Which came first, time or entropy?

From whence does the arrow of time originate? How are the earliest notions of atoms and motion related to our perception of the singular direction of time? How to reconcile the notion of entropy with challenges to modern concepts of the origin of the universe? This video explores the dichotomy of viewpoints -- one specifying the imposition, by fiat, of a low entropy state in the universe's first moments. The other option: in which the low entropy results from the infintie diffusion of the universe as it cycles from an infinite past towards an infinite future.
Credits:
NASA, ESA
Sean Carroll • Sean Carroll | The P...
(Make sure to check out @seancarroll’s Channel for great content!)
Please join my mailing list; just click here 👉 briankeating.co... 📝 to get updates about my upcoming book, Think Like a Nobel Prize Winner (briankeating.c...)
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @drbriankeating
Support the podcast: / drbriankeating
And please join my mailing list to get resources and enter giveaways to win a FREE copy of my book (and more) briankeating.co... 📝
🎥 🎥 Watch my most popular videos🎥 🎥
Frank Wilczek • Nobel Prizewinner Fran...
Weinstein and Wolfram • Stephen Wolfram vs. Er...
Sheldon Glashow: • Sheldon Glashow: The P...
Michael Saylor The Physics of Bitcoin • Michael Saylor: The Ph...
Sir Roger Penrose, Nobel Prize winner: • Nobel Prize in Physics...
Jill Tarter • Jill Tarter: Time to S...
Sara Seager Venus LIfe: • Did Scientists Discove...
Noam Chomsky: • Noam Chomsky: Consciou...
Sabine Hossenfelder: • Sabine Hossenfelder: T...
Sarah Scoles: • Sarah Scoles, Author o...
Stephen Wolfram: • Has Stephen Wolfram di...
🏄‍♂️ Find me on Twitter at / drbriankeating
🔥 Find me on Instagram at / drbriankeating
📖 Buy my book LOSING THE NOBEL PRIZE: amzn.to/2sa5UpA
🔔 Subscribe for more great content www.youtube.co...
✍️Detailed Blog posts here: briankeating.c...
📧Join my mailing list: briankeating.co...
👪Join my Facebook Group: / losingthenobelprize
🎙️Please subscribe, rate, and review the INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast on iTunes: itunes.apple.c...
🎙️Listen on all other platforms: wavve.link/into
A production of imagination.ucs...
Thanks to Treb Padula at UCSD’s StudioU
Support the podcast: / drbriankeating
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Plays the Race Card!"
• Neil DeGrasse Tyson Hi...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~

[@antonystringfellow5152]

"Time and space are modes by which we think, and not conditions in which we live." - Albert Einstein

[@Atmanyatri]

Fascinating. Thank you so much for this amazing channel

[@DrBrianKeating]

It’s my pleasure! Stay tuned for more!! Have a great weekend!

[@janwaska4081]

Brian, I like the way that you explain difficult concepts. Thanks

[@rasmusnilsson51]

It’s really easy. A distant future high entropy universe will consist exclusively of supermassive black holes. The supermassive black holes evaporates - until they explode like a supernova. The expanding matter will - for the poor monkeys who will live on the planets that eventually form from the debris - look like a whole, lonely universe, born from a singularity but in a high entropy environment.

[@bntagkas]

ive long since said: what is time? time is change each object is affected by change at a different way and a different rate if there are two objects that are molecularly identical they maybe probably are affected by time the same way would be my guess

[@timveseli]

Thank you for all this hard work to provide this information

[@enterprisesoftwarearchitect]

The most underrated interviews on the Internet.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks buddy

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks for your feedback

[@fungiside]

I like the video but dang that text pop up sound is annoying

[@RubixNinja]

One thing I always wondered about, why wasn't the early universe all one big black hole? What kept everything separate? And if there were black holes then how could all the matter/energy have escaped?

[@squigglyblue7377]

The early universe was extremely homogeneous so there was nowhere for the matter/energy to collapse into.

[@szjozsi]

there were no particles at t=0, S=k*log W but what is W in case of the universe between time =0 and 0+planck time? entropy is a measure of a macrostate in respect to the microstates. Was there any microstate or more than 1 microstate at the big bang? I do not know if entropy has a meaning at that moment.

[@AndriiMuliar]

Is god hypothesis a name for strong anthropic principle? Why supposed existence of Multiverse has implications for religion such as Shinto or other atheistic religion? Isn't it a variant of weak anthropic principle, taking in account that we know almost nothing about quantum gravity and it's properties like entropy?

[@Bill..N]

Of course theists would vehemently DENY ANY degree of equivalency between God and the anthropic principal..I don't quite get it either, but I LIKED your comment anyway..

