What's eating the universe? - with Paul Davies

What are the unexplained riddles of the universe? Award-winning physicist Paul Davies talks you through the strange enigmas that have preoccupied cosmologists from ancient Greece to the present day.
Paul's book, 'What's Eating the Universe?' is now available: geni.us/pauldavies
Watch the Q&A with Paul here: • Q&A: What's eating the...
Laying bare the audacious research that has led us to mind-bending solutions, Paul will tell you how we might begin to approach the greatest outstanding enigmas of all.
Paul Davies is a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist and best-selling science author. He has published about 30 books and hundreds of research papers and review articles across a range of scientific fields. He is also well-known as a media personality and science populariser in several countries. His research interests have focused mainly on quantum gravity, early universe cosmology, the theory of quantum black holes and the nature of time. He has also made important contributions to the field of astrobiology, and was an early advocate of the theory that life on Earth may have originated on Mars. For several years he has also been running a major cancer research project, and developed a new theory of cancer based on tracing its deep evolutionary origins. Among his many awards are the 1995 Templeton Prize, the Faraday Prize from The Royal Society, the Kelvin Medal and Prize from the Institute of Physics, the Robinson Cosmology Prize and the Bicentenary Medal of Chile. He was made a member of the Order of Australia in the 2007 Queen's birthday honours list and the asteroid 6870 Pauldavies is named after him.
This talk was filmed at the Royal Institution on 21 September 2021.
----
A very special thank you to our Patreon supporters who help make these videos happen, especially:
Andy Carpenter, William Hudson, Richard Hawkins, Thomas Gønge, Don McLaughlin, Jonathan Sturm, Microslav Jarábek, Michael Rops, Supalak Foong, efkinel lo, Martin Paull, Ben Wynne-Simmons, Ivo Danihelka, Paulina Barren, Kevin Winoto, Jonathan Killin, Taylor Hornby, Rasiel Suarez, Stephan Giersche, William Billy Robillard, Scott Edwardsen, Jeffrey Schweitzer, Frances Dunne, jonas.app, Tim Karr, Adam Leos, Alan Latteri, Matt Townsend, John C. Vesey, Andrew McGhee, Robert Reinecke, Paul Brown, Lasse T Stendan, David Schick, Joe Godenzi, Dave Ostler, Osian Gwyn Williams, David Lindo, Roger Baker, Greg Nagel, Rebecca Pan.
---
The Ri is on Patreon: / theroyalinsti. .
and Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and TikTok: / ri_science
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/editing-ri-talks...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter
Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link.

[@deborahrobinson8802]

As always, Paul Davies is brilliant, communicative and charming in a highly informative lecture. Thank you.

[@dand4485]

Really? Gotta love the point to hear anyone talk about anything say we don't know the answer, but let me tell you, right around 17-18 minutes.

[@SteveBakerIsHere]

f-sub-l from the Drake equation can at least be considered. Biologists seem to believe that the first self-replicating molecule was probably RNA. We can look at the shortest known sequence of RNA in the most primitive bacteria. We can estimate the density of amino acids in the oceans of early universe (and amino acids are rather common in the universe) - we can estimate the reaction rate at which amino acids randomly collide with each other and estimate the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule just happening to appear by chance in a liter of water over a second. If we multiply our best estimate for the amount of water in the oceans of an earthlike planet by the best estimate for the number of such planets and multiply by the amount of time since the oceans formed on a typical planet appeared, we can get a VERY rough estimate of f-sub-l. I have tried doing that - using the best numbers I can find - and the result is that life is EXCEEDINGLY unlikely to have appeared anywhere in the universe by pure random collisions of amino acids. So unless we can find a MUCH simpler self-replicating molecule - or some means of stacking the odds in favor of a self-replicator, then f-sub-l is far, far too small - and we are alone in the universe. (In detail - the length of that minimal self-replicator as a specific string of N amino acids is critical because there are 26 amino acids - so probability of a random sequence of amino acid collisions making that exact chain is 26 to the power N...so the longer the chain has to be - the VASTLY less likely it is to have happened). The simplest sequence known to exist in nature is a bacterium called Carsonella Ruddii, with just 160,000 base pairs. But 26 to the power 160,000 is a crazy large number! Even if we imagine some reason why the four standard base pairs might dominate the oceans - 4 to the power 160,000 is still far too big - given the size of the visible universe. So to my mind - the most critical piece of knowledge we need to answer the "Are we alone?" question - is a matter for the BioChemistry people to answer: "What is the shortest sequence of amino acids that will self-replicate?" But if the entire universe is infinite - then no matter how long the odds, life is certain - and there is (for sure) alien life somewhere - and now the only question is what are the odds that it exists within the observable universe?

[@bozo5632]

Check out John Michael Godier's latest video.

[@whirledpeas3477]

Hi Steve, You might not remember me yet, we met in July 2038 at Moon meet

[@ksmit]

If I listen to this 10 times, I might have a 1/100th of the knowledge it takes to understand the topic. Hoping it subliminally soaks in(since I watch during my lunchtime nap).

