universe exclude this idea? If you mean because of the theorised curvature properties inside a black hole not matching that of our universe, then no because the black hole is like a connection between two causally disconnected pocket of spacetime.. The universe is not 'inside' the black hole, the black hole is a gravitational anomalie sat outside our own spacetime. All geodesics end at the event horizon. The mass punches through to a new pocket of spacetime much like our own universe. It's what we have theorised about black hole.geometry for a long time using penrose diagrams. But we always dismiss it. Yet what we believe to be a big bang is identical to the concept of a white hole. Changing the black hole to be an intermediary step.solves many if the problems highlighted with this theory.

[@tonygraydon]

@@jasonrodwell5316 I just meant how could there be more than one black hole in a asymptotic universe.

[@mrhassell]

"Well.. this sucks", said William Shatner to the Vacuum.

[@ronkennedy775]

When all explanation are examined and make no sense yet prove there must be an explanation, in that moment I brush my teeth, comb what hair is left, get properly dressed and head for church hoping to meet this magician. Perhaps we will meet each other at that little church in Sonoma, CA.

[@efeocampo]

We live within ONE Universe among infinite Universes which make up the Multiverse, the true "god" (not at all human-like and which does not care about us, so infinitesimally insignificant), which is infinite and eternal, continuously evolving...

[@mosquitobight]

"The clock display changed from 9:59pm to 10:00pm - and it's not looking good." "The bread is baking in the oven - and it's not looking good." "The leaves are turning orange and falling off the trees - and it's not looking good."

[@TheSprinklerNinja]

FEELS LIKE I'M WEARING NOTHING AT ALL.

[@geoffreyhhill]

If nothing cannot exist in our universe, why can’t our universe exist in nothing? Why should the universe care what we think? The universe is and was what it will ever be.. Time

[@fervd9965]

Time is only relatif my friend😂❤🎉

[@williamfrazier4797]

I will continue to continue to disbelieve in the existence of nothing until science provides laboratory proof of nothing.

[@Chriliman]

If reality is eternal then quite literally nothing made it. Sobering thought

[@deathbydeviceable]

It's matter that created nothing. There's always something. How man dreams to be someone it's quite the opposite of that something dreaming of being nothing

[@dubsydubs5234]

If a big bang is acceptable then an infinite number of big bangs is just as acceptable (multiverse) the is no reason at all there would only be one, the one we think happened is evidence that it happens so the same justification can be made for more.

[@shadowofthenamelessking]

The idea that our universe came from nothing is almost certainly false, though no one truly knows of course. Not sure if it’s quantum fluctuations, eternal inflation, infinite regression, cyclic formations, Simulation Hypothesis, a Creator, or something entirely different we can’t comprehend. Though I’m almost certainly sure it did not come from “nothing”, that’s literally impossible under all accounts.

[@Sharperthanu1]

Could it be that nothing keeps becoming something because nature abhors a vacuum? The eternal void produces virtual particles.That's nothing becoming something

[@stephenmenchaca7470]

It’s turtles all the way down

[@GOD.KALKI.]

Scientists have no complete explanations about the human brain that works 24/7 inside their own bodies... So, they should leave the universe alone as it's not their cup of tea😂

[@SjaakSchulteis]

Well, that's your opinion. Science doesn't work with opinions. The theories are based on evidence and conclusions thereof. Scientists use equipment to investigate. Not just only their mind.

[@GOD.KALKI.]

@@SjaakSchulteis Everything is made to earn money. There's no fixed conclusion if scientists's big bang theory turned a big lie in the recent research. Men can't become gods by reaching Mars after turning the 11 percent of the earth surface where they reside into hell.😉

[@colinwright5157]

It takes energy to remove all matter from a volume of space in order to create a vacuum. That energy is always present in that vacuum.

[@Ivy-u6h]

Finally somebody got a time machine to work to prove their certainty is Truth as your faith is so be it unto you. GOOD JOB!!!!!

[@1GoodWoman]

No one knows the very first beginning. Almost all analysis involves equation with all sort of variables usually with several having coefficients of error. All quantum is theory. We can manipulate things, even invisible things like energy, using these equations and we assign all sorts of names to all of this. Does infinity exist? What is time? There is so much we don’t know. It is a puzzle.

[@maggiebarrett7300]

“What we know is a drop; what we don’t know is an ocean” Isaac Newton

[@superguyx5468]

If ‘nothing’ is impossible, and ‘infinite’ is also impossible, then only the opposite can be true. ‘Something Finite’…..

