The 4 Greatest Mysteries of Physics

[@4saken404]

Has anyone ever noticed that SciShow uses a greenscreen background just to make a green background? XD

[@eddiezebeast]

GREENCEPTION

[@calvin7330]

@@eddiezebeast Sometimes there's Green in the foreground as well

[@speedcreatureYT]

Could be blue lol

[@fresco4500]

I blame hank

[@joaopedroalmeidacaetano1619]

And then there is HANK GREEN

[@Lord.Kiltridge]

I am a big fan of "What is stuff?" Entropy gets more complicated every time I hear about it. I guess it's true.

[@boonies4u]

I like to wonder what would happens to "stuff" as we march to max entropy. Are atoms and their fundamental particles even possible in a max entropy system?

[@stuffnthingsb.c4043]

Entropy is a word I’ve heard before but never really knew the meaning. It’s meaning I didn’t know had a name “entropy”. It’s nice to learn a new word word/meaning, I know it will be on a crossword puzzle. Lol 😆. Learning is knowledge, Knowledge is power. Lol Thanks for the great episode as always. Cheers 🍻

[@xKumei]

This might be a dumb question, but why doesn't entropy count as going to an organized state itself, given that energy seeks to be evenly distributed? To me, it makes more sense to view the state of equilibrium as the "organized" state and all of our organized systems that go against it as the cause of the chaos.

[@timothyclark3919]

Stuff is a disruption of the thing we think of as nothing. Space is a thing we think of as not being a thing, stable disruptions of that thing is stuff. Transient disruptions of that thing is energy. Aether theory failed due to the aether being considered massive, but it's massless. Not sure if that was an actual question or a reference I'm not getting, but I'm feeling pretty proud of my theory so I figured I'd explain. (Explain meaning within the context of fractal funnel theory)

[@jordanlavin7]

@@xKumei look at it like a packets containing information. the information stays the same its just in more packets.

[@kellydalstok8900]

As Michael started to talk about entropy, I accidentally dislodged the water reservoir of my coffee machine, which created more entropy on the counter.

[@nenmaster5218]

Best social commentary i know: Hbomberguy. Just sayin'.

[@shadesilverwing0]

How could you! By increasing entropy you've inadvertently contributed to the ultimate death of the universe!

[@marcosanaya9540]

Now we wait for that entropy to further increase by falling to the floor.

[@fernandoavila3929]

But that entropy will be reversed when she cleans the counter.

[@seanriopel3132]

Why does creating " entropy in a woman" create life which is the opposite of entropy?

[@jakesdekker7503]

The answer to all these problems is 42. It just is. Trust me. 😉

[@garyfilmer382]

Great, clear, scientific talk, with no click-bait! Excellent, and covers all the topics which fascinate me, and many others!

[@teastrainer3604]

August Tudor addresses all these topics too.

[@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394]

Physics' Biggest Mystery # 7: Why are the Kardashians a thing?

[@fauxchellaproject]

Can you do a video on all of the fundamental constants in the universe? Talk about the history, usage, and why we know that each one is fundamental? Thank you!

[@yami-131]

we don't strictly "know" that these constants are "fundamental", as with regards to the theory of everything there may be an underlying principle dictating them. we call them fundamental since as far as we know, we have always measured them to be precisely the same, and we have yet to find any principle dictating why they are, which makes them seem fundamental.

[@jefflittle8913]

The speed of light, permittivity, and permeability are interrelated, so 2 of these 3 are fundamental and the third can be derived from the other two. But which two are fundamental?

[@nickel36]

​@@yami-131sounds like great content. For like a video about the constants. You know, as requested.

[@militantpacifist4087]

“I think nature imagination is so much greater than man’s. She’s never going to let us relax.” - Richard Feynman

[@Skeptical_Numbat]

We can only but hope...

[@phhsdj]

My new favorite quote

[@ozapata1977]

Corny

[@rabidL3M0NS]

Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” - Albert Einstein.

[@sechran]

Strange to think that at one point we kinda figured we had this whole "physics" thing figured out and wrapped up, all except for this one tiny "black body radiation" thing. It's just one small thing - obviously it couldn't prove our nicely mapped out science island was actually a peninsula and that we had an entire continent of quantum physics to discover... At least at this point I don't think we'll ever be so arrogant to claim, "yep, we got this whole 'science' thing all figured out!" With the questions we have remaining, we could find out our "science continent" was just a tiny subcontinent, and once over the mountains, we've a whole science hemisphere to map out.

[@PanicProvisions]

How did you not say that the "Fine-tuning 'problem'" is simply survivorship bias? We aren't a *different* kind of intelligent lifeform fine tuned to a different set of fundamental constants asking ourselves why they are the way that they are because that's not the universe that exists. We evolved to suit the universe around us instead of the other way around, simple as that.

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

This. I have always said this.

[@lunchbox4229]

Isn’t that just another bias depending on what you understand as being fundamental?

[@philochristos]

The thing that sucks about entropy is that you can't even breathe without increasing it. That's why you'll never see me at the gym. I don't want to be the one hurling our universe ever faster toward heat death.

[@ashleyrodgers6048]

This has been, BY FAR, my favorite episode of SciShow. Thank you for all that you do.

[@shadesilverwing0]

It kinda felt like PBS Space Time. Really thought provoking.

[@ashleyrodgers6048]

@@shadesilverwing0 I watched this episode at least three times bc I felt like my brain couldn't really wrap around the mentioned concepts. So interesting!

[@cedriceric9730]

@@ashleyrodgers6048 it's probably the finest scishow ever , People need to know this stuff The very boundaries of science :)

[@smith951]

What is it like to be a gorgeous 😍 🤔 lady?

[@MountainSnowInc]

It makes me wanna go back to college for cosmology. :)

[@TheoWerewolf]

#1 Arrow of time. Actually, there are several tested time asymmetric processes (mainly centered around the charm and strange quark in B and K Mesons), so the argument that the laws of physics are time symmetric isn't actually true - or are incomplete. Also, the weak force has a weird quirk in that it can only interact with left handed particles (or right handed anti-particles) which breaks P symmetry. Then there's that whole entropy thing.

[@Storiaron]

Time symmetry not being a thing asks more questions that it being a thing, imo

[@bru8960]

Ok

[@gyro5d]

Thanks, now I have more things to look up, been into Time. Time started when Dielectric energy created Space. Tunneled from the Inertial plane. (Ken Wheeler and Eric Dollard) I added the Tunneling. How does Time not exist in both directions, doesn't everything? Aether's hyperboloid rotates in one direction. Opposing vortices are CW & CCW. Maybe, Opposite Time doesn't interact with the EM spectrum. Probably in Counterspace, everything is opposite there. Except (?) The Inertial plane.

[@ObjectsInMotion]

Actually, Time symmetry IS a thing, as long as you're including Charge and Parity. We know for a fact that the combined CPT symmetry hold. While a lot of the time "Time symmetry" means only T symmetry, that's only when we're talking about specific details, and "general" time symmetry, the kind talked about when referring to entropy and the direction of time, is just a shorthand for the combined CPT symmetry.

[@degeneratedeuterium5164]

@@gyro5d Shut up thats not physics

[@zamuy12479]

When, or if, physics is entirely solved, we'll return to the philosophical questions, mostly beginning with "why" And we'll have a lot of math.

[@dragon12234]

Yeah, one thing I've heard is essentially "Religion answers why. Science answers how." Considering how Science did get its start in antiquity by priests and philosophers trying to understand the world and the divine.