[@darkone9572]

Getting high sure helps !!

[@gazzam3172]

i found it quite straight forward and clear 😌

[@oipbhakeld]

@@gazzam3172 you're not alone

[@whirledpeas3477]

Yes, be at peace. The world needs good people to serve the food ❤

[@demibee1423]

A great presentation where he freely admits we haven't figured it all out, but this is what we think so far.

[@karlschmied6218]

You will hardly hear a scientist say that "we have figured it all out". That's an impression you might get from bad school teachers.

[@neologian1783]

@@karlschmied6218 Quite right....all knowledge is held tentatively and subject to revision upon new discovery.

[@anaryl]

Such an excellent, understated delivery. I've watched this several times before bed, Paul certainly brings a dulcet tone to such a violent topic.

[@anialiandr]

We used to use Paul Davis’ videos about quantum physics back in the 90s in our linguistics master courses to teach students laterality . Great teacher ❤

[@nuqwestr]

Dangerous to make such correlations, perhaps that's where "linguistics" went off the rails and produced so many deluded "woke" adherents.

[@anialiandr]

@@nuqwestr Did I say I was linguistics ?

[@bobaldo2339]

Very well delivered lecture! Thanks for making it available.

[@DrJanpha]

I first listened to Paul Davies' talk about the universe some twenty years ago. As enchanting to listen to as ever, Sir...

[@ericlawanderson]

Paul Davies' lectures are as wonderful as his books. My favorite thinker and explainer of big ideas in the Solar System.

[@kingjosephrbidenjriii5820]

Earth isn't what they tell us

[@meacadwell]

@Ben Chuft True. But, although they can be annoying to listen to, I bet if you recorded yourself giving a lecture, you'd have some slipped in as well.

[@PrometheusZandski]

Paul Davies is a great cosmologist and an excellent teacher of science. My problem with this lecture and many more put out by RI is that they go through the same 99% of material that should be known by undergraduate students. I clicked on this lecture hoping there would be more than 2-3 minutes explanation of "what is eating the universe". This lecture didn't even show that anything is eating the universe, only showed a slide with some bullet points of things that may do that. This formula for cosmology content may be raising the general level of knowledge, I don't know. I do know I'm tired of seeing 99% the same lecture.

[@danguee1]

Yep. Everything at a level where it is 'intellectually* inclusive'. Cos explaining hard stuff excludes those people who haven't studied the material or have the brainpower to understand the explanation. What used to be called 'dumbed down'. [* god forbid using the word intellectual.....]

[@PrometheusZandski]

@@danguee1 I get that. I really do. Then I ask myself, exactly how many of those people would click on this lecture? How many of those people would dress up, drive to the university and attend this lecture? Looking at the comments, it seems I'm wrong. Still, I would have liked to see an actual lecture on what is eating the universe.

[@danguee1]

I think the RI should have different levels of lecture. Sort of beginner/foundation, intermediate and advanced. Because it's a bit sad if more advanced viewers are forced to watch repeated simple stuff because they're too 'boffin'. It's nice they want to communicate to the less knowledgeable. But don't ignore the bright kids in the class!

[@davidohara7669]

It is called "click bait".

[@midgefidget5796]

Yeah, video was almost over when he got the the part that made me salivate.

[@ptrisonic]

I once sat next to Paul Davies on a flight from New York to London. I was inexplicably tongue tied. I figured out that I was just a musician and wouldn't be able to keep up with his reasoning - despite being very interested in the subject, of which Paul is justly respected for. So I wasted at least 6 hours because I was scared to show my ignorance. I really regret this 25 years later... Best, Pete.

[@lacostejr8]

Dr. Paul Davies and Sir Roger Penrose have almost the same PUBLIC SPEAKING VOICE 💯... I was listening to this lecture at 2 a.m., waiting to fall asleep, so I wasn't watching. I was just listening, and I kept thinking it was Sir Roger Penrose lecturing Cosmology! It is always a pleasure to listen to lectures in Physics, Mathematics, and Cosmology. I spend all my free time Pondering our origins, consciousness, and time... Cheers 🙏

[@user-ud6ui7zt3r]

When I listen to lectures given by physicist Sean Carroll, I constantly think that I am hearing the voice of the fairly famous actor, Alan Alda.

[@BassGoBomb]

Just to join all those saying what a wonderful thing it is that we still have lectures like this and the Royal Institution itself. And, thank you Paul Davies

[@henrythegreatamerican8136]

What's eating the universe? Trump's ego!!!!

[@dscs3213]

​@@henrythegreatamerican8136 TDR is eating your brain,its been 2 years get a grip! And Henry son there are no great Americans,well other than THE DONald Trump...🤣🤣 LETS GO BRANDON 🤡

[@BassGoBomb]

@@henrythegreatamerican8136 Which, itself, is like a monstrous blackhole... lol

[@XRP747E]

Such a beautiful presentation. Elegant simplicity woven from a massively complex subject

[@bloodmoney88]

our universe is like a cartoon I've seen of Homer Simpson, when he stood beside a green hedge, then he slowly backed into it, disappearing into the hedge.