[@johngalt156]

Brian would love for you to interview Brother Guy J. Consolmagno SJ from the Vatican Observatory Foundation

[@DrBrianKeating]

Would love an introduction

[@davidwilkie9551]

You can convince yourself that the Universe was hot, if you carefully ignore the Observable facts of Superposition Singularity positioning in eternal existence, made of making, pure-math relative motion quantization, aka The Calculus. As an indication of my Thinking Fast and Slow strategy, (required for the age group), I have to see the instantaneous combination of temporal positioning parallel existence, in a Quantum-fields Chemistry Superspin Modulation Singularity Superposition-point focal point Perspective and Mathematical projection-drawing of e-Pi-i logarithmic condensation wave-packaging formation, here-now-forever.., and this is a confusing mishmash of Nomenclatures that has to be sorted on-the-fly while watching the video. It's why I have to watch over and over, sometimes the appropriate orientation does not align until years later.., and of course this the duality of normaltypical reductionist perceptions. So "e-mode" is typical probabilistic transverse trancendental e-Pi condensation, ie In-form-ation of Quantum-fields, "Normal orthoganal" pulse-evolution by line-of-sight superposition for identification in a Logarithmic numberness, Time Duration Timing Landscape Perspective Projection Drawing Conception . Which is why putting out a video is beyond my capacity, and I'm always appreciative of great presentations such as this. (Even if they are the precisely reversed, accurately onservable Dynamic Truth of Singularity-point presence) Looking at the Forest of Woods without seeing the Trees of time-timing sync-duration recirculation.., Physics-Measurement is Time Duration Timing Conception by default and therefore is the basis of Actual Intelligence before being composed Theoretical Artificial Intelligence techniques development of technology and states of knowledge.

[@mikebellamy]

There is a big problem with all this hyper speculation: The origin of matter! Mass of universe = 1e80 protons = 1.67e53 Kg Escape velocity = v = √(2GM/r) therefore r = 2GM/v2 Substitute M = 1.67e53 and v = 3e8 m/sec (speed of light) The *minimum* diameter of the universe below which it will collapse into a black hole is *52.5 billion light years* Hence the matter in the universe could not be created in the early hot stage when the universe was small! Also *Running the universe back in time* is not the same for energy and matter as assumed in all these models! Think of a candle burning (like star we see today) the *ENERGY* goes back to a very small point BUT the *MATTER* does not! It gets bigger until it reaches a maximum mass and then *STOPS.* Stars must by the second law do the same they can only go back to the point of maximum hydrogen and that is their *minimum entropy* state! That means the real Big Bang was first an expansion of space and energy with *no mass* then the creation of stars in their lowest entropy state or maximum hydrogen fuel state. Which actually matches what the bible says God did in the opening chapter of Genesis! Day 1 God said "let there be light" expansion of space and photon energy giving us the very smooth CMBR Day 4 God said "he made the stars also" after the expansion by collapsing the wave energy into atoms of hydrogen Since we know from Young's experiment the particle's history is written retrospectively back for the moment of measurement by a mind the whole thing could have occurred 6000 years ago and the history of the stars observed back billions of years was instantly there to see. After all the bible was right about there being a beginning and it is clear order must have been a maximum in the past.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

This is easily getting the most informative but also most open-minded cosmology podcast series available. Thanks Brian for this insightful update of where the latest cosmogenisis is at . As for issues discussed; I am not so sure the current discussed complexities of cosmology issues are in fact 'real' or just the result of a shared set of wrong core assumptions when it comes to cosmology. Maybe a true shot at the Nobel Prize will befall upon the professor who re-asserts / re-evalues a few core assumptions. I will mention a few: Question 1:) Do we have the shape of our universe correct? Motivation: We simply all ASSUME our cosmos is like and exploding sphere. But this is by no means a logical structure! why? Since we talk about a Big Bang as a starting point of infinite energy at incredibly small spatial scale we are in fact talking about our cosmos expanding from a singularity. From other singularity shapes we KNOW there is the recurring shape of a central disk with 2 lobes emerging on either side (see Cygnus A!). We see this in galaxies (the core being a BH and with two gamma radiation) lobes expanding, we see this in smaller singularities and we see it in e.g. simulating micro Keer singularities. The default shape would thus be a central (depleting) energy disk with two expanding lobes, one with matter (our expanding lobe) and one at the opposite side filled with antimatter. PLs use this default shape and see if the some problems disappear. Question 2: Do we interpret the Arrow of time correctly? Motivation: We ASSUME the entire universe has the same arrow of time. However, if a singularity like our cosmos is able to set an arrow of time for its influence sphere then by logical extension also a smaller BH area (e.g. our own wider Saggittarius A galaxy) must be able to set its own arrow of time, which may or may not at times be identical to the arrow of time of the bigger cosmos arrow of time. Consequence: Our galaxy may currently have an arrow of time OPPOSITE to our wider universe outside of it, in which case the observed REDSHIFT of furthest galaxies is actually a BLUE shift and we are in fact witnessing a contraction of our universe, which would normalize the gravitational function and do away with the perceived need for dark energy. Question 3) What measure must we take as overarching function of clock? Motivation: from QP we know that at the QP level not 'time' but 'mass' has the function of clock (see Penrose' statement). If so than if mass could have the function of clock also at the overarching cosmic level. In that case the oscillating model of our cosmos would only be oscillating time-wise. If we replace time with 'mass' as the function of clock, than all time wise oscillations would come all at the same mass 'clock' tick, meaning: we would merge the concept of multivers with an oscillation/bounding universe so everybody wins....Finding answers with these 3 questions might be stuff enough to get back the Nobel Prize you once lost....IMHO at least...