[@yunusjhon651]

Lets think wisely,without space there could never place for your expanding theory,energy ,proton,times and dark matter.

[@TurkishHeavy]

How you see it?

[@Manfred-ml1oq]

Something,and nothing,are the same thing,but in Superposition.😊

[@jay-ti7kd]

What is beyond the observable universe is the “nothing” that existed before the Big Bang But even that is something

[@taylordw]

No it’s not

[@jay64j]

Probably one of an infinite number of big bangs.

[@Sharperthanu1]

@@taylordw Yes,I know.Total nothing automaticly becomes something because nature abhors a void

[@Midnight-Reason]

This is incorrect.. What is "beyond" the *observable* universe, is just more universe.. Stars, galaxies and such.. We can't see them, because their light has not had enough time to reach us, given the rate of expansion.. Hence, *observable*.. You're confusing the observable universe with the universe as a whole..

[@Whateverxo56]

The universe is everything that exists. There’s no “outside”. And there probably is no “before” the Big Bang, as time itself has begun at the expansion point.

[@MrMijnheer]

It makes sense to me to say because the universe is expanding that means one day it will cool down, but if every minute new stars and stuff are born won't those one day be hot enough to replace everything else that has cooled?

[@shadowofthenamelessking]

The rate of expansion is getting faster and faster. So much so that eventually everything will be so far apart that everything will just cool.

[@MTrevek]

Eventually, the universe will run out of stuff that can collect to create stars.

[@Handlewrath]

Actually all of us is already feel the nothingness. Before we born or we exist, thats is actually nothingness feels like. And thats no feels at all.

[@jontherevelator9663]

Space roar is sound..it always exists and brings in light. Space roar is a sound that permeates Space as a frequency.

[@walterdaems57]

The very first thing could only arise from a state of no thing. If not, then some thing couldn’t, by definition, be anything less than every thing. The state of nothing has the potential to manifest everything.

[@NewToronto]

There once was a time when time did not exist.

[@andrewshore262]

Empty space only exists when observed, we never quite reach an answer despite bigger and better more precise instruments they’re never quite enough to be definitive . Space time again does not exist, we should be questioning what is our perception of consciousness our version of reality. Whatever it is, it isn’t what we think we are seeing.

[@mylucksmiles]

What is the temperature of nothing? Point made.

[@strayferal]

I am a little bit confused at 17:30 for the next minute. They talk about "regions of inflation" where the inflation might stop and lead to a "big bang", while in other regions it seem to continue. My understanding is - the inflation is not perfect then and do they want to tell me that in the expansion phase several big bangs occurred, each giving birth to a different universe within the same (our) inflated entity/space/whatever?

[@Snowkatt26]

Like the ebb and flow of the tides, life always comes back to itself.

[@denisemcdougal6445]

There’s no such thing as “ nothing “ humans have a problem with accepting that

[@michaeldeanleonardo4621]

Your lack of acceptance and understanding does not make it untrue. Just look at it as the absence of anything and move on.

[@KingstarMorningstar]

And how did you come to that conclusion, when will you humans stop acting arrogantly

[@grobo503]

It's kinda scary.

[@grobo503]

@@KingstarMorningstar So what kind of organism are you?

[@KingstarMorningstar]

@@grobo503 a human but atleast not cocky like y'all

[@phantomblindsight907]

if nothing only exists in theory then so does something.

[@MrGchiasson]

You just forced me to reach for the Tylenol.

[@emperorgongs2834]

I meditate on "Nothing is everything, everything is nothing. No thing is everything, everything is no thing.........."

[@dongdo7168]

There's no non-existent

[@jojolafrite90]

Nothing can't exist. Hence: OMNIverse. No start, no end, infinitely complex, an infinite causality tree, what I call the "world tree". With infinite multiverses like our own, plus, well, everything that can and *has to exist* outside maybe even concepts like dimensions, topology and even what appears to us as the most fundamental concepts that can be, numbers. Of course, there also exist an infinite amount of observers and *DEMIURGES* that took part in consciously decide of the "source code" of a given relative reality for any reason in their own pre-existing frame of reference.

[@Handlewrath]

Actually all of us is already feel the nothingness. Before we born or we exist, thats is actually nothingness feels like. And thats no feels at all.

[@ittiamgg]

It is not nothing it is No-Thing. That is the only thing that exists.and is eternal. It is the cause for everything but itself is uncaused, it is pure intelligence which does not know it is. This has been understood by sages who have realised that at the core of their consciousness is this No-Thing by going deep within. It is the core of everything. Science is now agreeing that this vast, super intelligent universe has risen from nothingness but the clue to understanding it is in the source of our consciousness, by going within.