[@5625130]

G'day from Australia Very interesting lecture. Cheers

[@tedscott1478]

And a good morning to you sir, my antipodean friend...👍

[@siggesaltens2663]

Sigge Dr. Saltensø :Thank you Paul : I've been following You now for the majority of 77 year. Time is a Point. And there I stand, so help me, God, and watch You aproaching me.

[@YoutubeHandlesSuckBalls]

The arrow of time is only for macro objects. If you get small enough, you can ignore it under certain situations. This would, of course, explain the 'slow' start of time, because the universe had to get to a size where the arrow of time dominated over quantum effects before time really got going.

[@kaarlimakela3413]

I don't know about that, but I got nothin', so 👍

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Another possibility is that our specific fluctuation that triggered the BB is also the result of another process. Hypothetically, Like a black hole evaporating. The moment that hole in spacetime closes, another Universe is born in its own reality from the energy(matter) it has collected over its lifetime. Just one of many possible mechanisms, but it's likely it is cyclic.

[@manmanman2000]

Only in a classical model though, or not? If I think about QM and the collapse of the wave function, this is a microscopic event but it is not reversable.

[@nadiafarahat9201]

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 now there's a thought love it

[@nadiafarahat9201]

@@kaarlimakela3413

[@jameslyons3320]

What a great day it is! To hear this lecture has made it so!

[@7Earthsky]

Prof Paul Davies rocks.

[@rushiaskinnerwallace6175]

Really enjoying this talk/lecture/presentation. 🙏🏼

[@marioxuereb5125]

Great lecture and explanation that everyone can understand ! Thanks !

[@karlschmied6218]

Depends on what you understand by "understand" and "everyone".

[@syedalishanzaidi1]

I think some of the comments here are as interesting as the lecture itself. Alex Scott's comment is quite telling, but if I may add my own two bits worth here, we are in the realm of sheer conjectures and hypotheses. What matters in the end is that in the process of defining what we are up against vis a vis the Universe and Cosmology etc, we do hone the knives of our intellect, thereby arriving at the limits of our own capabilities. Theories and hypotheses will continue to fall by the wayside as we proceed, but the trick is to take in all of it with an aha of toleration. This journey of to-ing and fro-ing with ideas never did any harm to human civilizations in the past, only jolted us forward to where we are now at present. I love the idea of a platform where people discuss and share cutting-edge thinking in this way. Absent from Abrahamic religions, especially Islam, is any intellectual platform for free debate and exploration. That is my own lament, coming as I do, from a traditional Muslim background. But just to cap it up, I am using poetry (in Urdu) to air some of these issues and aspects myself. Can't say any more here except to say that you cannot chain thinking and ideas. You can't box in water as it has a way of finding its own way out.

[@shenidan2023]

Amazingly thought provoking and delivered in a way for anyone to understand.

[@macysondheim]

I don’t believe in atheism

[@uncletiggermclaren7592]

"It's a delight to, be back here in London, away from the unrelenting blue sky and warm sunshine" That is some top quality dry humour.

[@ericgraham8150]

I was thinking that too. That's the best kind of humour when you're lecturing. It gets kind of cringe when lectures try to make a joke, and make space for laughing.... best not to try so hard.

[@2msvalkyrie529]

Yes ! Wes Cecil should study this technique !! He's the worst ! It really is Cringeworthy !

[@hlr3932]

Such a great lecture, but I was shocked to see very few people in the audience. Why??

[@johncostigan6160]

Somehow I am reassured by Paul Davies lecture that it's a useful step forward to at least know what I don't know.

[@timsmith5339]

This started me thinking about the 'natural' and 'supernatural'. By one definition, 'supernatural' is simply the 'natural' that we don't yet understand. When you start talking about other universes though, 'supernatural' could then be things we can never know, test, understand or even imagine.

[@donquixoteupinhere]

Great lecturer! Thanks for making this kind of quality content available to anyone with internet access!! Long may it continue!

[@aimokoivunen7046]

All bs. They don't know any of it.

[@elmolewis9123]

@@aimokoivunen7046 Thank you, professor. 🙄

[@kingjosephrbidenjriii5820]

Lecturer...correct. zero proof of ball earth tho. Observable false

[@davecarsley8773]

@@aimokoivunen7046 Brilliant comment. You added a lot to the conversation.

[@aimokoivunen7046]

@@davecarsley8773 Just the truth.

[@brucewilliams6292]

The very best explanation of modern cosmology that I have ever heard. Professor Davis wins the award for clearest explanation and analogy of science. Bravo RI.

[@patsk8872]

Always had a real problem with the presumption of Hubble's law. I'm not saying the answer for redshift can't be doppler shift. But it is also entirely conceivable that the observation of redshift vs. distance could be caused by the medium (which is spacetime) slowly sapping the energy of the light, and that this is only noticeable over large enough distances.

