What Was There Before the Big Bang? 3 Good Hypotheses!

[@Monkey_D_Luffy56]

Your intro is perfect, a quick tease and straight to the topic after a couple of seconds. I love this channel

[@badassat69]

Yes, this video is a masterpiece.

[@manicmadpanickedman2249]

Obviously it goes on forever because now is no different From then because we are always occurring at half way in time but the weird thing is that there is more time before you than after you because of a weird quark Time is experienced forward into the past technically Because you were never alive, that means you can't technically die so if you're not dead, that must mean rebirth You don't perceive the moment of death, which means it must be shed like snake skin... And something else weird I have a hunch that what is really happening is that the event horizon is what is seen /were space is free from form because it hasn't been yet created and is pulled into a pillar of space time Any ways I belive the core of the star that caused the black hole is moving backwards in time Compressed from all sides evenly by gravity perfectly spherical so the star shrinks away from our side and ends up going back in time through space so slight drift occurs and and when the star breaks its connection because as it gets further before time than it's effect will diminish over time thus singularity is all occurrence You're looking into somebody's head that exists in a lower dimension you are a black hole in a higher dimension Critical mass.... out of all the stars in the universe one star could potentially have to perfect mass that it is the critical mass it rings like a bell as in it explodes in both directions while all the others fall in

[@smlanka4u]

Hypothetical cosmic inflation is a joke. Big Bounce is realistic.

[@manicmadpanickedman2249]

@smlanka4u hence rings like a bell and central time as in you are in the middle of an eternity .. like a 💍 your the gem Including the projection angle 45° Obviously, we aren't able to be real because you can't get something from nothing unless you have a false vacuum .. It's pitch, and it's void, but there is this strange, almost fluid like essence almost like an energy resonating in potential 🤔 Time can't move without an observer So we are the embodiment of time. Infinite in one aspect but totally non-existent in the other aspect because what you believe i would say that is probably the most likely thing that you would get a potential energy from in quantum bits as where else would you gain principle Causality and(or) potential ... other than from an observation or experience resolved by intuition and to conclude from the math .. so when you no longer see the machine in other lives than you have finally ⁵½²

[@manicmadpanickedman2249]

@@smlanka4u s

[@Braddeman]

i love how you talk about all models and theories no matter how unlikely they are. it’s my favorite part of your videos. get all perspectives on each topic you bring up.

[@Ezekiel903]

Yes, but he forgot to mention why matter and antimatter suddenly stopped annihilating themselves in this quantum fluctuation, because only then could a universe begin to form.

[@mhughes1160]

Because people will believe anything but the truth. So goes the saying It’s easier to lie to someone than convince them that they have been lied to

[@JoeyP946]

oh boy flat earth theory seems pretty unlikely

[@Braddeman]

@@JoeyP946 well i mean flat earth has been disproven so it is no longer a theory it’s disproven.

[@tlovehater]

Top models?

[@majusmanmne]

Hi Arvin, Let me extend my compliments to your unprecedented research work. Plus the communication skills that you have, truly stupendous !

[@me1405]

No one on KZbin able to explain this kind of complicated information easily like you, you deserve to be funded.

[@MaxxTrajan]

"funded" ny eho? Ehy dont you join his patreon then, and fund him?

[@bigmike1850]

This guy didn’t explain anything. None of this is remotely true and borderline schizophrenic.

[@charles-y2z6c]

@@MaxxTrajan How do you know he didn't and thats not what he meant? by the why your keyboard appears to be off a character

[@Reynoldrobinson]

​8mom

[@MaxxTrajan]

@@charles-y2z6c lool naaah i just woke up and couldnt see what i was typin lol

[@emergentform1188]

Brilliant, love it, Arvin is legend!

[@majusmanmne]

He truly is. This world 🌎 has talent man!

[@oneknight]

Great video and looking forward to the Starmus festival in Bratislava! :)

[@carlosvigil1868]

Awesome video as always Arvin! Keep going!

[@Graeme_Lastname]

Excellent as always. Thanks mate. 🖖😁🇦🇺

[@christianfaust5141]

Danke!

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks so much!

[@db3536]

good video thanks. that Heisenberg guy though. I'm uncertain about him.

[@Gelatinocyte2]

Willy Wonka? ... Walter White?

[@live_free_or_perish]

🙄

[@petrovtiganu9904]

I like that one 😂😂😂

[@rfgiowa]

@@Gelatinocyte2woodrow wilson 🤓

[@arenito2023]

Thank you Mr. Ash, great video ! Greetings from Brazil, right now !

[@charleyhoward4594]

What Was There Before the Big Bang? The Big Romance.

[@Hocksman]

Well played hahaha!

[@Allen-eq5uf]

The big foreplay

[@annalorree]

You mean the Big Netflix and the Big Chill?

[@PhunnyMunny]

Little foreplay, big bang

[@VibratorDefibrilator]

Or... an eternity of foreplay.

[@fighterofthenightman1057]

As you noted, though, how physicists define “nothing” is not how philosophers do. The physicists’ nothing presupposes the existence of the Laws of Physics, which enable those particles to pop into existence.

[@ArvinAsh]

Yes, defining nothing is a problem. Imagine what an infinite void would look like. Can you have space without time? Our phsics equations seem to say no. A state with no space, no time, and no matter, or what we imagine to be a "nothing" or an "infinite void" might be an infinitesimally small point.

[@AndrewBrownK]

if "true nothing" excludes even laws of physics, but laws of physics are rules and boundaries like conservation and causality, then true nothing has no rules or boundaries on conservation or causality, and anything can happen from nothing, and then you get a universe anyway.

[@cyprianmbelesia2693]

I think we need to have a definition of "nothing" within the boundaries of spacetime and "nothing" outside the boundaries of spacetime....

[@cyprianmbelesia2693]

​@@AndrewBrownK I concur with this

[@antonystringfellow5152]

Good point! Also, these so-called "laws" of physics, though some may appear complex to us, are really no more than what's possible, what's not and statistical probabilities. In the same way that 2+2 cannot equal 5 or that the internal angles of all rectangles add up 360 degrees and the internal angles of all triangles add up to 180 degrees, something which is pretty obvious when you consider that any rectangle can be divided into 2 triangles, and vice versa. Going a little further, entropy is no more than statistical probability, a concept not difficult to grasp when applied to a simple system (one with few components). And entropy is what gives us "time". At the level of a quantum particle, there is no direction of time. Time emerges as we add more quantum particles to the system - it emerges from the statistics of the number of particles in the system. If you don't understand how this works, time may appear complex, even mysterious. If you do understand how this works, time is as obvious as 2+2=4. Some of these "laws" are obvious to us, others are far from it, but that's all they really are. This is how the "laws" of physics always exist (2+2 will always equal 4, even when there is nothing to count).