[@PeterMsk2023]

In short, energy can be categorized into animate and inanimate forms and exists in two basic states: static (including varying degrees of rarefaction), which lies beyond the scope of human perception and technological extensions, and dynamic, which falls within the range of human senses and their extensions. From this perspective, the 'emptiness' of the universe can be explained. As for the 'First Cause': the existence of a dynamic universe has its counterpart in static tranquility-just as the momentum of an active universe is triggered by its stillness. These are two sides of the same coin: cosmic tranquility coexists with its active components. The reality is that we exist in a dualistic universe.

[@TruthWielders]

Well, "nothing" takes no place, so "nothing" isn't anywhere, hence everywhere you look there's bound to be something 🤔

[@Handlewrath]

Actually all of us is already feel the nothingness. Before we born or we exist, thats is actually nothingness feels like. And thats no feels at all.

[@kelvinharris4921]

There are certain laws and principles to existence that govern the universe. One of the most practical and simple ones is that our universe and the subatomic universe that exist alongside it we must always seek a balance. It's like a clear hose water level. At each end of the hose for the water is seeking level it's always going to be the same. If one side gets out of balance the other side forces more of what is needed in its direction. It may not be instantaneous but it happens and it will constantly happen. If things get way too out of balance then another major explosion occurs which is not technically an explosion. But a new universe will be born to replace the old one. Dimensional balance is what created our universe not a big bang!

[@lucapolidori8817]

If the big bang is the beginning of spacetime, how can anything be "before" if time didn't exist?

[@abscondis]

The universe reminds me of a tachyon particle. It moves faster than the speed of light but is always moving backwards in time. It is always in two places at once. The beginning and the end and the space in between. It is a snake chasing its own tail, but not quite catching it.

[@tomellman2418]

But what if Plank’s constant has been changing over time. If there were a prior time when the constant was zero then the vacuum could have zero energy in it. A special kind of nothing.

[@Aluminata]

Nothing is not nothing. It's HUGE!

[@Bobster986]

We are living inside a much larger thing or person, just like we’re the universe of things like bacteria that lives in us. 😮

[@mandogundam5779]

I can't help but think of fireworks when thinking about the big bang. Is the sole purpose of a firework to explode or to create a bang or to create shimmering light? What I am saying is its seems eerie to consider the universe as we know it may just be a 'side effect' of something else entirely, and it may somehow appear as nothing to us, simply because we know not what 'it' is🤔

[@CybeleCotter]

Galan the scientist was the last living being of another universe prior to the Big Bang. As Galan's universe came to an end, he merged with the "Sentience of the Universe" to become Galactus, an entity that wielded such cosmic power as to require devouring entire planets to sustain his existence. The new universe erupted from the Big Bang.

[@veerlevanrusselt1370]

But what causes a quantumfield? What is the exact relation between a singularity and a quantumfield? Does a singularity exist?

[@TheRealSolardisaster]

I always find myself saying; Nothing, or its concept, is a mannequin. If "nothing" existed, it would bear a name and in its possession of a name, of an identity, nothing becomes something. (not unlike most conversations with my wife).

[@mr.dankman]

I agree. Anything that can have attributes assigned to it is no longer a non thing.

[@StuftBanana]

😄😆🤣

[@youtubebane7036]

A universe is something not nothing. And you cannot have space without matter anyways their codependent upon each other

[@indysbike3014]

Space is also something as it can bend and warp.

[@seanhewitt603]

Space isn't, but time is. Compressed, stretched, it'll do wild things to your memory of events...

[@memoryshorts7275]

@@seanhewitt603Isn’t time just an illusion made up by your perception? or is time also used as a measurement for math?

[@seanhewitt603]

@@memoryshorts7275 nope. Time is a physical object, subject to the laws of thermodynamics. Its manifestations include singularities and the ever present Higgs field, not to mention it is the most basic building block which has been found within protons and neutrons... It is the Higgs particle.

[@memoryshorts7275]

@@seanhewitt603Interesting, thanks for the information.

[@KingstarMorningstar]

​@@seanhewitt603I dunno quantum physicists has said time is an illusion and doesn't really exist the same with space

[@DESIGNbySAFIY]

The way I like to say it is, if you point at an empty space and ask "what's there?", most will say "nothing" and I think they're correct. Nothing IS there. As in, it exists. If no(thing), is simply the absence of every thing, then we still have 2 options. Consciousness and/or Existence itself. Those aren't things, they aren't tangible in any way and they likely have always been here. So yeah, God basically🤷‍♂

[@ScottAT]

Can someone explain red shift?