[@vitalstatistic63]

@7.42 the New York Times article written about "Hubbell" makes no mention of expansion. It simply states that the use of higher power telescopes to observe distant spiral nebulae or island universes has resolved the images to collections of individual stars, such as Andromeda, and explains that they were able to use those stars to calculate distance to the structures and thence the size of the structures. There is no mention in this article about velocity, redshift, nor expansion.

[@simoncrooks7441]

Thanks, very interesting presentation, very well explaind. not sure if I could explain to someone else what Paul was saying

[@neilbeni7744]

My first physics book was a Paul Davies book I received as a 18th b'day present and I knew nothing of physics and thought it was the most boring present ever until I got bored one night and OMG I transformed into a new dimensional being 😂 My mind was blown 💥 because I don't know math but Paul Davies made me understand the most technical stuff that I never ever imagined I would be able to understand without knowing math.. Thank you Paul 👊💥😁

[@lifesgood9528]

Ive done that before with a present too! The best ones are the ones you least expect!

[@FixItStupid]

Fake Money & Nuclear END Any Time Now Fake Money Takes The World To A Nuclear END

[@seasonedbeefs]

Which book please?

[@UserNameWasCensored]

I came here looking for an acoustic guitarist. I left with the average intelligence of a Nobel prize-winning physicist.

[@desperateastro]

Davies is one of several people with very broad and extensive multi-disciplinary knowledge. But he is almost unique in being able to communicate that knowledge to the layperson.

[@brucechamberlin9666]

This is so fascinating he explains things so simply almost anyone can get their head around it. Wonderful lecture and lecturer.

[@petevenuti7355]

definitely one of the better authors.

[@billoddy5637]

And a wonderful moustache as well.

[@lifesgood9528]

@@billoddy5637 Imagine a long beard too!

[@HypnoDrip]

@@lifesgood9528 Indian monk ??

[@lifesgood9528]

@@HypnoDrip im thinking more thr Gandalph type but he can be Indian too even Aussie 👌🤣😁🎶

[@marksakowski9272]

Universe doesn't need people to understand it. It is understandable by itself.

[@davecarsley8773]

Awesome Q&A section!

[@jpdiegidio]

Stuart Kauffman, At Home in the Universe. Among other things. The greatest mistery is just how we haven't still managed to fully extinguish ourselves.

[@2msvalkyrie529]

Won't be much longer ? Within next few years..?

[@edwardlobb4446]

A superb presentation, from a brilliant individual.

[@hans-rudigerdrzimmermann]

Thank you Paul. I followed physics as a theoretical physicist since 40 years. We all assume that the physics laws and constants apply to the whole universe and do not change with time. There is also a not very much developed theory stating that the universe is a plane. Maybe there is another type of mathematics which descibes our universe. For me the most interesting point you made was about photon emission by an atom. It is emitted spontaneously out of the atom. There can be no photon inside the atom and it comes so to say from nothing. Good health to you and heartful wishes from Lima, Peru.

[@jaungiga]

Regarding your comment about another type of mathematics describing the universe, there's an interesting (although probably not true) theory about an algorithmic description of the universe, postulated by Stephen Wolfram. You can google him up or go to the older videos in this very channel and find the talk Dr. Wolfram gave some months ago, which is a very good summary of his ideas

[@hans-rudigerdrzimmermann]

@@jaungiga Very good point from you. I saw his videos and I even have a small supracomputer based on wolfram alpha. Dr Wofram can be right, why not?

[@Tinker1950]

It's rather obvious that you have NOT studied physics nor even understand the methods or philosophy of science.

[@farrier2708]

I have my own thoughts on the shape of the Universe, Hans'. If you take a straight line, it is a 1D universe but it has boundaries. However if you deform it in the second dimension to form a circle it creates a 1D universe without any boundary. Similarly, if you take a 2D surface and deform it around a 3D sphere you get a 2D surface without boundaries. The surface of the Earth, for example. By extrapolation, taking a 3D space and deforming around a 4D sphere the result will be a 3D space without boundaries. I therefore conclude that the actual shape of the Universe is a 4D spheroid. Spheroid, because it is probably rotating, as is everything else within it. I wish I had the maths to see if it's a viable hypothesis. Or not! Best regards from UK.

[@jaungiga]

@@hans-rudigerdrzimmermann Oh, sure, he can be right and I hope he is because his "theory of everything" is the most elegant one I've encountered so far, but I'll remain a skeptic until we have further evidence of its validity. So far it's just a beautiful idea

[@tresajessygeorge210]

THANK YOU DR.PAUL DAVIS...!!! SCIENCE AND MATH...!!! AND THE BEAUTY OF SERENE AND ENERGIZING COSMIC MUSIC & DANCE...OUR UNIVERSE...!!! THE BEAUTY ... BALANCE ... AND PURITY ( NOT RELIGIOUS PIETY ) ... OF THE EQUILIBRIUM OF THE PRAPANCHAM( THE INFINITY )...!!!

[@timhannah4]

Good One 👍Thank You!