[@pedroscoponi4905]

Yup, at the end of the day both come from a desire to understand, even though they seldom mix together very well one other way I've heard this phrased is "science cannot explain the world, it can only describe it"

[@KitsukiiPlays]

But why?

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@dragon12234 Except that science can back up its answers, and religion can't.

[@dragon12234]

@@KaiHenningsen yeah, it is kinda hard to prove or disprove (the latter of which is the most important to the modern scientific method, that something can be proven to be wrong) that a god exists if they can control reality

[@sentient_dinosaurplush]

This is why I love science! From the outside, when you just learn in school or when you just have a surface level understanding, it seems like we know everything there _is_ to know, but when you look even a little deeper you see all the ways we still have to go. ❤

[@mattm7798]

What's scary is when you start to poke at these constants and dogmas, the pros get really mad, seemingly fogetting that science is supposed to question everything, not get to 2023 level knowledge and then say "nope, anything that challenges this is wrong". This video is actually a great rep of what science should be: admitting fully what they don't know, but in practice, the hubris in which scientists like Lawrence Krauss operate is very disappointing

[@vidal9747]

​@@mattm7798one of the sources of conflict that is common to see is that people think that they know physics just for watching these videos. There are people who think themselves superior for knowing more than others, but there are also people who don't actually understand a theory and want to act as though they understand it by virtue of knowing its consequences.

[@KalleTwist]

“The more I learn the less I know”.

[@fidelogos7098]

I'm still traumatized by high school science that likened an atom to a solar system. Learning about quantum mechanics is like finding out Pluto's not really a planet. We don't know what we don't know.

[@induchopra3014]

​@@KalleTwistwe dont even know when matter is matter and when it becomes energy. Both are same. But when the change happens? Why we are not made of energy,why matter? If both are same

[@madvillain1987]

Knowing what we don’t understand is just as fascinating as knowing what we do understand.

[@pflume1]

It appears we don't understand much.

[@Finlzz]

@@pflume1We don’t know a whole lot but what we do know, we know very well

[@dipstiksubaru3246]

Great to see Michael's mane is still intact and slowly becoming more and more affected by gravity the longer it gets. 👍

[@binbots]

Because causality has a speed limit every point in space sees itself as the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles. When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment. The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse happens when we bring a particle into the present/past. GR is predictable because it takes place in the predictable past and the probabilistic wave properties of particles takes place in the probabilistic future.

[@ThaBeatConductor]

Damn, I never thought about the wave-function collapse like that.

[@ralphsammis7330]

I think you’re onto something linking past & future via particle/waves. Maybe a wave can change when a quantum wave/particle meets a Newtonian road block.

[@andrewkirton2238]

Why would you say something so groundbreaking yet controversial... bruh I never thought of it like that. Thanks. Btw maybe you should write this stuff down and place inside some buried container coz the FBI might be on their way...

[@binbots]

It seems I was not the first to think of this theory. Lee Smolin published a paper this year saying the same thing. Check out the 8 min mark of this vid.kzbin.info/www/bejne/o6nFZGZso9RlqKs

[@persilious81]

Congratulations. Your laudable insight is very well written.

[@MWTravesty]

Speculating about how we wouldn't exist if the fundamental laws were different is totally focusing on the cart and not the horse. If the laws were any different, we wouldn't exist to wonder why they were different, so it's a pointless exercise. To me it wreaks of Creationists pointing to a banana and saying obviously God created everything because everything is perfectly set up to benefit us. It's starting from the position of an entity that only exists as a result of a very specific phenomenon and wondering why that phenomenon is so perfectly suited to them. Also, we experience time as a linear flow from the past to the future because that is very beneficial to biological beings which need to replenish their draining energy in order to survive. Just because we experience time as linear doesn't mean that's how it actually behaves. It's just the lens we're looking through as products of our environment.

[@napoleonbonerfarte6739]

I've always thought this, I also smoke the reefer my friend.

[@MewPurPur]

Exactly! There's a metaphor about a pond that ponders, how come its hole just so happens to be perfectly suited for its shape. Same with the universe being perfectly suited for us.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

reeks

[@SlyPearTree]

I disagree that it is a pointless exercise to ask where those laws and constant come from just because we and the universe as we know it would not exist if they were different. The question is not the religious or philosophical "why are we here?", it's the scientific "how are we here?"

[@stillthinkingofaname7810]

👏

[@NeilCrouse99]

*So if entropy runs at the speed of chemical reactions, does time follow that rule as well??*

[@jacquiegardner7422]

Fabulous. Love your videos. REALLY love this one. I live and work in an educationally challenged community, where people have been turned off learning, object to the time they are required to spend in school, and where kids are actively discouraged from curiosity, and in a culture that enforces learning - rayher than helping kids be curious, ask questions, enjoy learning join the dots and get excited. Kurzgesagt, thank you!

[@webx135]

"We only exist because we're in the universe suited to life" "That last one is an extremely speculative idea" I'm not sure why it's speculative at all. If a universe didn't support life, who would be there to observe it? By definition anything living will always be in a universe in which things can be living. That's always what gets me about, say, theists who say "is it just a coincidence that the Earth is in just the right orbit and has just the right conditions to sustain life? It must have been designed that way!" Well if Earth couldn't support life, we wouldn't exactly be here to observe its lack of life, would we? Like, by being alive, it pre-implies that you are already in a universe that supports life.

[@Lucaazade]

“Why does ___?” “Well, if it didn’t, you wouldn’t be asking that question.” Not an answer, is it?

[@webx135]

@@Lucaazade In many cases, it is. Maybe not "why are the universal constants what they are?", but things like "why do we happen to be on a planet that supports life? Doesn't that mean God designed it just for us?"

[@magnushultgrenhtc]

Quite. It's not coincidence when everything is the same incidence.

[@AshleySteelxxx]

It’s not speculative that we are alive in this universe, that’s just obvious. But it’s speculative to say that only this universe would or could support life. It’s speculation that somehow we ended up here because that’s what it should be without being able to study or know of other universes which may have other laws of physics that don’t conform to our own. So yeah it’s not speculative that we’re here and that the laws we have happen to support life… it’s speculative to say that this is the only universe and the only physical makeup that would be conducive to it. That’s 100% speculation.

[@TheKrispyfort]

It also implies there are universes that do not support life. there may be completely biologically sterile universes, or universes where life there is not recognisable, nor recognising, life here. heck, even here we may have shadow biospheres that we can't yet recognise. "I don't know. It's a mystery" (a line from 'Shakespeare in Love')

[@TheMissingLink2]

Talking about this stuff is always interesting and terrifying at the same time.

[@theglobalwarming6081]

Agreed

[@SobeCrunkMonster]

your mom conceiving you is more terrifying than physics to be honest.

[@alwaysdisputin9930]

@@SobeCrunkMonster You find sex terrifying? Did your dad .... you know. ... do something to you? Are now you're trying to hurt people but really it's a cry for help? It's ok dude. You don't need to hurt people. You need to tell people what happened & get support. Maybe some pyschotherapy might help. Stay strong.

[@SobeCrunkMonster]

@UK man loves goddesses ok chad, whatever you say, please dont hurt me

[@JCavinee]

@@alwaysdisputin9930 Hurt him, Chad, hurt him!

[@thesilentmajority2765]

As a Nebraskan, I agree with the homogenous analogy of our universe. But personally, I'd say Iowa is more accurate.