[@Sebastiaan_Y]

I am losing my strenght day after day

[@Republicnews-h3v]

CERN could be replaced by isotope and ion stability with laser amd gamma at superposition

[@robertgamble7497]

When we look back in time we can only estimate what it looked like. How do you know that back in time there was more dark matter. And, what we think we see, is only the remnant of what dark matter produced while the universe transformed into what it apparently is?

[@grobo503]

It's a logical fallacy. There is no beginning of space and time. It is eternal and has no definite size. Simply because of the fact that nothing can happen outside of it. It's in the definition of causality. 'Nothing' isn't 'unstable'. It simply doesn't exist.

[@KingstarMorningstar]

Humans trying to put logic in something that is beyond logic is just amusing , the lvl of arrogance shown here is too much

[@grobo503]

@@KingstarMorningstar Oh... So that's where that came from...

[@KingstarMorningstar]

@@grobo503 wdym by that ?

[@grobo503]

@@KingstarMorningstar Dunno, were you talking about me? I think the video is kinda dumb. Don´t like the title either. Pretty pictures though.

[@KingstarMorningstar]

@@grobo503 yes of course I was talking about you

[@mrhassell]

They're not "Virtual Particles", they are "Protons" and are used in PET scans (using Fluorine-18) as "Positron Emission Tomography", along with Gallium-68 scans and Caesium scans, are used to produce three-dimensional, colour images of your body, using radionuclides that in the case of the PET scan, uses Positron Electron interaction with its Antielectron pair, providing details on the area of specific interest to a doc... eh... what's the antimatter doc? Oh and for anyone still thinking an Antimatter rocket will take anyone anywhere, no. Enough already, it is rally sally.

[@taylordw]

And you know this how?

[@snk8734]

Even in nothingness, the 'hard-code' of the Universe exists, the 'law' of the Universe cause that is information. I think we would find out in the future, that's what dark energy is.

[@boogathon]

If all particles were gone that would include bosons. Right? Including the Higgs, which is the fundamental cause of gravity. Therefore, your original hypothesis is falsified. But what do I know?

[@emperorgongs2834]

Its in our minds, its our perceptions, there is no time, time is a human mind perception in order to comprehend " everything everywhere all at once". "Nothing is everything, everything is nothing. No thing is everything, everything is no thing.........."

[@nickharrison3748]

there are 4 forces , strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force & gravity that keeps all matter together.

[@isthatso1961]

everything in this video is consistent with my theory of uncertainty being the original cause of our universe

[@lewiel3289]

Yes. Chaos

[@Snowkatt26]

Why does there have to be a beginning. That is a human concept. How do we know that outside our human understanding of the Universe there is no concept for the word beginning. Conscious energy or God if you prefer an abstract label does not increase our understanding of the Universe. Life is motion and rest, and the silence in between our breath.

[@SUBtRONiX213]

Infinity is impossible for the human mind to grasp. The universe has always been, and will always exist...

[@KingstarMorningstar]

We don't know if that is true

[@commandershepard6189]

Time is not something that can be moved forward or backward like a video in fast forward or rewinding. It is a mathematical measurment that describes mass and energy destinations through reference points. Therefor time is relative. HInce Einsteins theories. With this stated, this video does not do justice in educational purposes, but it does give critical thinking and entertainment. But, even though we wern't there during the creation of our universe nor it's beginings, We can use current understandings based on tried and tested theories to speculate it's beginings. We can however, accuretly provide information on it's temperatures from the moment light formed from heat. Anything with a temperature releases infrared light. Which is where JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) comes in... From the point light was formed to now, things tend to have sort of set in stone motion. Because of quantum mechanics, things aren't entirely accurately measurable by time, hence the sort of set in motion. Because of this, we can give a 90+% accurate theory of the universe's beginnings, but definitely not it's starting point before the infrared light formed due to quantum mechanics raining supreme.

[@PopoXReturnz]

I think the owner of this channel could do a little better than giving every video a clickbaity title about how "[not-widely-understood concept X] is scaring the science community" or "[Y] is [Z] and it isn't good!".

[@abmsiddique9655]

It was always there in one form or another, and will always remain . Maybe it is a little too beyond human apprehension, but it is always compatible with the rules of physics and never in a mystical way.

[@suecondon1685]

That's what I think too, not some magical, non scientific event that breaks the rules of physics.