[@stevekirkby6570]

Fantastic lecture. Thank you.

[@kirstinstrand6292]

@-GinΠΓ Τάο On a conceptual level it shows future possibilities, likely to not occur in OUR lifetimes; all unknown, now.

[@JamesGoodchapArt]

Wonderful presentation, thank you so much :)

[@WildBillCox13]

I was there, too, in those halcyon days. As I recall, Telstar was our (the USA's) technology demonstrator; our assurety that we could out-Sputnik Sputnik. The following Echo series (Echo 1, 2, et al) represented our ongoing, more practical, attempt to bounce signals across the pond dependably.

[@richardlynch5745]

I discovered you with "God and the New Physics" and have read just about every book since then.... Happy to see you on Royal Society on KZbin... thanks for all your writings you have prodded me into some deep thoughts.... 👍👍 10:28

[@francisalanbeattie4458]

Most impressive and informative. Thank you.

[@gamers_channel]

If you can't explain the Universe to a 6 year old, you can't understand it yourself - Albert Einstein. This guy is very good

[@danguee1]

Not one of Einstein's greatest sayings (if it's not in fact a modern myth). None of the 6 year olds I know even understand simple differential calculus. I'm hardly going to be able to explain QFT to them, am I?

[@gamers_channel]

@@danguee1 your kid must be slow

[@MountainFisher]

@@danguee1 I don't think that what you are thinking was what Albert was thinking. It is true that he wrote it in a correspondence, but what he meant was if you cannot explain the Universe to a child you cannot explain it to an adult either.

[@iannissenbaum908]

Excellent lecture, thanks v much!

[@PlanetXMysteries-pj9nm]

"thank you for uploading these videos. Even if I'm having a hard night, I just put a relaxing astronomy video on and listen. It always makes my nights go much easier. Thank you!!!"

[@truthpopup]

The universe we live in has to be conducive to life, no matter how fantastically improbable that may be.

[@etyrnal]

define life

[@truthpopup]

@@etyrnal bake cookies

[@etyrnal]

​@@truthpopup - if you truly understood, you'd have known the cookies were already baked before anyone even knew what a cookie was

[@etyrnal]

@Arturo’s Michelangeli magic

[@manmanman2000]

@@etyrnal life: a highly complex turbulence in the flow of entropy

[@stevelux9854]

As I am geared more towards engineering rather than science; I really cannot help but wonder why in the topic of universal expansion the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not seem to be considered. Is it because the idea that we and our measuring tools are atomically getting smaller, due to fields slowly losing their strength, is inconceivable? It just seems better to attribute, or at least look into the effects of something we see to something we think we understand than to something we know we don't understand.

[@meacadwell]

It is...but only to a certain extent. Because quantum particles don't currently play nicely with it. As we learn more about quantum particles, and how they interact with things, there will be a specialist who will revisit it to try to make it fit into the, then, current theories.

[@_UnknownEntity]

Simple answer might be because we aren't there yet. Unless, you assume information as having mass.

[@stevelux9854]

@@_UnknownEntity Or, it might be because there is no research money in it. If the answers were simple; where's the profit in that?

[@DivineMisterAdVentures]

I'm at 24:00m not a hint of the title. Just checking on you. Time is elemental geometric progression from point to line - linearity defined by any two points, and perhaps (as is now common knowledge) vector functions.. You align events that manifest in any form (you know - bosons, photons, "Let there be light" and from it - matter.) and you have time. Collapse that in less energy and it goes away. It's very simple.

[@semmering1]

So beautiful you channel - thank you so much!

[@SofaKingShit]

Wierd to think that there is an unbroken line between whatever was there at the beginning and the matter that comprises the cells in our bodies and even our thoughts at this precise moment.

[@ann_onn]

Yeah. Also, 98 percent of our atoms in our body are replaced every year, so what exactly is "you". It's amazing to think about. In everyday speech, we use imprecise terms for everything. For example, a chair. If you remove a tiny bit of the wood, it's still a chair. How much can you remove, before it isn't? You could remove one leg, people would still call it a chair. It reminds me of an old comedy show, where a guy says he's had the same broom for twenty years... but it's had 17 new heads and 14 new handles.

[@johnryan3913]

@@ann_onn is a person without a leg still a person? Seems so. What about one without a head? If you decapitate someone, which of the two pieces is JaneDoe? There are three legged chairs. Then you get to pieces of the brain. And when a fetus is a person.

[@spvillano]

Yes, there is. It's called time.

[@Bacpakin]

Professor Davies is a marvelous teacher.

[@webmelomaniac]

Fascinating!

[@warpeace8891]

Just to be clear @ 12;33... Paul Davies says "I can well remember TELSTRA. The first communication satellite..." Telstra is an Australian telecommunications company. TELSTAR was the name of the satellite he can well remember. Thanks for sharing Ri

[@paulheinrich7645]

Suggesting it began with a quantum fluctuation presumes something was there to fluctuate. Same with multiverses-they all had to begin somewhere at sometime. That we exist, think, and are self-aware is a miracle. That we know so much and can look back so far is a miracle’s miracle; a blessing of Father Physics and Mother Nature.