[@MasterKoala777]

Thanks Arvin for explaining these concepts to physics fans like me who are not trained in physics. The section on Eternal Inflation was the first time I understood it conceptually, esp. the reason why we cannot interact with those other universes. The thing that boggles my mind most is, where did the laws if Quantum Mechanics come from, if they exist even without space and time? Also, is Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology not mainstream enough to be included as a 4th hypothesis in this list?

[@brianelliott4923]

Your talks are eternally and infinitely fascinating.

[@Rathause]

The thing that really breaks my brain is: Why is there anything? Why isn’t there just nothing? Even in these models there was something that led to there being a big bang, but why were those things even a thing?

[@ArvinAsh]

That is the question! We are here to ask that question. If there was nothing, there wouldn't be anyone to ask.

[@3dguy839]

BECAUSE

[@bobs182]

I am just the opposite as how could there be no thing? We know there is something so what is it about the human mind that wants to doubt our existence? What would be the thing that didn't exist? Nothing only has meaning as contrasted to something.

[@asdfoifhvjbkaos]

some of these models seem to just go back into infinity, so the only real answer is just "it's always been there"

[@Rathause]

@@asdfoifhvjbkaos But why? How? Why isn't nothingness the default state? My brain can't comprehend the idea.

[@katalyst4stem]

Once again, a fantastic video capturing our uncertain reality. The graphics are truly mind-blowing. Amidst the awe, one pressing question arises: At the inception (just before or at the moment of the big bang), was there only energy or a mix of energy and fundamental particles? Grateful to anyone who can provide insight 😊

[@rogumann838]

From what we think today: at the very very start the temperature literally was too high for the fundamental particles to exist! So that would mean that there should only be "energy" at the exact beginning. As to what form this energy was in I'm not sure, but we usually say that photons are "pure energy", so if thats true then maybe there were only photons and then when it cooled fundamental particles (matter particles) started to form. Remember that these extremely early times are not very well understood, and are still subject to some speculation.

[@katalyst4stem]

@@rogumann838 thanks for the answer this was exactly my thought process as well

[@dp055]

Best topic to make video upon 🙏🏼 thank you so much 🙏🏼

[@jimcarpenter965]

Much respect, Arvin. Never have I been more entertained by what’s essentially a “we really have no idea” thesis!

[@ulicadluga]

04:30 - Yes, the universe was infinitesimally small - but only as small as the origin event, which was an endless loop of creating the SAME particle over and over, due to the creation of time, which ran in a backward direction at that instant, seperating matter and antimatter and explaining the "homogeneity" of the universe, all matter and the laws of physics. So, the universe was NEVER infinitely dense, with all matter at a singularity. It was a very rapid duplication of the same particle, leading to not "infinitely many", but an immense number of "Bangs", until there was enough matter created to allow for the FINAL BANG.

[@GH-hh8cm]

Rubbish

[@FAKKER_rap]

❤ Please make a video about Plank's distances and time. Is there a minimum space-time volume? Is space "pixelated" at smallest scales or theres no minimum limit for space (and time)?

[@smlanka4u]

Big Bounce models don't need cosmic inflation hypothesis.

[@Logically_Fallacious]

From what I recall, there was an experiment with comic rays that showed that they travelled along the H plank distance grid, like a really fine resolution computer game. They didn't mention the dimension, but showed a graphic of how the cosmic rays never traveled on the diagonals of the grid (like graph paper and you couldn't use anything but the established lines). That's why all the speculation we are just a simulation, imo. We exist in a resolution... A very very small, fine resolution, but something that theoretically can be captured by a super duper duper super computer eventually. At least Musk thinks so too.

[@brothermine2292]

>jeffreyspinner5437 : I'm skeptical about whether an experiment actually demonstrated a planck-length grid. Can you cite the paper's title, year, author, or some other metadata that allows us to find that paper?

[@O_Lee69]

The pictures from galaxies far away are too crisp.

[@rogumann838]

"Is there a minimum space-time volume? Is space "pixelated" at smallest scales" Its quite literally in your own question :D. The smallest space-time volume, which basically makes spacetime itself quantized (pixelated if you will) IS the Planck volume. And this is just the (planck length)^3

[@chrisroser8469]

I like how our science and understanding completely breaks apart at any singularity.

[@cyprianmbelesia2693]

Let's say our knowledge is incomplete.

[@nickowen7406]

Our science and understanding doesn't break down at a singularity. Our science is good and it's predictable. We just do not understand singularity since we can't observe it

[@JohnDoe-zj6xf]

​@@nickowen7406 Our science can observe but still fails to understand human consciousness.

[@michaelmccray3207]

I like how your videos get to the meat of the discussion without 25minutes of pretext people watching these already know the history 99% of these videos inflate their runtime to stuff the video full of ads and dedicate the last 2 minutes to answering the thumbnail question

[@vicentesaraiva5258]

Allways delivering us great content. My big thank you!

[@sunshinecycling]

I may not always understand what is said on this channel, but I am still fascinated and watch anyway.