[@johnswoodgadgets9819]

I am glad we have reached this point... Again. Rennaissance. During the last renaissance, there was no real differentiation among science, art, and spirituality. There was struggle of course, but no real differentiation. We compartmentalized the three to avoid that very struggle. From that point on, it was all about the physics. I theorize there was no differentiation at the time, because there is in fact no differentiation at all. All three have served humanity in their own way, and frankly all three have their limitations when considered in isolation. Our greatest enlightenment occurred during the time when they were not compartmentalized. Perhaps we stand on the cusp of a new renaissance, in which the walls of the compartments come tumbling down. If we have reached the limit of physics, the next step is perhaps no limits at all.

[@goldenfloof5469]

"Out of all the possible variations the universe could've been, what are the odds it just happened to be one where life as we know it could exist?" ...100%, or else we wouldn't be here talking about it.

[@WilliamAndrea]

yup, that's the anthropic principle

[@fighteer1]

@@WilliamAndrea Yep. The problem with the Anthropic Principle is that it’s more observation than science. It has no explanatory or predictive power. You can apply it to statistical analysis but not very usefully without a larger sample size. The Fermi Paradox is another place where the anthropic principle is applied and it has the same problem: a sample size of one.

[@bradbadley1]

@@fighteer1 I think the general point of the anthropic principle is to show you can't just use the cop out "it's way too improbable so god did it". You know, the whole puddle analogy. Even though it's not "science", it is logical. 👍🏻

[@dgagamingaesir]

If the constants were differwnt, life would be different,it it's still life. The Constantinople first, then out current life. It's like a puddle that forms in a random depression believes that the middle was made just for it because it wouldn't exist otherwise.

[@shadesilverwing0]

Three possibilities I can think of so far. 1. There are multiple universes and this is one of the few (or only one) that can support life. 2. Our universe is cyclic, with different laws of physics in each iteration, and this iteration just happens to support life. 3. This is the only universe that has ever existed (and/or ever will exist) which just so happens to also support life. (unlikely)

[@rohanshah7960]

Timestamps 0:32 1. Arrow of time 3:13 2. Inflation 5:38 Fine tuning problem 7:20 Theory of everything

[@dedgzus6808]

9:18 Says gwavity

[@michael.forkert]

1. Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana 2. Inflation is caused by worthless money printing 3. Fine tuning the mind to be bamboozled 4. Theory of Everything. There is a cornucopia of PhDs in EveryThingology polluting minds.

[@michael.forkert]

Dark energy is ridiculous. Dark Matter and Black Holes as well.

[@lamegoldfish6736]

My roommate has taken entropy to a whole new level.

[@jezuconz7299]

6:58 i think that last one point is not as speculative as he says, since life or many other things would not exist in an universe that cannot physically produce them, so there's no humans to ask why they are there. We only exist because it is physically possible that we do. So how is it highly speculative? It works well with the multi-verse one, where in others that cannot physically support life or stars or other structures, there's not those things

[@CyberiusT]

Personally, I find the universe to be far more interesting if it's explained by two mutuallly exclusive theories. "But WHY is it like that?" "'Cuz the universe is f'ed up, that's why!"

[@marko3296]

That “fine tuning” is not a mystery in science. Its only brought up by theists trying to use it as evidence for God

[@davidbarroso1960]

it is a mystery though. the “fine tuning” of life on earth can be explained by natural selection, but what explains the “fine tuning” of the cosmological constants?

[@WilliamAndrea]

@@davidbarroso1960 The anthropic principle. We can only exist in a universe that allows for our existence.

[@AMorphicTool]

@@WilliamAndrea The anthropic principle only works with the assumption that there are infinite universes in which to potentially exist. Which is a currently untestable hypothesis. If there is no multiverse, the "why" becomes far more complicated to answer than simple random chance.

[@WilliamAndrea]

@@AMorphicTool It doesn't require the assumption of a multiverse. Think about it this way: if the cosmological constants didn't allow for life to arise, we wouldn't be around to observe them. That's a hypothetical alternate universe, not a real one. To put it in more logical terms, our existence implies cosmological constants that allow us to exist.

[@davidbarroso1960]

@@WilliamAndrea yes, but that doesn’t answer the question. the problem isn’t the ‘coincidence’ that the constants have the exact values to allow life, obviously they must because we exist. the problem is answering why they were those exact values in the first place. why weren’t they any one of the other infinite possibilities that would make life impossible?

[@drg9812]

RE "Fine Tuning" We exist as we are because it was possible for us to, a puddle does not look at the hole it is in and marvel at how perfectly it fits the hole, like it was MADE for that hole If things were different, then things would be different, simple as that. And life would be as we do not know it, or there wouldn't be any life to marvel at itself. There have been papers written suggesting "life as we know it" could still exist if you completely eliminated two of the four fundamental forces, and even as we are now - life is barely able to exist here as it is DarkMatter2525 put it best by saying we are a fragile flower growing out of a crack in cement, you'd hardly say that the cement was "made" for life

[@persilious81]

One might say that life is a statistical anomaly, maybe out at 10 sigma or well beyond.

[@Storiaron]

"We only exist, because we are in the universe suited to life" That's not some extreme theory, that's pure logic. ...

[@shadesilverwing0]

Exactly, that seems like an obvious statement. Did I miss something here?

[@Storiaron]

@@shadesilverwing0 yeah they phrased this exact sentence as if it was some extreme theory. Weird

[@otozm92]

Cause it doesn't actually answers the question. is the same response you get from your parents ''because I say so'' but in scientific terms

[@johnathansmith9405]

We evolved to the harsh conditions of the universe, not the other way around.

[@ToroidalX]

@@otozm92 I get your point, but it makes sense that the universe is this way because we are here to ask those questions in the first place. We wouldn't be asking anything if any constant was different. Maybe there are multiverses, who knows?

[@xBrokenMirror2010x]

On the question of our universe starting in a low entropy state, why not? You can unmix coffee, you can un-entropy the universe. On average, entropy always tends to increase, which is true, but over a period of infinite time, no matter how statistically unlikely it is for coffee to unmix itself or the universe to enter a low entropy state, it is literally guaranteed to happen.

[@jettmthebluedragon]

So if the universe is flat does that mean we will enter heat death? 😓 or is that a theory? If so it would not make since how can you have the Big Bang ? Without space and time ?😐if space is infinite and time as well could you live infinite amount of times ?😐if not then what’s the point of anything?😐how can it be in this random point in time of space we exist and why are we here? 😐like I could have Ben an wild animal like a bird I could have Ben in the civil war or a pirate or a knight why now?😐and saying this is the end it does not feel right 😓

[@shiddy.]

I'd like the exact boundary between GR and QFT to be better explored ... the exact physical distance where they meet and separate I feel like that's one of the places we're going to find a big part of the answer

[@nenmaster5218]

Best social commentary i know: Hbomberguy. Just sayin'.

[@SerunaXI]

It's like, you move toward a door, and move half the distance toward the door each movement. By one theory, you'll never reach the door, by the other theory, you will reach the door and pass the threshold. It's that limit where you switch from one to the other situation that we must explore.

[@ewmetzler]

I’ve been thinking about the fact that gravity waves travel at the same speed as light, as a clue to unification between gravity and quantum field theory.

[@robbie8142]

​@@ewmetzler Been a while since you've made this comment. Have you had any further thoughts on this? Personally I think it is an absolutely outstanding comment!

[@wren_.]

gravity is a big one. QFC try to fit gravity into their model with the gravitron (gravity as a force acting on a particle), but that just broke all of physics so that can’t be how it works

[@Phi792]

regarding the 'fine tuning problem', it always felt incredibly intuitive that all constants are in an optimal way, because if they weren't, we wouldn't be here to talk and wonder about it.