[@Myrddnn]

This shouldn't be hard to understand. Entropy does NOT always increase. Only under SOME conditions does lifeless matter increase entropy over time. The EVOLUTION of simple compounds into amino acids and proteins that then encapsulate themselves with a membrane and find an energy source to absorb, is ALL the proof needed that things get MORE complex over time, given the appropriate conditions. Entropy goes both ways, depending on conditions and context. Early stars EVOLVED from simple hydrogen, helium and lithium, according to the theory, becoming MORE not less complex as stars birthed heavier, more complex elements. I am baffled that the idea that entropy always increases ever gained any currency. It is false on the face of it.

[@halocemagnum8351]

Hi Brian! I love your channel a ton. I like the people you bring on and your perspective on things (I haven’t read Losing the Nobel Prize yet but I need to!). I also really like these informative videoed because they cover lots of topics that aren’t often covered by other channels (cosmogenesis seems like a weirdly unpopular topic in popular-physics-KZbin.) I have a few critiques of the way you make the informative videos though. For one thing, sometimes it seems like your videos are either unscripted, or that you’re a little too hesitant to retake a cut. Sometimes you talk about something that doesn’t feel super specifically related to the topic at hand, or you repeat stuff you’ve kind of said before, or you misspeak. Etc. these things could be cut out in post, or even reshot in a new take to make it flow better. Also, although it’s good to talk quote people who have been on the show before and to cite their work, remember that KZbin is also a visual medium. You don’t always have to say “famed physicist x person and their book Y”, you can just say they’re name, title, and why they’re relevant and then throw up a picture with their book. Also there’s a way in KZbin to make links to other videos sort of pop up in the corner during a video. So that could be a better way of letting people know you have an interview with this person then necessarily saying it outright (though I understand why you do). Overall though I really liked the video! Thanks for putting out such high quality content and having on such interesting guests. I hope you have Sabine on sometime soon again! Her video “is physics too speculative” is a goldmine of potentially interesting questions and I’d love to hear her elaborate more on the ideas she brought up in it.

[@JerryMlinarevic]

The clock itself has its own entropy, I.e. rate of change, which affects its rate of time, and its arrow of time can run forward or backward depending upon the gravity increasing or decreasing. At absolute zero gravity, time stops; yes you will exist forever but have no experience, no awareness and no girlfriend. Crack this egg and aether comes out!

[@florh]

Well, I've been postulating this for years.... Time itself has no dimension and is infinite. That infinite dimension is a level of degree of freedom for other fields. So my best guess is, time has always been there and will always be there, entropy came after. How can entropy have come first if time isn't a level of degree of freedom, then nothing moves and entropy can't increase. According to physicists, entropy keeps increasing, and if time came second, then there wasn't entropy to begin with, because before time entropy couldn't increase. If the universe started out as this hot dense dot/point/singularity, and time didn't exist, then how did it became hot in the first place, if time didn't exist? I may suck at explaining things, it has never been my strong suit, but for me, time was first, not entropy.

[@humanitech]

I sometimes wonder if Entropy might simply be a naturally occuring cyclical process of elemental transitions and reversals.!? Where things go from one form, expression, state or extreme to another (to perhaps a completely inverse state) ? Made possible due to the seemingly natural (conflicting and opposing) nature of energy, matter and everything within the cosmos - in response to all the internal/external actions, interactions and reactions involved and at play! And therefore perhaps dark energy and matter might simply be the natural inverse phase and reality for everything in this light matter cosmos! ....and perhaps this is why (as light matter beings) we might have great difficulty trying to fully observe, rationalise or determine the dark side....because we are light matter beings existing on the flip side!? So it might be impossible for us to have access and understanding of this dark state of reality. It could also mean that there is always a dark matter universe, running in parallel to our own.....only perhaps there nothing can be formed or expressed or exist including time.. However it too is naturally unstable and so will flip and then revert back into the light energy and matter phase again. One thing for sure...its always great fun to ponder and chase hypothetical and theoretical shadows.