[@michaelransom5841]

An idea that keeps rolling around in my brain is that the cosmos undergoes a vast and continuous expansion, characterized largely by the influence of dark energy, and this expansion is not uniform; rather, it varies in intensity based on the local density of matter. In regions heavily laden with matter, such as galaxies and star clusters, the gravitational forces are strong enough to counteract the expansive influence of dark energy, maintaining stability within these systems. Conversely, in vast cosmic voids where matter is sparse, the lack of significant gravitational counterforce allows dark energy to dominate. As we are all aware, constant acceleration, even if the force of acceleration remains unchanged, leads to greater and greater velocities, and correspondingly, total kinetic energy, or momentum. within our current framework, the only thing that prevents velocities from becoming infinite are relativistic limits where energies approach a singularity... This applies to matter of course, but what is matter but a region of spacetime with high energy density. Could it be possible that, in nearly empty regions of the universe, the minimal presence of matter and the negligible gravitational resistance, allows dark energy to exert its effect unopposed leading to the rates of expansion is so pronounced that they may be described as inflationary? could it be that periodically, instabilities may occur within these rapidly expanding regions, leading to local decelerations in the expansion rate (singularities). These instabilities could funnel expansion energy into thermal energy creating singularity-like conditions reminiscent of those observed at the Big Bang. Such events introduce a form of drag that mirrors the processes that unfolded after the Big Bang. Over time, as the energy from these events dissipates, the expansion rate begins to accelerate once more. As regions become increasingly devoid of matter, they eventually return to a state of rapid, inflationary expansion. This dynamic suggests a universe in which inflationary and non-inflationary states alternate, driven by the varying densities of matter and the influence of dark energy. The universe, therefore, is envisioned as a patchwork of varying expansion rates, shaping its structure and evolution over cosmic time scales. This model provides a framework to understand not only the large-scale structure of the universe but also the role of dark energy in shaping these dynamics. Just a thought.. who really knows though...

[@Kretion666]

Great video!

[@FittedSheet2000]

Before the big bang, there was young sheldon

[@alargefarva4274]

Booooooo

[@douglascutler1037]

Except . . . depending on your viewing perspective . . . Young Sheldon came AFTER The Big Bang. It's all so incomprehensible.

[@tlovehater]

Our whole universe was in a hot, dense state...

[@tyamada21]

A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'... My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE. during September 1970.. Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.

[@mpn6362]

Nice arvin.. thanks Just little question heisenberg was written both energi and time as uncertain in time at 12:22

[@ArvinAsh]

Correct. This is another form of the uncertainty principle which can be derived. This one has energy and time, instead of the other version with momentum and position.

[@jensjacobs9050]

The third hypothesis is the nothing-pothing-mothing model. Nothing vibrates creating pothing(positivenothing) and mothing(minusnothing) for a very short period of time. Then pothing and mothing recombine to form nothing again. And so on. Sometimes, when two neighbouring pothings are formed simultaneously, these two pothings combine due to attraction and will form a nonvisible entity of gravity (we call that dark matter) leaving the two mothings behind. These two mothings will drift away and form more space (we call that dark energy)

[@jybrokenhearted]

This is like how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

[@johnrap7203]

If that is not sarcasm...

[@Rancid-Jane]

@@jybrokenhearted All of them.

[@YunxiaoChu]

.

[@jensjacobs9050]

@@YunxiaoChu you have made your point!!!

[@WillArtie]

Wow! I did learn a new thing watching this vid! I have watched like all PBS Space Time, all Sabines vids, All Antons vids. And Fermilabs vids. And hundreds upon hundreds of random physics and space vids - and I still got a little something new here. Thank you!

[@Rob02138]

Yet again another brilliant video. Thanks Arvin!

[@stephencummins7589]

I love and enjoy your teaching style Arvin, thank you.

[@mastahid]

I really appreciate you using "hypotheses" instead of "theories." It can get frustrating when some scientists aren't as precise with their language. The loose use of terms makes it hard for us, especially when we're dealing with dogmatic folks who try to undermine science.

[@mentat1341]

god doesn't appreciate this comment

[@cillianennis9921]

@@mentat1341 Lay off the Fallout Mentats bro they don't make you smart.

[@darkoz1692]

The title may say 3 hypotheses but he does repeatedly say theories in the the video which is annoying.

[@autopilot3176]

He wasn't "precise" when he described Big Bang with the nonsense "space exploded/expanded", which is idiotic. Space is just mathematical model, a relational concept, it wasn't involved in Big Bang in any shape or form. Matter/energy exploded. One participant. One force. Everything else effects. Imagine teaching generations of people about imaginary "space" and "time", that 100% don't exist. Universe and physical objects in it don't interact with imaginary constructs.

[@FelonyVideos]

None of this is a criticism of the video, but none of the science-based theories have as much evidence as the biblical account.

[@SciMinute]

I'm really amazed at the astronomers who create these theories just by observation and calculation!

[@terrific804]

What's amazing is that they make money doing it but can't prove any of it

[@uriituw]

@@terrific804 Science doesn’t prove stuff.

[@Pyriold]

@@terrific804 Science only falsifies hypothesis. And the surviving ones are what we call theories. They are all subject to be falsified, but the most accepted ones survived so many attempts that we are comfortable with them. Newton's gravity for example was a hypothesis that survived for a long time before Einstein found out that it's not always accurate. Newton's gravity is still being used all the time, because for most calculations it's accurate enough, but we now know that it is only an approximation that works well in our day to day conditions.

[@terrific804]

@@Pyriold They will never know the answer to the question why. It's not 42.

[@cheddar8213]

​@@uriituwall fields of science?

[@dunnbrandon]

4th hypothesis, we are living in a simulation

[@hewhomustnotbenamed9276]

That's just religion for tech bros.

[@bobs182]

It would make no difference since we can't distinguish it as such. We would still have the same reality.

[@yami122]

@@bobs182 Well we wouldn't have a big bang though there would be no necessary start to our universe there would simply be the start to the program we're in

[@bobs182]

@@yami122 The BB would be included in the simulation.

[@yami122]

@@bobs182 Maybe maybe not good chance it just turns on at a certain point if we are in a simulation just because our physics point towards a Big Bang happening does it mean it actually happened the simulation could turn on at a point before that in a simulation evidence of time existing to a certain point is no longer reliable just because the tree or rock say that time has existed for billions of years doesn't mean the simulation can't only be 100 years old or however arbitrary time you want to say

[@Vettejocke]

I’m glad I found your channel, good job on all the great content!

[@cyprianmbelesia2693]

This is marvelous work!! I tend to agree more with the last hypothesis of a pre-existing spacetime (the quantum fields) which is the background of all matter and interaction

[@ProducerX21]

I always love science videos that have information that i hadn't heard before like that spontaneous universe creation theory

[@Angarsk100]

What I can't get to wrap my head around is the "flat universe" thing... In my mind it's always been some sort of a sphere, expanding in 3d, changing that to a flat model blows my mind... Maybe it's even more than 3 dimensions for all we know.

[@ArvinAsh]

"Flat" doesn't mean literally flat like a pancake. In physics, a flat spacetime means that two parallel lines stay parallel forever because space has no overall curvature. If space were like a sphere, then two parallel lines would eventually converge.