[@shadowofthenamelessking]

@@abmsiddique9655 “Rules of physics” implies a Creator, as though the laws were designed for the universe to exist. There truly are no laws of physics, just observations of the behavior of our natural world we have made that are (currently) seemingly constant. We don’t know if there is such a Creator, or what event actually preceded the Big Bang’s expansion, but we can be sure it certainly wasn’t “nothing”. We’ll eventually find the truth, or maybe we won’t.

[@shadowofthenamelessking]

@@suecondon1685 The point of science is to find the truth, and not to declare that something is not or cannot be true without evidence (as that would be making a religious claim). If something magical happened before the Big Bang, then it wouldn’t be magic, just a phenomenon we currently don’t understand or know of yet. And not necessarily at odds with being scientific, as science must encompass our reality wholly, even the things that we label “mystical” or “magical”.

[@suecondon1685]

@@shadowofthenamelessking Not quite sure what your point is... I'm certainly not religious and don't believe in god, and I seem to agree with other comments you've made so I guess I didn't express myself very well. It just seems absurd to me to explain it as an 'exponential expansion' that defies all known rules of science and the speed of light. It's a bit too Abracadabra (or even god-like) for me.

[@KrishnaSingh-ow1ie]

The universe is like a rubberband it expands and contracts. The big crunch. Its like a cycle. Its infinite. This explains why radiation is measure the same everywhere.

[@lavi5802]

Remember seeing the stars at night then

[@rupertfergusson]

Are we certain that something always exists?

[@hogg4229]

I thought energy could neither be created or destroyed

[@KingstarMorningstar]

We never know

[@SliceofLife7777]

@@hogg4229 Einstein has yet to be disproven. I agree with that theory. Energy never was created. And cannot be destroyed. It changes form. As it always has.

[@4kgamx769]

What if the energy made by someone

[@CommackMark]

But it can be diluted to the point of no longer being able to do work. That's ever increasing entropy. To do work there must be a potential...a differnce... a temperature.... but over time though energy is not destroyed it becomes evermore diluted as temos go towards absolute zero everywhere. This is referred to as the ultimate heat death of the universe.

[@pathcoinfirst8936]

This only applies to a time invariant system. Since the universe has a time direction it's not bound by this law

[@DonnaBurke-p7b]

I really did enjoy it. Thank you for sharing.

[@mykofreder1682]

Without matter it is still expanding, unless the gravitation being generated by matter continuously by evet piece of matter for more than 10B years is causing the expansion. Locally that gravitation causes bending or sagging of space, why would that particle and its effect on space ever disappear, once depleted of its support of space by matter why would it ever return to its old state. And if it interacts with matter again it probably would be depleted additionally, and who knows what it does within its environment of gravitational particles and support of space. They may be like particle of matter in air or water with flow and tide or have an initial high frequency and each interaction lowers the frequency and causes the surrounding average to lower slightly with each quantity of time.

[@bentonpix]

IMO The non-local state of infinity (not quantifiable) surrounds and creates a pressure on all local points or quanta (addressable and quantifiable) within an infinite field. This pressure on all points within the field causes fluctuations to emerge from within the field as the local points or quanta affected by this external pressurization of infinity always try to seek a resting state of 0 energy but can never achieve an absolute steady state of 0 (flat or still) due to the eternal and infinite state of pressure bearing in on them. This IMO is the cause of quantum fluctuations, also called "quantum foam" which is widely thought to be the foundation that all matter emerges from.

[@Etimespace]