[@michaelandrews4783]

"they all had to begin somewhere at sometime." is an assumption, it may well be that we are unable to exist in the dimension universes are born let alone understand the local physics that apply. Maybe there is no multiverse just an on switch for a school kids quantum computer the universe exists in that he will have to turn off before bedtime.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

depends on how you define miracle, i feel like all this was pretty much unavoidable.

[@dncbot]

"Somewhere at sometime" is already post creation. The question, I believe, is what caused "something and somewhere", time and space.

[@mauricebutlerfootballnewsa7566]

Try GOD. We didn't get this lucky by chance , and miracles miracles only happens from the power of GOD

[@pauljackson7901]

"they all had to begin somewhere".....no they didn't. You have to have time for "begin" to make sense and you need space for "somewhere" to make sense.

[@susanvallance9111]

The best lecture of making CLEAR the ideas of TRUTH & WITHOUT All the Need to show or include the Math-….. which often times Begins to ‘loose’ the general person trying to understand these theories! 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽So… Thank You 🙏🏽!! Fantastic Lecture and Spot On !!

[@susanvallance9111]

I Can’t Begin To Tell You, How Very Very MUCHHH I Enjoyed Your Lecture

[@fabiom7338]

truth 😆😂

[@Enonymouse_]

Astrophysics and interstellar mechanics are almost entirely explained in advanced mathematical equations. It's an unfortunate reality for those of us not as acquainted or capable in that department.

[@fabiom7338]

@@Enonymouse_ 😆 u lost buddy. good luck

[@devanairemccallister4194]

That was great to listen to!

[@peter5.056]

I am so effing happy that this is taking place at that desk again.

[@aliasifchowdhury3419]

Good summary of cosmology....but the last 2 minutes are specially golden. I had to pause to absorb the quotes....should have been given 10 or so extra minutes for them.

[@lewistempleman9752]

Excellent talk well delivered!

[@QuanNguyen-di9nd]

This begs the question of whether or not we are travelling very close/ at the edge of the event horizon of a super very massive black hole where our known universe is spiralling around

[@Safetytrousers]

That could be, but it still begs all the questions of origin.

[@QuanNguyen-di9nd]

@@Safetytrousers maybe a simulation is not a far fetched theory after all. But personally, I have taken comfort in thinking of intelligent life, in this case human, as the universe trying to make sense of itself. It is similar to how human is trying to make sense of the consciousness and the soul. Now we do not know where our consciousness comes from, but surely it helps us make sense of our universe, just as the universe is trying to make sense of itself. Or perhaps there were no origin to begin with since time in a higher dimension happens differently. And the origin (to us) is actually happening, simultaneously.

[@Safetytrousers]

@@QuanNguyen-di9nd That is all questions.

[@curt300s]

Outstanding.

[@nyyotam4057]

Liu Cixin has answered the Fermi Paradox pretty profoundly in his "three body problem" series. Highly recommended reading. In essence, the universe is somewhat like central park at night: Your best chance of survival is finding a cop but you cannot try to call out for a cop. You would want to find a friend, but the last thing you'd do is actually signaling your location and your second last thing you'd do is answering someone else who is signaling his location. Every one is a potential hazard. So you keep hidden where you are until day break or until a cop appears nearby. The difference between the universe and central park? A. There is no cop. and B. The night never ends.

[@creator4413]

I don’t think Central Park is that dangerous

[@Veronika7777]

Excellent summation w/out any spoilers, well done. Three body problem is an amazing series and I second your recommendation.

[@Kim_Jong-un1356]

But we've been emitting a huge mass of signals already, and will continue to do so for probably a very long time. I don't really understand how any civilization could remain "hidden" s such. Even if we somehow magically manage to stop emitting signals into space, it would be too late anyway, weäve been doing it for a long time.

[@nyyotam4057]

@@Kim_Jong-un1356 Signals fade away with the distance squared. Currently even our strongest signals would fade away in about 10ly.

[@FrostCraftedMC]

i think the grabby aliens theory pretty well solves the fermi paradox. we really could be the first, and the facts point towards it

[@tedzehnder961]

He said he lived through the "Golden Age" of cosmology but I think the golden age will be when they know what Dark energy and Dark matter is because we still don`t know what holds it all together.

[@davidfiler5414]

@pyropulse A lot like most comments found on YT.

[@stefcep]

@pyropulse Agreed. Its crossing the line from science to faith. Multiverses that can never be proven to exist. Ditto strings and what is it now 11 dimensions.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

@@davidfiler5414 The logical conclusion is that the universe started with a comment.

[@davidfiler5414]

@@nmarbletoe8210 Really! Were you thare?

[@nmarbletoe8210]

@@davidfiler5414 Nah someone else had already written 'first'

[@stephansulke123]

Listening to people like Mr. Davies on an Iphone, that‘s when I think, the internet and social media ARE progress after all.