[@alsmith20000]

@@ArvinAsh This comment made me realise that lines of latitude on the earth are not really lines, even in the context of a curved surface; lines of latitude are presumably then just circles. The equator is I assume a line in the context of a curved surface but with periodic boundary conditions.

[@Gelatinocyte2]

Basically, it's flat from a 4th dimensional perspective.

[@educatedguest1510]

nobody observes overheated Universe 13.5 billion years ago, thus there was no observation of big bang

[@nunyabisnass1141]

​@@alsmith20000that's the best way I understand it as well, but it doesn't really help me understand over all, like why that's important in the first place. I just lack too much fundamental education in the field.

[@vandanakarad1881]

Physics is beautiful but jee coaching in india are making it the worst subject ever no one cares about our existence and universe everyone just cares about getting into prestigious institutions anyway I am trying my best to not to be like everybody else....

[@ashred9665]

IIT sheep

[@Anityam]

Because you r just hearing in layman's language actually physics is very difficult apart from intersting

[@shinoraze]

I'm so lucky I was never pushed into Indian education system.

[@shinoraze]

​@@Anityamthat's true. The problem is no one reached the concepts only formulas. Hence physics is tough 😅

[@Stefan-jl3oc]

You probably wont listen to me but: better DO go there and care about existence and stuff after you finished it. There will be enough time left, and if you care about existence first there wont be enough time left for your prestigious institution. Just saying.

[@WildBillCox13]

[@Am33304]

Interesting! I can’t write about density and the ripping apart of the universe, but your observation about the potential need for a new foundation for physics is fascinating. The idea that some observations call for “new physics” can’t be questioned. It seems like that’s the real history of physics, new observations rendering current theories obsolete and leading smart, open-minded scientists to look at our assumptions. Maybe your idea is an invitation to that new study. It’s not going to get some genius the Nobel Prize, but how about a theory of everything that doesn’t come clogged up with maths and symbols, because those can’t be the only way to see reality.

[@mgc7199]

If everything were to move at the speed of light in a parallel or diverging fashion, would time still exist? Would we see spacetime as a huge void (or not existing) as no information can reach any other part? Do these conditions exist inside black holes? How deep / steep is a black hole's gravity well? What happens when energy reaches the bottom, if there is such a thing, and what would that look like to someone already at the bottom? Last question: How many turtles can you fit in 'all the way' and where is down?

[@robunderwood7689]

I wonder why physicists who talk about other universes always say that those universes would have their own laws of physics? Isn't it possible that there are multiple universes, but all have the same laws?

[@ArvinAsh]

It's possible, but if they begin with a singularity, then even slight variations in initial quantum fluctuations would made each universe unique. It would be kind of like a fingerprint.

[@98593le]

Because scientists need a way to explain the precision and design of this universe that allows us to exist. So they need to have a "theory" that proposes an infinite number of universes where one like ours (that is clearly designed) is simply a mathematical certainty. I.e. give a monkey and a typewriter infinite time, he'll produce Shakespeare.

[@Burglecutter]

​@@98593le This is the exact right answer.

[@Legend-mg2ry]

@@98593lewhat about the fact that over 99% of life that once existed on this planet are now extinct? Doesn’t sound “designed” to me.

[@grine6966]

@@98593le Bro... if the universe was designed it woudn't be a possibly infinite universe but a small planet with a tiny sun orbiting around it. It's like creating the whole solar system just to have somewhere on earth a 20L aquarium with shrimps inside, a big waste of time and energy. So no, it's clearly not designed

[@LordandGodofYouTube]

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but if objects come in and out of existence on the quantum level, does this not point to time operating in a different way on the quantum level?

[@calebsingano6273]

It does 😊

[@stefanogandino9192]

Why would it mean that? The fact that things appears and disappears doesn't mean they go forward and backward in time

[@LordandGodofYouTube]

@@stefanogandino9192 Then what are they up to between disappearing and reappearing? Like I said, sorry if this is a dumb question, for me, it's very hard to wrap my head around.

[@stefanogandino9192]

@@LordandGodofKZbin they are up to nothing because they are nothing, they are not real particles but numbers to describe what the quantum field does, and the quantum field is always there. That's why they come from nothing and go to nothing without violate anything

[@LordandGodofYouTube]

@@stefanogandino9192 Thanks. That is going to take some time to sink in here.

[@Bo-dachious]

Only the programmer will know.

[@uriituw]

Programmer?

[@DonFinley]

I’ve programmed stuff… sometimes I don’t know how it works, so there’s that possibility too lol

[@sambhav.indora]

@@uriituw he means the one who programmed us

[@uriituw]

@@sambhav.indora What do you mean by that? Be specific.

[@JarethGT]

​@@uriituwprobably hinting at simulation hypothesis or some form of god.

[@PetraKann]

The Big Band says nothing about what occurred at t=0 let alone t

[@live_free_or_perish]

That would be good topic. Why is there no solution at t=0 ?

[@PetraKann]

@@live_free_or_perish Because the curvature of space-time becomes infinite and undefined. (like a black Hole or singularity). It gets worse, there are no solutions or understanding below the Planck Time level of 10^-43 seconds. A small time, but not zero.

[@cutepuppy9585]

Thank you for the video. I'm always curious about it and you explain some of the theories. Fascinating to my mind.

[@johnfrian]

Sometime when watching videos like these, my mind tries to wander into the realm of "understanding existence". It's like opening a door into a huge dark room with scary noises I don't understand. I usually get scared and leave that train of thought.

[@tonmoysharma5758]

Yes, same feeling

[@iggyzorro2406]

virtual particles popping in and out of existence that in enough time could create Infinite bubble universes - sounds like a variation of the 'steady state' theory. Somewhere, Fred Hoyle's spirit is nodding it's virtual head and smiling.

[@melgross]

Nothing like the steady state universe hypothesis.

[@Faustobellissimo]

Arvin, you've made a mistake. You said the the universe is homogeneous because it looks the same everywhere you look in space. That's not homogeneity, that's isotropy, which has been observed experimentally. Homogeneity, on the other hand, cannot be observed experimentally, it's a philosophical assumption.