The expanding stars in space were born from zillions of expanding dark matter particles / densifications that are constantly pushed out of the expanding supermassive objects in the centers of galaxies. Expanding galaxies were formed from the center outwards in the early days of the rapidly expanding visible universe in space when two expanding supermassive objects moved close to each other. The separate expanding condensations of dark matter pushed through each other again and again and it caused them to expand so fast that they didn’t have time to push each other away from each other as fast as they were expanding. At this point, they began to coalesce into new expanding stars quickly without a pulling force and without the ever-curving space. I predict that with the help of the James Webb telescope, it will be discovered that the stars were born as if from nothing. But of course not out of nowhere, you know. At least it has already seen that galaxies were born very quickly in the early days of the visible universe. This supports my view of how galaxies formed! That is, massive and ready-made galaxies are observed in the very young visible universe. Expanding supermassive objects in the centers of galaxies were created in their own 3D Big Bangs on the same principle. Nowadays, the so-called background radiation is the expanding light that was created when these expanding supermassive objects in the centers of galaxies were born in their own 3D big bangs quite far from each other. Over the ages, the expanding background radiations have shaped each other into equal quality as they have encountered each other, interacted and accelerated each other’s expansion and at the same time speeded up in the same proportion as matter and light have expanded in space outward into the already existing space. Expanding galaxies are large particles that convey information about an object that is quite massive and dense because it emits energy that has the character of galaxies. Of course, we cannot detect the object in question that we are moving away from. Galaxies are particles that convey information about it. There are an infinite number of similar objects in the infinite 3D space and they would always recycle the existing energy / pushing force. Millions of billions of years of scattered energy are pushing towards them at an extremely fast speed into space. The energy/pushing force pushed to the center of the objects in question is once again compressed there into extremely dense energy. In other words, there is constantly extreme pressure in the centers of these objects, which does not decrease because more energy is pushed into the center all the time, where it is compressed into extremely dense energy. The energy pushed into the center displaces the energy that was previously pushed there, and thus it is pushed away from there, and the expansion of the sector enables the dispersion / expansion of this extremely dense energy into a less dense one. Pushing away from the center of that object into this extremely dense energy absorbs energy that is being pushed towards the center of this extremely dense and massive object. In other words, only a small part can reach the centers of such extremely massive and dense objects. That is, extremely fast energy is pushed towards these extremely dense and massive objects, the speed of which has slowed down as this energy has been pushed through more new quarks expanding in space. In the context of pushing through new expanding quarks, this extremely fast energy has accelerated the expansion / dispersion of the energy in the expanding quarks in space into a larger and larger region of space. It is also absorbed into the expanding quarks according to when its speed has slowed down so much that the expanding quarks could stop it. #Google #Savorinen #science #cosmology #physics #theoryofeverything #read #how #theworld #works #八

[@1SpudderR]

Just where does- this “Universe that was so hot” Get all of this heat from in The Beginning!? I ask the Question “Where Does Language come from!?” Is it all Hot Air?

[@4kgamx769]

Just like truly nothing cannot exist It also not make sense something has always exist 😕 In order to be something you have to have the beginning Beginning that means at one point they are had to be something This means the whole reality is made 🤔

[@tubextc]

It’s already found that there have never been “nothing” go wake up. They are now saying the universe is “infinite”. oh wow well, some of us have known that all along now have we?

[@bricks-mortar]

Key concept is "observable universe" and all implications of such condition.

[@許右甫]