[@pedroscoponi4905]

That's definitely true, but it also doesn't explain much, yknow? It makes sense that scientists aren't exactly satisfied by it 😅

[@NethDugan]

Yup. Either we are really lucky that the only universe in existence happens to have these values. Or there's a multiverse and we are in the one that happens to have these values.

[@bxlawless100]

The logic is circular. I could say the Bible is the law because without the Bible there would be no law. But that’s illogical.

[@Phi792]

@@bxlawless100 oh that's a cool argument!

[@SerunaXI]

Pi and e aren't neat little numbers, but values that go off to infinite decimal place, yet these two mathematical constants greatly simplify the problem solving in math. The sqrt(-1), i, is another constant that simplified much in math once we understood it as a constant. Yet, for much of human history, we didn't recognize it.

[@XenoTravis]

I remember this OG of OG KZbinrs all the back to his "Google verb meme thing" song he made like 14 years ago.

[@chroprs]

"We only exist because we're in a universe suited to life, that one is an extremely speculative idea" - Not sure why this is seen as speculative, this seems to be by far the most likely, we appear to be in a universe perfectly tailored for life to exist because we are life that exists in the universe. If the universe wasn't suited for life to exist then we wouldn't exist. This is the anthropic principle. We observers are limited by our knowledge of everything because we only exist in the places where life can exist.

[@bradley772]

When i was a kid, i remembered the future more. Around the age of 10, fifth grade for sure. So when those future memories would happen...i merely said, "Hmm? Deja vu." Maybe, we remember more of the future than we think.

[@asklar]

the real mystery of physics is how Michael's mane gets more magnificent with every new video

[@gilessmedley619]

Gravity 😃

[@wholeeyschmoley580]

JAJAJAJA!!! OMFGAWD 😜

[@snakepliska837]

The theory of everything can be broken down to 42. We've known this for a while now..

[@svenmorgenstern9506]

Ever notice there's a lot fewer dolphins around these days? Just sayin'.

[@sophierobinson2738]

Sven Morgenstern I've got my towel.

[@snakepliska837]

@@sophierobinson2738 that's good, I almost panicked..

[@aformofmatter8913]

"Why is our universe capable of supporting life?" Well if it wasn't, we wouldn't be sitting here discussing it, would we? Whatever universe we exist in, by definition, must have constants that permit life

[@calebstroup6917]

That's assuming there are an infinite number of universes to avoid having to explain an unexplainable origin of a universe supporting life. If there is anything less than infinity, even an extremely large but definable number of universes, the "why us" question become infinitely more important. Any time you see an infinity in an untestable theory, that means something was too complicated to understand or something is fundamentally unknowable no matter what we do. Infinity is the "god" of math and physics. If something doesn't seem possible or knowable, you can guarantee you will see a "because infinity did it" logic plastered all over the theories and equations.

[@qabrm5367]

Imagine that day in which we say: we didn't knew this theory and used to learn many 'hypotheses'!

[@Starfire777]

The Answer to the above Question is quite simple "GOD" In the Hebrew language "GOD" has a NAME YHWH which means "HE CAUSES TO BE" GOD is the ONE who CAUSED THE Big Bang" AMEN. GENESIS 1 : 1

[@mervviscious]

I want to thank you for doing this and for all the people that back you up with SciShow and other channels on here. without you people I would have stopped learning decades ago. Thanks from deep in my being...

[@thomassicard3733]

"Others suggest... that we only exist because we're in the universe suited to life." OK. Who can argue with that? Only those who believe that we are not "alive". Way too Matrix for me. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!

[@MiniLuv-1984]

We haven't discovered the Big Bang, we postulated it and observations thus far seem to support that postulate. Thanks for the summary though - very good.

[@blindbrailleable]

You really overexplained the laws of physics. They are equations that work the same forwards or backwards, yes correct. But instead of bowling balls and quantum entanglement here's an easier way... 1+2=3 3=2+1 Boom.

[@greyangelpilot]

"Give me one miracle, and I'll explain the Universe." The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.” ~ Terrence McKenna

[@danielroder830]

When we find theories that fit our reality, it's not because they are true, but because we carefully tailored those formulas so that they describe what we measure. It's interesting that they can predict reality to such a high degree that we have to dive deep into theoretical physics and make extreme machines to find holes in them. So even if we find the ultimate theory that perfectly describes everything we could possibly measure about our universe, it could still be wrong. I think we humans expect some kind of enlightenment when we find it, but it may very well be disappointing and boring.

[@nenmaster5218]

Best social commentary i know: Hbomberguy. Just sayin'.

[@shade7367]

this exactly! The goal of a scientific framework is never to be "the truth" but always to allow us to better predict what we'll find in our world.

[@kedgykinchin]

Simply love the fact that there is 0 dislike for this video, and the glorious hair of Michael 😁

[@DrZedDrZedDrZed]

The answer question one lies in the relation between Inflation and gravity. Maybe it was a case of spontaneous symmetry breaking, or a freak event (which, on a long enough timeline is a certainty) decoupling the Higgs from some local minima, but, an extremely homogenous mixture of elementary particles at any standard temperature without much deviation IS by definition very high entropy. At any given temperature, if there's no room for the internal energy to dissipate, things will mix as much as they can, and the CMBR proves this of that past state. If gravity is pulling on all things in all directions equally, then there's no room for difference. The crux of all this, is that as the container of the universes' primordial fluid expanded, so too did the phase space for that fluid's distribution within its container, and the most MINUTE differences in the distribution of mass/energy sent metaphorical snowballs rolling downhill in all directions. The filaments of stuff that fill our universe condensed out of the void. And from there, entropy has continually been fuelled by gravity on a bouncy journey (confusingly, uphill) locally down, and globally up everywhere things are. Earth, and life included. If you ask me, the big bang and inflation sounds a lot like a birth of a black hole, wherein the contents behind the event horizon are simultaneously transformed into pure potential energy devoid of any one quantum field that may have originally hosted their mass/energy, and instantaneously become entangled with the information embedded onto the event horizon's surface. Add to it the fact that from the moment of a black hole's birth, everything to ever reach its centre does so infinitely far into its future, but grows continually before it does so, and you begin to see a curious play of forces that mimic a hyperbolic spacetime whose boundary lies infinitely far away, and one dimension down. If black holes contain MOST of the entropy in the universe, does it not follow that we could be in/on one working our way up to do the same?

[@Jellylamps]

So essentially our universe is effectively only part of some fractal multiverse

[@runs_through_the_forest]

@@Jellylamps multiverse, string theory, simulation theory are all rubbish.. unprovable and some argue it's not even science.. i have this curious hobby where i search for the more controversial physics ideas or concepts, most of them based in decades of observational and experimental research done by some of the most dedicated minds of the latest few generations, and what they all have in common is the lack of wondering of into theoretical physics fantasies.. so it's funny stuff like string theory etc get a lot attention and respect from academia, but for example someone like Wolfgang Kundt, who studied astrophysical jets and astronomy for many decades, yet gets ignored completely when he makes a statement like this: on black holes, they are a scientific error, if they existed they would have swallowed us long ago.. this is only 1 example, as i'm not going to spend to much time here, but it's a nice one i think, light years apart in essence, and exactly what i think we need to consider more, to learn from, than anything popular science communicators throw at us here on youtube..