[@ArvinAsh]

They are similar concepts. Homogeneity means that there is no preferred location in the Universe. That is, no matter where you are in the Universe, if you look at the Universe, it will look the same. Isotropy means that there is no preferred direction in the Universe. That is, from your current location, no matter which direction you look, the Universe will look the same. Our universe is both. I suppose I could have been more technical, and explained this more fully, but that was not the central point of the video.

[@Faustobellissimo]

@@ArvinAsh It's not a matter of being technical. You gave a wrong definition of "homogeneous". Also, you are saying "our universe IS both", as if you were sure and had observational proof of this. No, homogeneity cannot be experimentally observed. Only isotropy can be experimentally observed.

[@Faustobellissimo]

@@ArvinAsh Arvin, why is it so hard to admit your mistake? Because your mistake hides a dogmatic stance? Science should show a little humility. Your audience would like that!

[@adamcummings20]

I agree, there should be a pinned clarification. What I don't understand is how we can simultaneously assume the Copernican principle to turn our isotropy evidence into homogeneity evidence, and also claim expansion speeds vary on extra-observable scales? Sorry if it's a a dumb question.

[@KeithCooper-Albuquerque]

Great video, once again Arvin!

[@dr.michaellittle5611]

Excellent video, Arvin. 👏👏👏👏

[@MichaelDeMaria-ur5jx]

The big question is…what is the universe in? I’m in a chair, in a house, on a planet, in a galaxy, in a unverse, in a….? They say it’s expanding, but into what?

[@nitchipa2]

Itself

[@moseshoward7072]

The universe is not expanding into anything. It's not like a small point expanding into a preexisting space. There is no space outside the universe. The space is expanding within it.

[@DavidCase-ov5uo]

My theory - think of a big empty room. I call it absolute space. In the room is a big pair of hands - a pulling force. Between the hands is a bag of peanuts - the universe containing energy and matter. The hands pull the bag apart and peanuts ( matter ) fly in all directions. The room/ absolute space somehow creates a pulling force to tear the bag/ universe apart to release the peanuts/ matter.

[@alanweber675]

So we came from peanuts??? Nonsense... The universe is like a pizza... covered with cheese and pepperoni. Everyone knows that!

[@rnd135173]

I'm so hoping scientist would come up with some major discoveries on the topic during my lifetime...

[@jc441-i3q]

I'm sure there will. There are 2 huge telescopes under construction and there will be a flying drone sent to Saturn's moon Titan arriving in 2034.

[@bobs182]

No matter how much we discover/learn there will still be that much more to learn/discover. Then there are the limitations of the human mind to consider.

[@Vancouverite39]

Thanks for this excellent video! I was recently watching a video featuring Roger Penrose discussing his insight about this topic - something along the lines (though I don’t clearly understand it) of the situation around the big bang being equivalent in terms of the impossibility or meaninglessness of measuring time, to the situation near the heat death of the expanding universe, where time itself cannot be measured-leading to a suggestion that the heat death at the terminal stage of the expanding universe is equivalent to a big bang in some way, thus suggesting another type of recurring cycle. I wonder if you can comment on that?

[@JamieK348]

This is an excellent quality video. The question of what became before cosmic inflation has been plaguing my mind for at least a half decade now. I get depressed not knowing but I truly admire that you are addressing this topic. To me nothing is more interesting.

[@efeocampo]

WHAT was before the Big Bang?: Another Universe, part of the Multiverse we will NEVER be able to comprehend.

[@karelvandervelden8819]

You only have to except infinity.

[@inertiaforce7846]

We're a black hole inside that universe

[@efeocampo]

@@inertiaforce7846 The Multiverse (only hypotesis that can explain everything) is Eternal and Infinite and ultimately the true, unavoidable, only "God" as the Only Source of everything that exists or we believe exists ! Not an extremely low level, imperfect, human-like "God", a human Concept, "Creator" of imperfect things. A Multiverse (Set of Universes) remains a SINGLE UNIVERSE composed of multiple universes (like ours, which could be inside a Black Hole - who can prove otherwise? -), ETERNAL and INFINITE that is continuously TRANSFORMING or evolving and manifests itself in many, infinite different ways, whatever they are called or perceived by us: Human Beings, Animals, Rocks, Water, Fire, Air, Planets, Asteroids, Suns, Stars, Galaxies, Clusters (of Galaxies), Quasars, Black Holes, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Singularities, etc... The Universe or Multiverse only transforms: It is PURE ENERGY... Remember Einstein's proven equation: E = mc2, which shows that E, Energy, is the same as mass (or what we believe or perceive as "solid" matter) multiplied by the square of the speed of light, a very large number. Or put another way, what we believe to be "matter", what we can "touch" is actually PURE ENERGY somehow interconnected with the rest of the Universe or Multiverse. If you think you can "touch" matter, use an ever increasingly powerful microscope: Body, cells, molecules, atoms... And do you think you can see or "touch" an atom? NO ! It has subparticles: Electrons, protons, neutrons... And do you think you can see or "touch" them? NO ! They in turn include other quantum untouchable "particles" that are elusive... because they are PURE ENERGY! Ask the scientists of CERN Accelerator in Switzerland... It is impossible to prove it because it is and will be far beyond our limited intellectual and technological capabilities, but it does not make sense that the Multiverse or God, however you prefer to imagine it has a Beginning or an End in time... or any physical LIMIT. What can lie BEYOND the "physical limit" of the Multiverse? Well, ANOTHER Universe or type of Universe. That is, we would be facing a new Multiverse. And what could have existed BEFORE the BIG BANG? Well, another Universe or Multiverse... And once ours cools down (which is what is happening with ALL the stars burning their limited nuclear energy source) and perhaps it WILL COLLAPSE into a SINGULARITY or Black Hole and then maybe (Who could prove it or refute it?) give rise to another "Big Bang". That is, our Universe is... ETERNAL And most importantly: That Universe or Multiverse is... GOD or "Creator" of everything we observe! A God who does not reward, punish, monitor or "prefer" anyone. "He" does not condemn anyone to suffer eternally in "hell" (which does not exist!). A God not concerned about anyone, much less these imperfect human beings, absolutely insignificant: INSIGNIFICANT for the Earth, in turn insignificant for the Solar System, this one for the Milky Way Galaxy, totally insignificant for a Cluster of Galaxies, and this Cluster, insignificant for the known Universe and perhaps for a Multiverse, which is the most likely "thing" that exists. So, forget all those fears or feelings of "guilt" (of WHAT?) that you learned or were brainwashed since you were a child, convince yourself there is NO afterlife (where to?) because all of our cells DIE and desintegrate into dispersed molecules and then "atoms" that eventually will disperse randomly and help create, combined with others, new stars that will in turn "die", collapse and explode as super novas releasing new atoms to create new stars...and... ENJOY your LIFE... or "delusion" of life... or whatever it is...👍 !