[@reesetorwad8346]

Excellent refresher in the fundamentals, insofar as we grasp them currently. 👍

[@brecknichols]

This is so wonderful. Thank you, Dr. Davies!!!

[@ctakitimu]

Yay! I understood 90% of this! What a brilliant teacher

[@Mrphilipjcook]

The other 10% is "dark knowledge" 😂

[@danguee1]

Yep. Thoroughly dumbed-down.

[@ctakitimu]

@@danguee1 I imagine he's used to it, unless you're on the same level as him

[@cerealport2726]

​@@danguee1 again, you complain about the level... The RI themselves say "...Our purpose at the Royal Institution is to connect as many people as possible with science...". if you don't like it, don't watch... or, make your own video explaining more complex topics to people, nothing is stopping you, except yourself.

[@marymclaughlin9009]

@@danguee1 Oh cry me a river. It's not dumbed down, it's clear and interesting and exactly what those of us sadly not so educated as you would love to have more of. So there ;-)

[@bulentunal3832]

Many thanks

[@thejamnasium6447]

George Porter! I love his bass playing with The Meters

[@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353]

One of my top 5 all time favorite scientists

[@0ned]

Who are the other four? Bill Gates Bill Gates Bill Gates and Bill Gates?

[@luckygitane]

@@0ned I'm really struggling to see the utility of this reply

[@0ned]

@@luckygitane "You can lead a horse to water, can't make him drink."

[@yeeboi5545]

@@luckygitane They're baiting to try find followers for their conspiracy channel. Has psychosis written all over it. Hope they find help.

[@Ed-quadF]

@@0ned Are you talking about Bill Gates?

[@sd3457]

Man, I really didn't know how lucky I was back in 1990 at Newcastle University to be sitting in Paul's lectures.

[@drgunsmith4099]

Great University on my doorstep too.

[@freelancethinker516]

Excellent

[@cinemaipswich4636]

The "Anthropic Principal" has always troubled me. To say that an observer is needed to witness and measure a quantum event, means that the Universe did not exist before human consciousness. That is a recent event. The Buddhist claim a Universal Consciousness existed before humans. I prefer logic rather than mysticism. Is the gap between atoms expanding? Or is it just the space between galaxies? What mete would we use to judge?

[@boxfox2945]

Boltzmann brain' - the matrix'

[@johnborden9208]

Just to let you know, the photo at about 3 minutes in is actually of the Kitt Peak National Observatory in southern Arizona, NOT the Lowell Observatory. Not a big deal of course, I'm just a stickler for accuracy. GREAT lecture otherwise!

[@shannonplunk1245]

I was thinking it wasn't Lowell. He even pronounced it correctly, then incorrectly. Hard to believe he's from the country where English was established. He's murdering it.

[@marcorodrigues8303]

não ver que TRUMP tá inventando isso eu te digo porque ele daria um GOP em um Americano em seu País .em se fosse a Sim ele não existiria mais.ele deu o seu GOP em um Estrangeiro de outro País.😊#

[@marcorodrigues8303]

não ver que sou área .como alguém daí pode ser área e Oval 🥚👌#

[@troymueller7747]

This is just wholesome constructive critique, nicely done

[@jetsetter8541]

Accuracy is essential in Theoretical Phisics & Mathematics.

[@NatsAstrea]

This is a great presentation, making incomprehensible ideas less incomprehensible. I don't understand about the function of pressure, however, and would love to have Dr Davies explain that at greater length.

[@ybwang7124]

I might get around to it tomorrow, not hungry today.

[@bodebliss]

or maybe it happens often, but for different universes, one by one !

[@paulwary]

Is it consistent to say that our universe has no centre, and no boundary, but also say we may have bumped into another one?

[@ianyoung7077]

Possibly. Nobody knows.😄

[@farrier2708]

The Earths surface is a 2D surface with no centre and no boundaries. However, it constantly has similar 2D surfaces colliding with it. So, Yes! I think that comparable events in the third dimension would be entirely consistent.

[@scogin2670]

With there being no center, That would help with my question. We sometimes wonder where we (Mankind) came from. What if... Like the universe is expanding and if it has no center... What if... We just always were. Like Infinity. Impossible to wrap your mind around, but it just always was and always will be. With short (Million year) Semi extinction periods where we have to start pushing the rock up the mountain yet again. Oh... AND... What if... The planet is set on a timer and the polar icecaps are the fuse. If we have not reached world peace and mastered space travel by then... then we won't. Time to shake the etch-a-sketch and start over again. When the ice caps thaw, bacteria escapes that combine (from the north and South Pole) and create the thing that shuts down all but a few thousand humans, scattered around the planet. I wonder if I have time to turn that into a book? But it seems like most everything else is wrapped in some sort of "What If".

[@kenadams5504]

Multiverse theory is thought to be probably correct among Experts but untill its proven by Mathematics , it isnt something thats accepted .Having said that , lots of ideas cannot be proven but are considered to be correct. Black holes are mathematically described by Einstein in 1935 , as having a Bridge /wormhole which may be a link to somewhere other than our Universe .perhaps this is a clue as to the validity of the Multiverse idea.