[@Jellylamps]

@@runs_through_the_forest I don’t claim to be an expert on any of this but just because something can’t be proven doesn’t disprove it. Obviously that doesn’t in itself prove anything but keeping your mind open to possibilities, even absurd ones at times, can make great strides. In my initial comment i was extending the posited logic, i wasn’t actually convinced by the concept, though i could see a world in which something like it may be the case. Different ideas to explain the world we live in are definitely worth looking into and it looks like you agree with me to an extent, but scoffing at spitballing concepts isn’t exactly scientific either. It’s one of the two pillars of discovery: deduction and inspiration, as far as I’m concerned. Also I’m pretty sure string theory in particular has been losing traction in recent years.

[@runs_through_the_forest]

@@Jellylamps neither do i claim being an expert, it's merely an out of control hobby haha.. and indeed string theory isn't popular anymore, mainly because those invested in it failed to bring any substantial proof to the table.. if you are a bit like me, still eager to read books in the era of 10 sec attention span smartphone swippers, i highly recommend Kundt's book Astrophysics: a new approach.. (warning, it's pretty hardcore but should be mandatory for astronomy students :p ) anyhow i think we could engage in a good talk among the squirrels in some forest somewhere in that hypothetical multiverse.. cheers

[@thomaslechner1622]

@@runs_through_the_forest Black holes contain no more mass than the stars that created them, actually less. So why sould BH's have "swallowed us" long ago, given the vast interstellar distances ?? Highly compressed mass actually causes LESS gravitation on objects far away from its center than the same mass distributed over greater volume. Why? Because of the quadratic law. The less distance even a part of the mass has to the object, the higher the total gravitational force the object is exposed too. Example 2 cases: 1st case: 2 Stars, each 20 times solar mass, distance between their centers exactly 1 LJ. 2nd case: A BH of 20 solar masses and a star of 20 solar masses, centers at at same distance 1 LJ. The star in case 2 is seeing lower gravitational force from the BH then the star in case 1 from the other star!

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

The low-entropy beginning of the universe was explained fully by Davies in 1983, but Penrose opposed this idea, so it was rejected. The low-entropy beginning is explained by inflation--- the early universe was in a maximum entropy state consistent with the inflationary cosmological constant. It's a pity this was rejected, the explanation is correct.

[@SciMinute]

I think physics could write everything down mathematically, but this has also quite mysteries!

[@Chad_Thundercock]

Holy crapbaskets, Michael has gotten freaking jacked over the years. Dude could probably bench press a Buick these days.

[@Skeptical_Numbat]

If it is so lacking in evidence, why does *String Theory* rise to the level of a full scientific theory? Why isn't it *String Hypthothesis,* or *String Conceptual Framework?*

[@Astromath]

Because the math works out perfectly and beautifully On top of that, it hasn't been disproven by experimental evidence, it only lacks verification

[@88marome]

I don't know if it's like this in this case but sometimes even scientists use those terms interchangeably, like when Verlinde's hypothesis of gravity was called Verlinde's theory of gravity.

[@Skeptical_Numbat]

@@88marome I'd prefer to think of a *Scientific Theory* as supported by virtually unassailable Evidence, sourced from years of Peer-Reviewed Articles (published in respected Scientific Journals).

[@darthtace]

@@Skeptical_Numbat String theory is not a scientific theory; it is a mathematical theory. As is general relativity, and quantum field theory, and any other attempt at an explanation of quantum physics. They're simply proposed explanations for natural phenomenon that are internally consistent. If any of them were a scientific theory, the others would be discarded, because that would indicate strong proof of the explanation. Now, why are mathematical theories and scientific theories called such if they're completely different? Great question. If anyone knows the origin of each definition, I'd like to hear it.

[@LA-MJ]

@@Astromath beauty is in the eye of the a stuck-up beholder

[@charlesbromberick4247]

I graduated as a physics major in 1967 when physics was still real, but rapidly going out of control. Thanks forv a very nice presentation.

[@nogur9]

Is physics still out of control?

[@charlesbromberick4247]

Entropy has taken over.@@nogur9

[@justintodd5145]

Well they have too. We can't get any further if they don't "get out of control". We have learned nothing more about gravity since Einstein.

[@charlesbromberick4247]

Maybe you should talk with my ex-lab partner, Dr. Bernard Schutz of the Max Plank Institute. To be honest, I was pretty good at the old physics, but this new fangled stuff has no place for me.@@justintodd5145

[@NeverUseAnApostrophe]

​@@justintodd5145they have *to.

[@stephenm6165]

A big conflict between GR and QFT is time. QFT measures the change of particles over time, in space. GR is time and space (and gravity). Imagine trying to draw a graph but there is no graph paper and the ruler changes length depending on how strong gravity is or how fast you are going. In a black hole the ruler becomes infinite (long or short, depends on perspective). Trying to combine them is really hard because if you add the time/space/gravity part you have to "stretch" and "squash" the graph paper and that screws up the numbers in QFT. And everyone disagrees on how stretched or squashed the paper is depending on their direction, gravity and their speed. The two paths to unifying GR and QFT are either to use "hyper-paper" that lets you plot time/space/gravity on it as well as the QFT stuff, or to make QFT relative like GR so you don't need the paper. There's probably others trying to unify them in a different way but I'm not into this enough to recall.

[@BarderBetterFasterStronger]

The part about "if constants were slightly different, life as we know it couldn't exist" is a bit silly to me. Statistics tells us that the probability of an event happening, given that it has already happened, is 1 (or 100% likely). We are only here to ponder the question because conditions were (apparently) right for us to exist. If constants had been different, yes, life as we know it wouldn't exist, but I think it's quite a stretch to say with certainty that some other sentience couldn't have developed under these different circumstances. The fact that we exist, given that we exist, is not particularly interesting in itself from a statistical point of view, which is what is implied by calling it a "coincidence."

[@brandondavidson4085]

The fascinating thing about physics and science in general is it tells us "how", and we can sit and think about "why".

[@nightmike7655]

Just by asuming that there is a "why"

[@ChrisChoi123]

also, this video made me feel so excited and so happy. we have come so far, but we have so far to go, its clear that there isnt something that is lurking right in front of eyes, there will have to be many many breakthroughs that will revolutionise physics before we can even see the horizon of physics. thats why i study physics, and while being the one to figure it all out in a theory of everything is very desirable, it obviously wont happen in my lifetime.

[@franklinfaulkner9400]

9o977t7 St ttttt

[@stevenw4549]

@@franklinfaulkner9400 Keep the cat off the keyboard will you?

[@joanchaffinbawcom5722]

Because it's hard to meld the rough edges of consciousness to the sharp edges of mathematics. I mean think how recently fractal geometry was discovered. It's all about that leap outside of the box

[@heylofellas]

I'm all up for scishow usually, but in my opinion I think really sketchy to say statements like the arrow of time is so "because" of entropy. I think there's a huge difference. Entropy is just a physical quantity (one can say the same about time being a coordinate too I guess). But it's not that time flows ahead because entropy behaves like this or entropy always seems to be increasing in the universe. The sentence said implies a causal or logical explanation, linking why entropy causes time to move in one direction. But thats not true. Entropy itself is just a quantity, there is no cause and effect here. You can't just sweep under the rug the entire question by saying oh it's because entropy is seemingly increasing. So entropy implies arrow of time seems to be an iffy statement for me. Most of the time, one defines the notion of time first, before quantities like entropy so the left hand side of the implication isn't even properly defined! Of course, I may be wrong here. But a tldr is entropy behaving in the way it does (always increasing) is not an explanation of why time flows in one direction. Usually all these explanations should boil down to some axiom. For example most theories in physics right now involve writing down a Lagrangian and using the least action principle as an axiom. But should second law of thermodynamics be treated as an axiom? I don't think so, but it is highly sacred in the community lol .