[@paradigmshift7541]

The fact that you think this is the answer shows how little you understand about the infinite limitations of what we can and will ever know. At least we have the CMB, anything past that you’re a child if you try and answer. Don’t kid yourself, humble yourself.

[@efeocampo]

@@paradigmshift7541 Of course there is one God. The Multiverse (only hypotesis that can explain everything) is ETERNAL and INFINITE and ultimately the true, unavoidable, only "God" as the Only Source ("Creator") of everything that exists or we believe exists ! Not an extremely low level, imperfect, human-like "God", a human Concept, "Creator" of imperfect things, a "God" that chooses some people over others, that punishes, rewards, condemns to suffer for eternity or "watches" over the behavior of each of us, the insignificant human beings. A Multiverse (Set of Universes) remains a SINGLE UNIVERSE composed of multiple universes (like ours, which could exist inside a Massive Black Hole - who can prove otherwise? -), each with its own laws and forms or expressions, ETERNAL and INFINITE that is continuously TRANSFORMING or evolving and manifests itself in many, infinite, different ways, whatever they are called or perceived by us: Human Beings, Animals, Rocks, Water, Fire, Air, Planets, Asteroids, Suns, Stars, Galaxies, Clusters (of Galaxies), Quasars, Black Holes, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Singularities, etc... The Universe or Multiverse only transforms as it is PURE ENERGY... Remember Einstein's proven equation: E = mc2, which shows that E, Energy, is the same as mass (or what we believe or perceive as "solid" matter) multiplied by the square of the speed of light, a very large number. Or put another way, what we believe to be "matter", what we can "touch" is actually PURE ENERGY somehow interconnected with the rest of the Universe or Multiverse. If you think you can "touch" matter, use an ever increasingly powerful microscope: Body, cells, molecules, atoms... And do you think you can see or "touch" an atom? NO ! It has subparticles: Electrons, protons, neutrons... And do you think you can see or "touch" them? NO ! They in turn include other quantum untouchable "particles" that are elusive... because they are PURE ENERGY! Ask the scientists of CERN Accelerator in Switzerland... It is impossible to prove it because it is and will be far beyond our limited intellectual and technological capabilities, but it does not make sense that the Multiverse or God, however you prefer to imagine it has a Beginning or an End in time... or any physical LIMIT. What can lie BEYOND the "physical limit" of the Multiverse? Well, ANOTHER Universe or type of Universe. That is, we would be facing a new Multiverse. And what could have existed BEFORE the BIG BANG? Well, another Universe or Multiverse... And once ours cools down (which is what is happening with ALL the stars burning their limited nuclear energy source) and perhaps it WILL COLLAPSE into a SINGULARITY or Black Hole and then maybe (Who could prove it or refute it?) give rise to another "Big Bang". That is, our Universe is... ETERNAL And most importantly: That Universe or Multiverse is... GOD or "Creator" of everything we observe! A God who does not reward, punish, monitor or "prefer" anyone. "He" does not condemn anyone to suffer eternally in "hell" (which does not exist!). A God not concerned about anyone, much less these imperfect human beings, absolutely insignificant: INSIGNIFICANT for the Earth, in turn insignificant for the Solar System, this one for the Milky Way Galaxy, totally insignificant for a Cluster of Galaxies, and this Cluster, insignificant for the known Universe and perhaps for a Multiverse, which is the most likely "thing" that exists. So, forget all those fears or feelings of "guilt" (of WHAT?) that you learned or were brainwashed since you were a child, convince yourself there is NO afterlife (where to?) because all of our cells DIE and desintegrate into dispersed molecules and then "atoms" that eventually will disperse randomly and help create, combined with others, new stars that will in turn "die", collapse and explode as super novas releasing new atoms to create new stars...and... ENJOY your LIFE... or "delusion" of life... or whatever it is...👍 !

[@mikchrungBLADES]

God is just a refuge for people who don't want to know more.

[@dziban303]

also a floating mass of pasta

[@lubricatedgoat]

A god. I like Kali.

[@Coolie-High]

OR God is a refuge for humans that can look past their own arrogance of knowledge as he teaches us to look beyond just logic and common sense in understanding the U-And-I Verse.

[@dziban303]

@@Coolie-High what're you smokin

[@uriituw]

@@Coolie-High The notion of gods are for the intellectually lazy.

[@Marcus-l7q]

We have wasted so many brilliant minds on string theorie. Let's say goodbye to it!

[@axle.student]

1:27 I don't have an issue with a perspective external to the "observable Universe" because the universe may have had much larger size or have even been infinite :) As long as we keep the distinction of "within" the observable part. > 7:40 Our current concept of gravity could quit plausible explain both dark matter and galaxy rotation, as well as dark energy. Both being the same phenomena produced by the latency of the speed of gravity. It is a bit awkward on the galaxy rotation problem though. With the big crunch (Inflation) (like a black hole) matter density increases due to mater and gravity eventually matter reaches a density where mater breaks down, gravity no longer exists and all that is left is energy density with no gravity to constrain it any more, and boof! in that instant rapid inflation. > 11:21 This (for me) seams to assert that all energy forms/emerges from space-time itself so we have to ask which of space or time is the driver of that inflation. The only plausible answer that I can find is that time would have to be the omnipresent driver that forms universes. It kind of goes against current accepted theory in relativity. . P.S. This can also drive a singular universe, but infinite universes is unavoidable. > 13:44 This is the reflection of my statement above where space (void) becomes the primary driver, rather than time. . In both of the above scenarios space and time are inseparable, but one of the 2 becomes the dominant driver in the relationship. (This is actually an ambiguity that I find in relativity where which of the 2 is the primary driver at the beginning of the universe. Beyond that the ambiguity has no noticeable (Observable) effect except at event horizons.) . In addition to the above oversimplification we can plausible achieve stability within the emergence of complexity. Stability will persist to form new potential levels of emergent stability, whereas failed stability will disperse (not persist). This requires the uncertainty principle to occur and is a mechanical system. ~14:32 Suggested here. > The end question is hinted to in the above descriptions. The possible answer may be unpalatable for most though :)

[@axle.student]

P.S. This was an excellent video :)

[@ulicadluga]

05:50 - The Universe did exactly as you implied, for many "iterations". With the added principle of "ongoing creation of matter", that "contraction/expansion" cycle would take more and more time - until it "fell" on the "other edge of the knife " and became the first "stable" and "accelerating" Universe.