[@reessoft9416]

According to brane theory that's a possibility, yes. Every universe can move freely in a higher dimensional "block". At the moment we don't really know, as there's no evidence for any universe, other than our own.

[@boum62]

Great lecture ! Even I, a mere accountant, could follow him :)

[@johntellefson4363]

The first comm satellite was Telstar, not Telstra. And there was an instrumental pop tune of the same name to celebrate the occasion.

[@hvp685]

i love this lecture

[@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475]

8:00 "Every schoolchild knows the Universe is expanding"... It would be nice if every teacher did... ...then maybe every child would.

[@GiraelCS]

"Every schoolchild knows the Universe is expanding" is an interesting and brave statement to be sure.

[@timkadillari7478]

@@GiraelCS semantics..he could have said every man and his dog..same thing

[@GiraelCS]

@@timkadillari7478 And that would still be a brave statement to make IMO, so I believe I am missing your point.

[@michaellee9743]

Sounds like a little bit like indoctrination to me ... a questioning mind that can think independently and rationally is a more laudable aim for an educator, surely?

[@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475]

@@michaellee9743 There are some basic observations every teacher has absolutely no excuse for being ignorant of: 1) The Earth revolves around the Sun 2) The Earth is a ball, and round. 3) Evolution IS biology, and biology is the study of evolution. 4) Stuff is made of atoms. Basic stuff that becomes complex stuff in groups. 5) The Universe is very big, and dynamic. This includes expanding. There is incontrovertible evidence for these basic tenets. Any "teacher" who doesn't know them isn't much of a student. And being a good student is surely a requirement before one attempts to teach others. If you don't even know the basics, how can you teach your students how to examine anything? Yes, questioning is good and right. But one needs to know the basic minimum before one can form intelligent questions about it, or anything.

[@MisakaMikotoDesu]

So glad to see lectures back in person.

[@kenadams5504]

Paul is 'popular' and this lecture is 'informative ' .

[@jaybingham3711]

An important clarification...space is expanding only on the cosmological (grandest/largest of) scale. But absolutely not locally. And local means any gravitationally bound areas such as large groups of galaxies that make up superclusters...including the Virgo Supercluster of which the Milky Way belongs to. So no expansion is taking place inside galaxies...let alone inside any star system (or spaces even smaller).

[@bobbylewisdevinejr.5827]

Great lecture!, That being said I believe black holes are eating space 🙂

[@Lanfeartyve]

I could listen to this for all eternity

[@manmanman2000]

48:11 E = F*s divide by V = s^3 = A*s (E...energy, F...force, V...volume, s...space, A...area) E/V = F/A = p (p...pressure)

[@savage22bolt32]

This is such a wonderful lecture. So sad that the seats are not full of curious people.

[@vheverett]

Fantastic lecture! Great clarity.

[@fritsgerms3565]

Prof Robert Hazan on the great courses have two courses on life; “origins of life”, “the origin and evolution of earth”. They are detailed with the latest hypothesis on the subject. One of the most interesting explanations is that the first replicating molecules come from rock surfaces that template molecule formation. Essentially, it means all rock surfaces across the planet can act as catalysts.

[@spvillano]

Especially early on, when oxygen was still bound in the rocks and water. Likely, the atmospheric pressure was substantially higher as well. Once we're well and truly away from STP, chemistry gets decidedly different than what we typically expect.

[@r00kiepilot]

And it also means shifting the information problem to an area even less well known. It means the rock surface template assumed that particular arrangement randomly. To say randomness is equivalent to saying by magic. Because randomness is a completely unknown 'process'. Randomness follows no laws nor can it be modelled mathematically, therefore it is as good as no explanation at all or saying it happened by magic.

[@spvillano]

@@r00kiepilot no, randomness means a non-ordered state, notable for no process being present to generate it, as it is by nature random. Magic is getting something from nothing, which has yet to be observed in this universe. That the object has a random texture does not mean that the texture is magical, but that it is uneven and the surface unpredictable and potentially, disordered entirely. In the air, an airplane travels past random air molecules, as there is no magical system that ordains where the molecules flow past, above or below the wing, as an example. That does not suggest or imply in any way that airplanes fly by magic!

[@fritsgerms3565]

@@r00kiepilot such rubbish. A hypothesis is a possible explanation. And it's not as if rocks & minerals suddenly disappeared. Actually there are many more minerals and clays than the early earth. This process is active today too. I think you lack understanding when it comes to the term "random" in the context of physical processes. Your adaptive immune system is based on "random" - the second most complex system known to man. In engineering "random" processes are a fact of life.

[@mmenjic]

56:01 what does that word collapse means in this context ? Now spacetime is not collapsed correct ? What would it mean for it to collapse, give us some analogy or some explanation of that process in action ?

[@nuggetoftruth-ericking7489]

This was interesting.