[@infiniteuniverse123]

13.8 billion years ago, two maximum entropy objects existed in our small part of our already existing, static universe. These two objects collided and the pressure and friction from this event turned the maximum entropy masses into minimum entropy shrapnel that are the galaxies. They were born in the minimum entropy state called quark plasma which is what black holes are made of. Quark plasma creates all the naturally occurring elements all by itself using the dark matter of space which is made of extremely pressurized electron neutrinos. This plasma is invisible and can make shapes. It only releases gamma rays which is why black holes are optically invisible. The Big Bang is impossible. It must follow the laws of physics. Humans don't get to say physics work after the big bang but not before. The laws have always been here because our universe wasn't "born" 13.8 billion years ago. Dark matter is made of extremely pressurized electron neutrinos. Gravity is created when heat manipulates this field. A mass does this by creating electron neutrinos by destroying electrons and turning them into electron neutrinos. These particles are shot from the mass gravitationally invisible and they push out on the natural pressure of space because they are all the same matter. That is gravitational lensing. Gravity is created when space uses its natural pressure to push through the outgoing matter and reacts with normal matter on its way to the core. When a mass has no more energy to manipulate space, it has no ability to create gravity no matter what its size. That is the true significance of absolute zero. The Big Bang theory completely destroys humans ability to understand entropy. It can't be inexplicably hot, then cold, then use gravity to make everything hot again. The insistence on using gravity for this purpose is exactly why it remains a mystery. The collision created the energy, not gravity.

[@DangerDurians]

The fine tuning problem i think is a non problem, similar the last proposed explanation for it, questioning it as a coincidence or sign of intelligence is on track to suvivorship bias

[@TheMinskyTerrorist]

It's only survivorship bias if there's something to "survive" like infinite random universes, which is unprovable and speculative

[@davidhand9721]

I've never really seen the paradox of why the universe appears so uniform. If it began uniform, then it doesn't need to "mix" to become a uniform temperature or density. Every part of the universe _was_ in causal contact at one point, so we don't need superluminal influence to have uniformity.

[@Xibyth]

The fine tuning problem, nature doesn't build in strait lines. We made those numbers, gave them their values, boiled it down to our own perception. Thus, the results of the math we apply to the universe is simply circumstance. We humans have organized our own minds so well it confuses us when we don't know why something is the way it is, when what it is just happens to be what we call it. There is no fine tuning problem, unless you consider how our perception has to be tuned to make us comfortable.

[@tylergust8881]

Math is an interesting idea, did we invent math? Or discover it? If we invented math then what you say is true. But seeing that math was 'invented' multiple times independently, I feel like it's more likely that it's a discovery. Plus, if it was invented, we did a really good job at it... So far it put a man on the moon... and then some...

[@nuwang2381]

@@tylergust8881 I would argue that math was invented to describe underlying relationships. It doesn't really fit under either category of discovered or invented. It is like math is a way of describing relationships that can ultimately be boiled down to multiple models. it like saying if you can describe the same logical deduction with different words/phasing. of course a person can. does the fact that something was deduced mean that what was deduced was discovered/invented? If we take math in isolation from everything else I think we invented it. but if you consider the reason why it was invented it might seem like a discovery, I think it was something invented to describe discovery's and from that point onwards the system we have set up for math internationally become to large and encompassing people can discover thing's within it.

[@alwaysdisputin9930]

Sunlight takes 8 min to reach Earth. Maxwell said c = 1/√ɛμ. In vacuum, ɛ & μ are close to 0 so light's very fast. So how did we "make these numbers & gave them their values"? A material with high ɛ = plastic. A material with high μ = iron. When iron's magnetised you get a lot of magnetic field lines coming out of it, closely packed together. This is what high μ means. YT vids say magnetism's just electric charges packed together by relativistic length contraction. Plastic has high ɛ because the electron clouds can get pulled away from their positive nuclei which creates an electric field that blocks other electric fields, thus making plastic a good insulator. All these things seem independent of human thought?

[@tylergust8881]

@@nuwang2381 Exactly... I think... it was a little hard to follow at times but it reminds me how we didn't suddenly have the complete knowledge of math as we do now, there were times before the number zero or even negative numbers were considered real because what does it mean to have negative apples? In the sense of money, it might describe a debt, but a person still can't hold -$15. The further we separate our world from the world of math, the further we can refine math into just pure logic, the more powerful it becomes. That doesn't mean the old reasonings are wrong, it just means we are freeing up our definition of math to more stranger and liberating possibilities. Right now those 'magic constants' that our universe has might all be connected in such a way that wont be discovered until we further the field of pure mathematics.

[@tylergust8881]

Another example would be the square root of negative numbers; sqrt(-1) was originally thought to be impossible, how can you a number by itself and get a negative when two negatives make a positive just like two positives make a positive. But once we discovered/invented imaginary numbers and complex numbers it suddenly became possible! Who knows?

[@alphaomega1351]

I thought you'd never ask: 1. Because that's just the way it is. 2. Because space has always existed. 3. Because it's closer. 4. I have created a theory for everything. You are welcome! 😶

[@Vortex1988]

There is also a theory that says eventually the universe's expansion will stop and then reverse in on itself due to the gravity of every object in the universe pulling everything back together into one point. If this were to occur, would the resulting entropy cause time to reverse? To take this even further, if time were to reverse to the point where all universal mass was collected into one point, would the resulting big bang event cause time to flow forward again? Is it possible that the entire universe is just one giant time loop, set to repeat itself over and over again?

[@sumanthganapathibasavapatn141]

It's amazing how any science, getting more and more deep and generic, ends up going towards philosophy and needing to find answers there.

[@marcosanaya9540]

But that's where sciences started.

[@sumanthganapathibasavapatn141]

@@marcosanaya9540 It is... weird, isn't it?

[@karlstetter9512]

So if time is the measurement of entropic change. Then 1. How does gravity effect it? 2. Was time different with the density of it or the entropic change that determine how time works? 3. If we are seeing light from system over 100,000+ light years away. How would we perceive that difference in how time works? 4. Are we actually seeing time "tick" differently? 5. Can we learn more about time? And how it works? So many questions!!! Help me sci show you are my only hope!

[@jamescaldwell2357]

Milk recombining in coffee is no different than gas clouds in space collapsing and forming a human being typing on their phone while riding on a small rocky planet.

[@wholeeyschmoley580]

Really?? u actually believe T H A T??

[@jbreshLSU]

Untold sums of money spent for man’s search to quench his thirst for knowledge of the mysteries of the universe, and all we have to do is open the Bread of Life to Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning, GOD created the heaven and the earth.”

[@geraintwd]

Fine tuning is only really a problem if you start with the assumption that the universe had a goal, and that goal was life. It is the height of human arrogance to assume that WE were the goal. If the constants had been different, the universe would have been different. Perhaps different forms of life would have evolved. Life "as we know it" makes use of the most abundant elements in the universe - hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, etc. If the universe had unfolded differently, with different elements, different physics, then there's no reason to suggest that there couldn't have been different life, based on whatever the most abundant elements happened to be. We might not recognise it as life "as we know it", but then we wouldn't be there to study it either.