[@75ur15]

@14:33 You said time was formed with it, but your example has you using something in an existing time, that doesn't work.....i would argue no case where something has a probability could "occur" in the absence of time, not necessarily the same "time" but no event can exist at no time. The reason i argue this point, some have ised the "theories" around the big bang (bad word to use without actual scientific evidence....it devalues the word for actual use)....to state that time definitely started with the singularity ...whatever the math suggests im not aware of any theory...actual theory....which has that included with "receipts" @16:13 thank you

[@ramondejesus65]

Third theory is my personal favorite and makes the most sense to me out of these

[@ulicadluga]

07:00 - "Analogies" are always tricky. But, let me offer you an analogy: Water is relatively "transparent", but an iceberg will be "opaque". So, "dark matter" is analogous to water, and "visible matter" is analogous to icebergs. So, in a cyclical Universe, matter could "crystallise", or it could remain in it's (energetic?) liquid state. So, a "continuous creation of matter" Universe would have both these characteristics, "liquid" and "crystalline". Do we need a "big mystery" around "dark matter"?

[@popquizzz]

I'm not sure I can buy into any of these theories about before the Big Bang. I tend to think along the steps of Alan Guth's Brane Theory but where many of these Branes actually exist as Fields as we know them today, Higgs Field, Gravitational Field, Electro-Magnetic Fields, etc. The problem is we have not discovered all of them yet, but they are all overlapping in our Universe right now and they combined to create our Universe today. They are stronger and weaker in some parts of our Universe, hence the reason for the Hubble Constant and some other anomalies that are still being explored today like the imbalance of matter over anti-matter. Although modern physics may seem to be a mature field of study, it is really only in it's first seconds of it's infancy when even considered how long man has existed on this planet. I believe these combined fields have created our Universe and as one or others become weaker, the greater the probability our Universe will either rip itself apart or collapse under an attraction mechanism like gravity. Either way at that point mankind will have either figured out a way to move between Universes or we will have perished long before.

[@ulicadluga]

05:34 - the "current rate of expansion of the Universe" will NOT "slow down", because the "initial" process that began duplicating the same particle is ongoing (it was never ended). The duplication of the "original" particle created many, many "Bangs". When enough matter was created, the expansion "outran" itself, and "gravity" (a binary, really philosophical force) could not recover it's expansion- and that expansion would accelerate, because the "original matter duplication process" added just the right amount of matter to continue the displacement of the matter in the last "explosion" ("Big Bang"). It is possible that this expansion requires ongoing "Bangs" - but that is not what I'm trying to prove or disprove. The Universe could be "contracting" and "banging" on a much smaller scale, through novae, supernovae and "black hole radiation". Still, the process would keep the Universe accelerating - appearing to be thinning out, while really just being in a sort of "Steady State Expansion" Again, the "anthropomorphic principle" applies - because we could not have evolved in a short-lived Universe. And if the Universe runs on a "knife edge" of expansion ("Flat Universe"), as most "Big Bang" theorists suppose, it must eventually fall on either side of the divide. The Universe is not "closed", not "flat" and not "open". It must be conforming to the exact pressure of the "continuous creation of matter".

[@GH-hh8cm]

Fiction

[@shethtejas104]

Before The Big Bang there was F.R.I.E.N.D.S and before that Seinfeld and The Simpsons

[@christianheichel]

Seinfeld is still the best

[@ArvinAsh]

Totally agree!

[@shethtejas104]

@@christianheichel I haven't given it a watch (I was born in the 80's) but I have an elderly colleague who mocks me for liking Friends. He tells me Seinfeld is the best. So, I should binge it soon.

[@uriituw]

Seinfeld is better than any of those.

[@shethtejas104]

@@uriituw wow another recommendation for Seinfeld!! I am waiting for next vacation when I will binge watch it :)

[@bandongogogo]

Gotta love Arvin!!!

[@BigMKatmn1]

All three hyptheses assume there is a structure that allows the creation of our universe. The theories just move the goal posts. Awesome video and easy to understand but I guess the question turns into why is there a structure that would allow this creation to take place?

[@markl4593]

Arvin - thanks for making me feel even more insignificant. 🙂

[@mikkohernborg5291]

The third idea has some flaws - the combination of 'probability' with 'no *before* spacetime'. It’s easy to see why physics breaks down at or before the initial singularity, when probability is some measure of the occurrence of an event, in space or time or spacetime. The likelihood of producing a universe either becomes absolute or nonexistent, as the occurrence can be stacked to infinity or countered by an array of unknown factors with infinite possibilities.

[@kinngrimm]

8:50 You say it is flat, which would be counter inutitive to a layman like myself as when we see explosions of any sizes they usually spread in all directions equally with the exception if something is in the way. As you also but mentioned and was told many times over by physisists the speed seems increasing due to the red shift measures taken. So pushing against something seems unlikely aslong that something is very hard to measure. As we don't know what the laws outside our universe are, we can also not say if there is a likelylood to stumble upon other universes, like galaxies that merge universes maybe even that already had their heat death merging and in that instance reigniting processes. Aslong we live inside that large box which is our universe we just can't say, right?

[@jakemars2601]

This is very easy to understand. Thank you for your work.

[@rightlinepainting1620]

Thank you Arvin ,like always very informative clip

[@AutisticThinker]

Was there a first big bang in a cyclic universe? If so what was before that?

[@oldguyinstanton]

At 10:50: where does the energy to power this eternal inflation come from? Is space expanding due to an energy differential? Or is energy being created from nothing?

[@TM-yn4iu]

A late comment, this has/is always a question I dwell on. This discussion provides a theory/perspective that brings "hmmm" to forefront. Appreciated as always. Watch regularly and happy to see the skin cancer issue from a few years back has been cured - hopefully.