本宇宙是大霹靂的高能量在降溫後所形成的物質世界，而大霹靂的高溫達10^23°C，而本宇宙在其下百億度形成的，所以回推大霹靂發生前的天體是在地球溫度下10^22°C 宇宙零度的母宇宙，用這作一切的起點才能解釋所有的天文現象。 宇宙是由空間與能量兩者共同構成的，在宇宙零度的母宇宙中，只要10^-27焦耳的能量就可以凝結成一顆光粒子質量的能質粒子，這就可以解釋無中生有的千古謎團，因為是自然產生的所以每個能質粒子的能階都不一樣，在過飽和狀態下能質粒子間以能階差大的優先結合成無動能、無距離與密度無限大的粒子個體，這就是黑洞的最小單位，粒子個體間也以能階差形成了相對運動，這就是引力的來源。 粒子個體間的相對運動最終導致踫撞融合長大，在融合時動能轉化為熱能提升合體化的能階，所以黑洞越大其體內的能階越高，當黑洞體內的能階超過內聚力就會自爆，所以黑洞的體積是有極限的（估計為銀河系的大小，引力達50億光年），而其自爆所釋放出來的能量也差異不大，所以在母宇宙其他位置自爆所形成的子宇宙其演化過程與本宇宙無什差異。 在母宇宙中的黑洞是處於相當多相對運動中，所以運行軌跡是無跡可循，而能質粒子作為黑洞的最小單位，其總量一定遠超過黑洞的總量。 宇宙最大的黑洞在自爆前其周圍有最密集的黑洞系統繞其運行，在將質量完全轉化為能量後，失去了引力源的黑洞系統就會以切線方向離心速度飛離中心點，質量大的黑洞會帶領可以影響的黑洞系統以同一個方向飛行，從側面看就是扁平狀的運動模式，這也就是星系團的雛型。 大霹靂的高溫與能質粒子以質能轉換產生了電磁輻射（宇宙背景輻射）、光粒子、原始粒子（基本粒子與量子）與暗物質（能質粒子提升能階而得，所以佔物質總量90%是合理的）。 赤熱的原始粒子以球狀向外擴張，最外緣的原始粒子與能質粒子接觸，動能急劇下降使粒子間的能階差發生了效應，結合成粒子個體，這就是夸克的誕生機制。 擴張的外緣因產生了夸克粒子而速度放緩，使後方高能量與高速的原始粒子追過，這就產生了宇宙最大壓力鍋，在壓力鍋內夸克的數量逐漸地增多，在高溫、高壓與高密度的夸克海中，這些綜合作用力使夸克間以能階差結合成穩定的夸克個體，這就是質子與中子誕生的機制，而這由原始粒子、夸克、質子與中子形成的綜合體我稱之為原始粒子濃湯。 原始粒子濃湯的擴張速度遠大於黑洞系統的離心速度，在被追過時黑洞系統成員都以能階差截取適量的原始粒子濃湯於身上，此時裹著原始粒子濃湯的黑洞系統就已成星雲體，星雲體的飛行軌跡就是紅移現象，所以宇宙擴張是離心力造成的，無需加入暗能量項次。 星雲體是裹著原始粒子濃湯的黑洞系統，因此恒星系統亦復如是，以太陽系為例，太陽中心是黑洞，其周圍是以高溫、高壓與高密度由夸克、質子與中子所形成的硬殼，因需向中心輸送能量這就導致硬殼不斷在擠壓重組，在這過程中就有硬殼個體被迫離開向上噴出，這個體在向上升時溫度與壓力變小，使個體的體積隨之膨漲，造成了夸克個體間的密度變小，在這些綜合作用力改變下，夸克因此裂解釋放出能量與原始粒子，到表面就爆炸形成日冕。 恒星的能量來源是夸克的逐層裂解釋放出的，到恒星末期，由於外在壓力的卸除，硬殼內的高密 度夸克在短期內連鎖大量裂解釋放出巨大的能量，這就是紅巨星與超新星的誕生的過程，而質子與中子因質量大被黑洞所拘束，只能在表面形成了硬殼，這就形成了磁星與中子星，當能量被吸噬殆盡就回歸黑洞原貌。 行星質量小散熱快，當表面溫度降到600°C時，其上空數百公里處的溫度降到絕對零度，此處的原始粒子的動能趨近於零，當表面下的擠壓導致高能量的質子噴到數百公里處，因能階差很大使原始粒子主動向質子靠近，進而繞其運行，於是原子就此誕生，而眾多不同能階的原始粒子能量的總和就是電子，因此行星本身就可以合成原子，無需超新星的賜予。

[@Da_Xman]

Row, row, row your boat, Gently down the stream, Merrily, merrily, verily, verily Life is but a...

[@enlilofnippur8409]

A lot of stuff in here disagrees with the thinking of most theoretical physicists; for instance, the assertion around 1:24 that space has always and will always exist, and that jt exists independently of matter or events - something that hasn’t been considered seriously for about 150 years now.

[@nasrinrahman4659]

Our universe is infinite that I can say. We have to get it whether you like it not.

[@พฤหัสบดี-ฦ1ว]

How many interruptions for commercials are you ready to tolerate? Because this is madness. As much as the video is great, the number of ads that come and cut your attention is just making that video unfortunately unwatchable.

[@youtubebane7036]

These people don't understand that space is something I guess.

[@lucapolidori8817]

I'm reading the various comments about "nothing" (which is different from "void"). You have to think to the Universe as a sphere of spacetime. Now think to Earth. Is the North Pole a special point or a singularity? If you walk through it, you won't feel anything special. We think to it as a special point, but it's nothing else than a point. Now, if we consider the spacetime as a single entity and we represent it as a Sphere (if finite) or a sort of open umbrella (if infinite), the big bang is just a point in the spacetime. It doesn't need to have a "before". We can imagine a multiverse, or a multiverse of multiverses. Nice, but it's like putting the Earth on the back of a turtle which stays on the back of another turtle and so on. Let's stick on a 4-dimensions spacetime with a beginning and potentially an end, with no before and no after.

[@louiekrousoratis6705]

The scientists in this field can only come up with the best theory they can imagine how the universe came to be. The Big Bang Theory is just that.

[@jasonrodwell5316]

No actually it isn't just a shot in the dark. A patch over a wound. There was a provable explosion, everywhere in space. The cosmic microwave background. The homogeneous nature and distribution of the temperatures within the cmb prove that the universe was once very very small. And we have since witnessed inflation. It is an explanation to observed evidence. And any new scientifically accepted origin story needs to scientifically explain these observations. The big bang does that very very well.

[@Micheal313]

One could actually say that the "Big bang theory" is an abstract model that postulates the singularity... which is probably why it's still called theory. It is logically sound tho.