[@Kram1032]

5:57 so I'm pretty sure the 26 constants you are talking about aren't the ones most people think of, such as the speed of light you just mentioned. They are the dimensionless ones, right? The most commonly known one of those is the fine structure constant ~ 1/137 The special thing about those constants (unlike things like the Speed of Light) is that they are what they are entirely independently of any scale of measurement. They are truly unit-less.

[@vao879]

Annd now I smell toast

[@NethDugan]

It's things like speed of light. Strength if the weak nuclear force. Strength of gravity. And so on. pbs spacetime have some vids that go into more detail on all of this if you are curious.

[@Kram1032]

​@@NethDugan Yes, but the speed of light isn't one of those constants. It has a unit (namely velocity, distance per time) so what it looks like depends on how you measure both distance and time. There are some constants that are, in a sense, even more fundamental, because no matter what, they always look the same. (And there is indeed a PBS SpaceTime video all about this)

[@LA-MJ]

@@NethDugan no it's not, it's relation of those measurements

[@Kram1032]

​@Ryoku Y that's because they are unitless. They contain nothing to base our units on. In effect, units and those constants are mutually independent.

[@Billybobble1]

Something else I would like to add, I'm currently at a very apt age, 42. To all the young people and students out there, I'm envious of you having amazing channels like SciShow to give you knowledge and the desire to ask more questions, and moreover, maybe one day give us answers. I wish you all the best in your pursuits, and if you don't get the '42' reference, okay maybe you still have a little ways to go, but you'll get there x

[@Billybobble1]

Some beats to inspire your developing minds - kzbin.info/www/bejne/i3y3gKCcmL6Ebrc - Seba - Shades of Me & You. 'The future is your time'

[@johnheath86]

Finding meaning must be marvellous

[@MrJeansforlife]

FYI, scientists and engineers use "homogeneous". Biologists use "homogenous" when referring to similar tissues/organisms. I got chewed out in an engineering course when I used the wrong one, haha.

[@ascendantmadness347]

At a point of maximum entropy, the universe (perhaps locally) simultaneously becomes completely ordered. If every possible configuration is unlike every other, there is no differentiation that can distinguish matter or quanta and it is a "logical singularity", to coin a term. This very existence would initiate inflationary time, as the instant maximum entropy is reached it is already completely ordered and therefor entropy begins.

[@andie_pants]

I cannot f'ing wait for the flood of fantastical unimaginable data the JWST will give us! My only regret is that at 43, I probably won't get to be humbled by the mysteries that its inevitable successors will reveal.

[@LA-MJ]

Unimaginable because it's unimaginable to see that memescope in space

[@jmacd8817]

At 52, I feel this acutely. 🥺 On the other hand, I’m terrified for my granddaughter and the world she will live in by the time she’s my age…

[@andie_pants]

@@rossjackson7352 Nobody likes a troll.

[@thefourshowflip]

I’m just hoping to make it to see the return of Halley’s comet…I missed it by 3 years last time 😊

[@julianshepherd2038]

@@rossjackson7352 social injustice has a poor record leading to a lot of violence and misery. You need to have a look at yourself, you are arguing against justice. Getting out more might help. Meet more and varied people.

[@Entropic0]

A "theory of everything" is impossible, and that's due to Godel's theorems which prove that any system of logic will always include absurdities or exclude truths. You can have a theory that is accurate, or you can have a theory that is complete, but you can't have both.

[@RidireOiche]

I once heard a theory about the big bang that made sense to me: The big bang was the product of a blackhole collapsing in on itself and exploding after 'consuming' the entire preceding universe and spewing the previously super condensed matter outward with a bang. Like a reset button for the universe. There was more to the theory but that is the general idea.

[@Leviathan123456]

...but where did that black hole come from? what produced it?

[@dynamicworlds1]

@@Leviathan123456 there's one hypothesis that says that every single black hole creates its own universe, so the black hole would be created the normal way: by a collapsing stellar core.

[@ericharrison5724]

Good Video, I'm kinda motivated by it, but I feel you should make more video pertains how to make wealth

[@aaronthomas8963]

Exactly, You're right and I feel currently there is no better way to make wealth than crypto

[@smithmalon8377]

Investing with Expert Richard Emerson has been one of my good experience. I had accumulated so much loss trading blindly. I was sad receiving my first profit knowing I invested so low because of fear of losing.

[@lecliadams7345]

How can I get to him?

[@carminerosato7150]

He's Great try him out and your story will be different. People who have been paid successfully took a chance, you can partake on the moving train

[@derekhenson3471]

The fact that OBSERVATION changes how the universe reacts/performs should be the focus of study. However, instead, we seem to say, "Cool" and then just move on.

[@JCavinee]

Play The Outer Wilds

[@cristianverdugogalaz8725]

well its not really observation that does it, but the fact that our methods to get results will always interfere with some subject, stuff small like particles are light enough that literal light can push it

[@BoredDan7]

My assumption for most of the why's is that if something can exist, it exists. We tend to think of existence as special, but we do know we exist in some sense of the word, if we didn't we wouldn't be able think about it. So why assume that's special, why not just assume that our universe exists simply because it can? I think ultimately these sorts of questions will be fundamentally unknowable. If something exists outside our universe or not we can't really answer, since if we could know or interact with them they'd be part of some larger universe we are contained in and the question still remains if anything exists outside of that. But here's the thing, if the question of whether or not other universes completely separate from us exists, then the fine tuning problem becomes sort of irrelevant because the possibility will always exist that it's fined tuned simply because our single universe happens to be that way. we can never show that to be true or false making the fine tuning problem nothing more then an interesting thought.

[@aaronmicalowe]

The assumption that there should only be one model for the universe may be an erroneous one. Our universe could be made by the collision of two separate realities with unique fundamentals. It's like asking, what is the single ancestor for the English language. There isn't one - there are two, and they each had their own rules. When they were added together to make English, some of those rules contradicted each other which is why English is hard to learn as a second language. Some of the rules were based on Germanic and some were based on Latin.

[@laurendoe168]

For #3, I'm quite satisfied with the explanation, "If these numbers weren't the way they are, we wouldn't be here to question them."

[@BL-oj5zn]

and which part of that isn't the same as "God created the universe"?

[@BlockyBookworm]

@@BL-oj5zn the part where nothing about the anthropic principle requires a designer?

[@BL-oj5zn]

@@BlockyBookworm could you explain deeper what has anthropic principles got to do with op's and my comments? Op's comment was about "because we're here, hence however finely tuned our universe appears to be despite the odds, is logical". That comment is akin to christian saying "God created the universe, hence the universe appear to be fine tuned". So what has anthropic principles got to do with this two statements?

[@BlockyBookworm]

@@BL-oj5zn The anthropic principle is "Fine-tuning isn't an issue, because only with an apparently fine-tuned universe is observation of that fact possible". It's not akin at all. One is "God, therefore order", the other is "Order, therefore observation of order".

[@alexandermargotta6206]

​@@BlockyBookworm The anthropic principle is built on the foundation of an infinite multiverse, which is itself a leap of faith to believe in. We have no proof (yet) of the existence/non-existence of a multiverse. The anthropic principle is equally a statement of faith as "God made everything." There is nothing more or less rational about believing one over the other. In fact, given what we can observe right now (our one, highly-ordered universe), I'd argue it's probably more rational to believe in God by Occam's Razor.