[@jimmyzhao2673]

This is a mind bending topic. Potentially so many Universes !

[@raylittle8607]

Love your videos. Could be that the expansion of space is continually happening in other galaxies or universes from a tiny singularity. There is no before because it’s continuous. It just happened that 14 billion years ago it was our turn. Could be that all singularities in black hole are future big bangs.

[@unick2011]

6:50 Its not thrue here. The reason why the stars at the outer edge move fast is not because of dark matter, but because of gravitational pull between the stars, which here acts like an elastic band and will not let go.

[@macsarcule]

Awesome as always 🙂

[@jpwilkins316]

So the universe spat out puzzle pieces without knowing the final art piece just beautiful

[@roberthutchins4297]

something I find interesting us why did BB occur just when it did. Rather, satm 5 minutes earlier or 27 hours later. Those times are, of course, measuring backwards from the present,

[@ArvinAsh]

It did! The beginning was the beginning of time in the universe, so it doesn't matter when you start the clock.

[@haqeeqee]

If the last theory is true, then doesn't that mean that it's possible that a new universe could suddenly explode inside of our current observable universe? Even if the probability of that happening is extremely low?

[@mt-qc2qh]

Great presentation. I'm a firm believer in the Eternal Inflation hypothesis. It does show us how miniscule and insignificant we are and how little we could ever comprehend. To that end, I believe JWST actually gave us a peek beyond out "Universe" and makes us wonder.

[@joergweis]

Hi Arvin, great Video as always. I personally believe in another possibility. 1. black and white holes grow the volume by r^3 when mass is added. This could explain the accelerating expansion of our universe. 2. the mass in the known universe is in the range of a black hole 3. inflation is just necessary because we have the strange assumption, that the universe comes from nothing. Why that? Why is the starting point an ideal singularity and not a practical one that is a little bit bigger already? 4. the starting point could be a practical singularity as we assume based on ART for black holes. This would lead to another multiverse approach with mother and child universes. 5. imbalances like matter vs antimatter could be leveled out across a multitude of universes. Would love to see the arguments why this hypothesis is not working.

[@jimgraham6722]

Great topic. In an infinite Kuhn Level 8 'nothing' anything is possible, although 'simple' things are more probable than 'complex'. In time, on a scale of trillions of years the universe will decay back to nothing. Proton decay would be an indicator. Against the background of an infinite Level 8 nothing the entire existence of our universe would be just a flash in the pan.

[@dcabernel]

Just finished reading Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe From Nothing" (for the 2nd time). To me, Arvin just summarized the book with 3rd Hypotheses and really clarified it for me. Thanks!

[@sheshankutty8552]

First of all, ARVIN ASH, you are amazing. You are a gift. You break down things that even a common non physicists or non Einsteinians can understand. This ultimately goes to the question why we exist or everything else. This sounds more like the water vapor bubble that is created when under water propellors rotate very fast but in reverse in the case of universe. The collapse of the bubble is so fast that they even crack the metals (in other words, they accelerate). What if that the universe is sprung up off an unstable empty space. The universe that we live in is NOT empty as physicist would know. In the case of water bubble, a force is applied. If we apply similar principle, we might encounter perpetual cycle in universe creation. How do we know if such perpetual motion of creation exists in the Universe? That leads to the question again as to why do we exists? I have kind of Ramanujan theory, but without proof, nothing matters. That poor Ramanujan.

[@manoo422]

A cyclical universe is inevitably the correct answer. The current expansion confirms we are beyond the 'midpoint' and now heading for the big crunch. It is a mistake to think we need to slow down, stop, then reverse. A rethink of the geometry of the universe is all that is required to see how this works...

[@Bizija123]

How would it then crunch without running out of momentum and then collapsing in on itself?

[@manoo422]

@@Bizija123 Because we are no heading towards the crunch not away from it.

[@abideintheWord]

Or it’s just like the Bible says - “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭1‬ ‭NKJV‬

[@ulicadluga]

What was before the "what was before"? Simple. The entire universe is the consequence of a quantum creation of matter and antimatter. Except, during that original creation, time relapsed backwards before these opponents could annihilate. So, every time the event recurred, like a record skipping back one groove, matter accumulated. Nevermind what this original matter was (strings, quarks, photons, electrons. whatever). Then, gravity was created by the "philosophical" fact that the previous iteration of that same "particle" was forced to move over. So, gravity is just the desire of "creation" to return to its "creation" space-time. A fact which become more pertinent as the rapidly increasing matter population is forced away from its origin. That is gravity. Eventually, when the pressure becomes sufficient, the force is strong enough to cause an implosion, which forces a "crystallisation" process which breaks every particle into energy, which requires much more space. An explosion must follow. Matter and energy are flung outward. The "gravity desire" pulls them back when energy finds its space. Of course, more "matter" is still being created by the original "time abnormality", which means that, together with the returning matter, a new, larger accumulation compresses. This event occurs, over and over, until a last event finally broaches the gravitational (philosophical) attraction, and the continued creation of matter is enough to keep the outward expansion of the "New Universe" going. The continued acceleration of the expansion of "Our Universe" is explained by this very finely balanced creation of matter, which makes the Universe appear to be "thinning out", while, in reality it has become an expanding, "steady state" Universe of sorts. There is no deep contradiction between the "Big Bang" and Fred Hoyle's "Steady State" Universe. We are in a "Steady State" Universe that is expanding.

[@dosomething3]

12:40 the Heisenberg uncertainty doesn’t allow for virtual particle. Rather, the Heisenberg uncertainty is the byproduct of virtual particles. quantum fluctuations are the physical behavior of the very fabric of reality.

[@colinwinterman]

I like the way you talk and think, so im gunna assume you are the real deal and not an ai youtube production. yer the best out there mate, well done

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

12:25 Misspelling! You have "uncertainty in time" written twice. You obviously mean "uncertainty in energy" for one of them.

[@THISBECHRIS]

I’m so glad I watched this sober. This way I was able to understand about 7% of it. Fascinating stuff.

[@Tenly2009]

@1:18 you say “and if it did, it would be from another universe”, but that is NOT an assertion you can actually make. Because why couldn’t that perspective come from a place between universes or from above or below our universe? The only thing you can actually, factually state is that it would be a perspective from “outside of our universe” - but you positively asserted that it could only come from another universe.