[@jasonrodwell5316]

@louiekrousoratis6705 except it's not just a theory; it is an extrapolation based on evidence. The cosmic microwave background is indisputable proof that at some point in our distant past, the universe cooled from a very hot state wherein the contents of our universe existed in a plasma and then cooled to a point that atoms can capture electrons. This process releases certain frequencies of light, plus all the light present from this era was trapped in the particle soup. After the atomic combination, that light was released. Everywhere in the universe at once (it is present everywhere in the universe). This is an indisputable fact. And we can put a fairly exact time frame on when this happened because of the properties of light. We can account for and explain with current physics and certainty the events up to less than a second before the big bang. And yes, the actual big bang or whatever happens in that fraction of a second is theorised. But everything from that fraction of a second onwards is scientifically provable based on evidence. Because we have to explain the state that we can prove. The facts are that the universe at the time the cmb was released was provably very, very small. This is provable because of the uniform temperature differential present within the cmb and the drastic differences we see today. The universe was once so hot that these states of matter could occur..we know of no mechanism present today, which can naturally produce this phenomenon. And if we run the clocks back on simulations to their natural conclusion (based on cosmic inflation again provable, and the known state of the universe when the cmb was released, Our model predicts a singularity. This is not a fault of the big bang model, but the models of spacetime which predict that state, i.e., general relativity, that is where the singularity comes from. And a correct theory of quantum gravity would remove that mathematical anomalie.. so from the facts, the extrapolation is there was an explosion then expansion. Though this is an extrapolation, it directly explains the evidence we have observed. It is the only explanation for that evidence. The temperate the universe once was for the cmb to exist and inflation require this postulate. So if you dispute the big bang model (accepted as scientific fact today on the strength of the evidence) then you better have some model which explains all the data humans know as fact! And by the way, scientific 'theory' is the term used for any model which has been verified and is widely accepted as fact based on the strength of observable evidence and peer review. For an idea to be considered a scientific theory it needs to be the best explanation of the observed evidence given current accepted knowledge. It'd much more than a whim or a half baked suggestion.

[@jasonrodwell5316]

​@@Micheal313I'm sorry but you need to look into the criteria which makes an idea a scientific theory. Theories are actually ideas elevated by peer review of scientists the world over which fit and explain observed evidence. You seem to be suggesting the big bang theory is sometjing a physicist dreamed up one day then put it out and the rest of the world was like, yea that sounds right, lets go with that. To which i would say you have no idea whatsoever how science works in the modern world. The singularity you cite is nothing to do with the big bang theory. The big bang theory directly explains the hundreds of years of observations about our universe to a point where the evidence rules out hust about every other model. So much so that science it isnt even a debate anymore, its a given. We can state with absolute certainty every single process which resulted in our modern univers from before the big bang happened. What we cannot explain is if that initial seed had infinite mass, or even the physics directly controlling that state. That is the speculation, for the simple fact that we do not have a correct theory of gravity at quantum scales.The cmb is direct evidence that the big bang happened. There is no other mechanism which could produce the temperatures needed to result in us reading microwave radiation at every single point in space for the past 100 year. The time frame of 13.8 billion years maybe subject to review as we learn better and more accurate ways of extrapolating time from redshift. But that in no way whatsoever disproves the theory at all. We cant yet explain what created those starting conditions. Or what exactly caused the explosion to happen. But we havr direct evidence that it DID happen.

[@elfonzo18]

I suspect there are many universes In never ending space , most of them older than ours

[@michaelmeehan6699]

If we accept that we are living in a Multiverse. rather than a Universe, I wonder about the possibility of one 'verse' interacting with another? The immediate example I can think of is perhaps the possibility of matter disappearing ino into one, to seep out into another, say as a white blob.

[@caperider1160]

After all, negative and complex numbers all have their real life implications

[@Kaylem13]

The All, Universe, things, time, worlds untamed and galaxies beyond comprehension all exist within the All, but yet everything within the All all exist infinatly have, and will, within the Absolute, absolutly. " i" nfundibulum

[@TheVigilantEye77]

Nothing is something

[@airborne10x]

Let see, even particle physicists will readily admit they know less than 1% on how this universe works.

[@seanhewitt603]

First . One must reconcile the passage of light through time with quantum gravity. Then, and only then, can you begin to see that the ocillation between super solid state and super gaseous state is what causes reality to appear. The harmonic resonance and frequency of it ... Its both music and instrument. The thermal disequilibrium drives the cycle .