[@troyodynski3652]

Love these types of discussions as it clearly illuminates how many things we "pretend we know" that we factually do not know. Things like "the universe started with a big bang" (we actually do not know this and we have nothing to prove the theory is correct as that would require replication a most basic concept of science)and other fabricated concepts used to explain why we can't know the future like "entropy" which really doesnt exist in any real way beyond to fluff the egos of people who think if not for that pesky entropy they could prove they know everything. 10/10 would watch again.

[@SerunaXI]

there are many theories that are difficult to test, difficult to prove wrong or right. Thus we have to look at what those theories predict and test what we can test.

[@christopherchilton-smith6482]

If we successfully reconcile GR and QFT without getting a solid reason for our universe being so friendly to life I'm calling bs on the whole thing, we live in a simulation.

[@asphaltpilgrim]

What's your definition of friendly to life? If I teleport to a random location in the entire universe, it's pretty certain I will die. ;)

[@sophierobinson2738]

I still hold for extra-dimensional beings peeking into this one and saying "Let's give this one a poke and see what happens."

[@shadesilverwing0]

Life is a fluke and our universe is anything but friendly.

[@christopherchilton-smith6482]

@@asphaltpilgrim Well, that its conducive to life at all is the definition I'm working with. There are what, something like 26 constants dialed to the exact values required for life? It would seem that if you rolled the dice on these values you'd pretty much always come up with a lifeless universe. The anthropic principle only really makes sense if we take multiple universes to be a given but there's little reason to simply believe they do.

[@asphaltpilgrim]

@@christopherchilton-smith6482 Fair enough, but are we absolutely sure that no other setting of those 26 constants produces universes with some kind of emergent complex forms? By definition, we have no physical model of those universes so how would we know how "lively" they might be? (and obviously * I* have no idea, I'm just dicking around here. :) )

[@jamescole3524]

what about everything in the previous universe became devoured by a black hole consuming all matter in the universe and compressed it into a ever shrinking compressed point until ....you guessed it....BANG

[@69TheGG]

Life is like the poop a universe puts out , it can see both ways but one without the other they both go dark. HAHAH THANK YOUNLIKE THST !?

[@du5707]

Back then in school physic wasn’t my favorite subject because of all the constants. I was like where the hell are these guys getting all these numbers and why must it be these numbers. Just knowing that physicist still don’t have a clue how the universe exist is maddening enough then and now. I don’t know how scientists manage but it must be pretty uncomfortable relying on facts you probably know already leads to a dead end.

[@shadesilverwing0]

Exactly how I feel. We're able to use these constants to make perfect predictions about how things happen, yet the constants are entirely meaningless by themselves.

[@robertfindley921]

The nice thing about being an atheist is, we don't claim to know all the answers. Extremely smart people are trying to figure it out. Tenacity, objectivity and humility will continue to provide incremental answers.

[@yourboypeter516]

For me, evidence points to there is a God who made this all possible. He even loves us and wants you to know Him. Just food for thought.

[@ptoktedia9011]

You don't need to be an atheist to be that kind of person

[@michaelburns7066]

I stumbled across this video and I have to say, this is one of the best Physics videos I have seen. More please. The four questions are fabulous and I am completely fascinated by the cosmological constants and why they are what they are. My particular fascination involves the gluon. I work in Electrical engineering. From the moment I started learning, I was told that like forces repel, unlike forces attract etc. The gluon totally negates this. It’s sole purpose in life is (within the nucleus) to overcome the tendency of the positive protons to repel one another. The strong nuclear force. If it wasn’t for the gluon, matter wouldn’t exist. How did it come in to existence? I would love to see your views on this with a video about the gluon. I have been others on QCD but they didn’t fascinate me like this video did. Thanks.

[@ManyHeavens42]

make your own Laws ,By changing the Order,of Laws, the language.There are 3 Universe,s one neutral, One is a Gate.we need a ground, There's always a Bridge on the other side.free Energy.

[@Jcolbert123]

Why wouldn't the answer to 'why we can remember the past and not the future' be the Heisenberg uncertainty principal? The past is us seeing the wave function collapsed whereas for the future the wave function is still in a state of flux due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principal.

[@Fajita.tamale]

What about the fundamental forces that split early in the universe? Like how the strong and weak forces used to be intertwined I know some people think there could be a Big Crunch at the end of the universe, but would it not be possible for forces to split again? I’d love to hear how the splitting of forces was even discovered, it’s mind blowing. My friend literally threw up when I explained it to him lol

[@eye2077]

it's probably related to the running nature of the coupling constants for EM and strong interaction. I'd assume these coupling constants approach each other at high energies. But QCD isn't very well defined at high energies so \_(:/)_/

[@philmorton4590]

With the 3rd issue, I always thought our universe's laws were being held together by the other universes around it in the multiverse. A bit like how we can manipulate a bubble to take the structure of a cube with wires, or how it becomes hexagonal when there is a group of six around it.

[@wren_.]

why do they not collide with each other tho? we know our universe is expanding, are the other ones expanding too?

[@monicab7386]

​@wren we don't know, if they exist, if they're colliding or not. We don't know where we sit in the sphere of our universe, only that it extends past our perceptions. Only the areas within @ 13 billion light-years of the edge would necessarily see a collision. We, at this point, can't say if there's more universe to our "left" than out "right."

[@DanielVerberne]

Bravo! I truly enjoyed the sumptuous banquet-of-the-mind that was this episode! I sincerely believe that science loses nothing of its grandeur and excitement when all we have is more questions. One thing that I felt from considering some of the deep mysteries in science is that the concept of the ‘infinite regress’ is a real one, yet it should never dissuade us from trying to Rand and push science as far as it will take us. For those unaware, an ‘infinite regression’ essentially means that underneath any single explanation may lay yet another deeper or more fundamental explanation or understanding that we quite rightly SHOULD try to attain. As a downside, the infinite regress also says that fundamentally we are unlikely to ever have an answer at the root of all things that is satisfying enough to not warrant itself more questions! Example: “How can we explain the sheer smoothness and uniformity of the matter and heat difference of the large-scale Universe? Springing from the Big Bang, we should not expect such smoothness at all!” “Ah, well you see that’s the inflaton, we get the sudden inflation episode kicking in just after creation. It’s an ultra-powered expansion and I liken it to the crinkly, cratered rubber surface of a balloon. Watch though as I connect that balloon to this special compressor-fed pump… *Thwap!*. Okay you see much bigger yes but also the sheer violence, the distended nature of the balloon means erstwhile crinkles and pits - all smoothed our”- Allan Guth, fictional dialogue “Nice, that makes some of my other problems disappear, here take a Noble Prize!” “Wait… hang on. Was inflation as a thing, was that, is that part of the Big Bang? Or is it like an add-on later ? Because I’m wondering now, why that particular type of inflation? Also, could the Big Bang have happened WITHOUT inflation, Mr Guth?” “Uhhbh” “Also, did the Big Bang cause the origin of space AND time? If so, it may not make sense to ask about causality and what happened ‘before’, but I find it hard not to! So, what do we think caused the Big Bang? Was the entire potential of the universe just sitting somewhere, awaiting some thing to light the fuse, so to speak and if so, when then and not later or indeed why ever? “ Hehe. Silly stuff. But you get my point. We are likely forever in a maddening situation of having fundamental mysteries, even if we manage to get arbitrarily close to an understanding of how things really do work.

[@ericwolf9482]

What about the most simple question. Since like particles repel each other how is it the core of an Atom doesn't fly apart? The Glueon quark theory just don't do it for me.

[@thorinsee5129]

God I'm glad that I'm young and... somewhat healthy... when I'm lucky i can witness the answers to some of those questions.