[@salec7592]

About entropy, and energy: thermodynamics comes with an assumption, assumption that motion is possible, i.e. that spacetime exists. Very much all of physics just comes from a premise that the space and time (or, in last hundred and something years the spacetime) just is, and has existed at least from the beginning. What if evolution of cosmos is actually history of emanation of spacetime? Without spacetime, with only matter (probably: initially, pre-spacetime, only bosons, no fermions) and no spacetime, entropy is extreme, and it only becomes lower as the spacetime starts appearing. Perhaps both the time arrow and the entropy increase are direct consequences of (so far unexplained) inflation of spacetime? What if there is a spacetime particle? Or even more weird, an entropy particle?

[@princesskenyetta4745]

Where is a metaphysician when you need one? In the absence of space, there can be no movement. Modal: Space affords entropy. Mereological: entropy is part of which space is whole. Were there is no movement there is no entropy or causality. Space must necessarily exist for movement and causality to occur. Time is not a real thing, but a measurement of movement and causality. Consider there's no such thing as inch in the objective world by which all other inches are measured. An 'inch' is not a real thing, it's a socially-constructed thing. Time is not a real thing, but the standard by which we measure relative movement in space.

[@warrenrae32]

@Dr Brian Keating Although Guth and Linde say that it’s hard to produce models of an inflationary universe that don’t lead to a multiverse isn’t it true that they’ve also demonstrated that it’s equally difficult to produce inflationary models that don’t require a beginning? As well as inflationary computer models requiring a beginning the BGV theorem shows that any expanding universes lead to past incomplete space times . For the above reasons Guth has conceded that inflation may be future eternal but definitely not past eternal. So on the surface an inflationary universe leading to potential multiverse’s may seem to have ‘drastic’ implications for metaphysics , philosophy and theology (perhaps regarding its future state) however they don’t appear to change the need for a beginning (and therefore it’s past metaphysical, philosophical and theological implications) as all the physical evidence as well as computer models and space time geometry proofs point to an ultimate beginning in the finite past.

[@nkmahale]

Boltzmann never suggested that we are at thermal equilibrium. He only investigated what if the part of universe is at thermal equilibrium or rather approximate equilibrium. You need methods of physical kinetics to handle nonequilibrium phenomenon. Strange thing about physical kinetics is that processes seem to follow lowest rate of increase of entropy; you can actually use this theorem to do electrical circuit analysis.

[@princesskenyetta4745]

I suppose I want scientists to understand that there is an element of metaphysics to imparting complex information to lay-people. It's going to take metaphors. We need to know modality, in other words, what entity or condition must exist for something else to occur. We also need to know mereological, in other words what entities are parts of which other entities are whole. Lay-people may not be able to all the details, but can understand the relationships between elements. The big example is time, which gets described and understood as a force in itself, when it isn't really a thing in itself, but a measurement of the relationship between space and matter. Some entities scientists talk about are fundamental and objective, and some are complete abstractions. If lay-people think all concept science talks about are objective, the result is a very confused gestalt framework. It makes sense to me to present an ontology of things that exist objectively, like space and matter, and a separate ontology for abstractions that describe the relationships between space and matter, like gravity, time, and entropy. --- When we didn't know about the quantum realm, we only understood causality as it functions in the thermodynamic realm that we witness empirically. Now we know about the quantum realm and wonder how it emerged. We see that causality in the quantum realm is not quite the same paradigm of causality that occurs in the thermodynamic realm... that emerges from the quantum realm. Science is now speculating about first causes. When we ask: 'from what does the quantum realm emerge?' it stands to reason for me that it is from a more primitive paradigm of causality, that is consistent with how the thermodynamic realm emerges from the quantum realm. I think the constructor theory definition of information helps here because it is abstract enough to describe the function of information in any realm of causality.

[@Kerrsartisticgifts]

My guess is that the expansion of Space causes both. Or, the expansion of the space dimensions is time which is slowed by gravity and entropy is the effect of the expansion. That's how I picture it.

[@marekmynarczyk9800]

entropy is not the main engine that drives the world, entropy is just an indicator of the complexity of a system, but what drives the world on a global scale is not yet explained, I mean the concept of motion and what causes it, currently it is explained that gravity plays a decisive role here ... but this is not a complete explanation

[@Darisiabgal7573]

You have gotten so many positive responses we need here some capsasin to balance all the glucose. So let’s actually take about the problem of inflation. By whatever mathematics one uses the inflaton terminates in something the size of a baseball to something the size of a whale, but the reality is we do not know the actual size because currently we don’t know what proportion our visible universe is relative to the entirety. I can make an argument that logically should be a tiny part since we are un aware of any edge effects, something physicist have always assumed do not exist but should exist for anything with a moment of finite size. But you can solve this problem by making the inflaton undefinable large. By doing this however it only magnifies the other two problems. The first you dealt with by making an inflaton perfectly flat, because any imperfections in the early expansion would devolve into massive black holes that would consume everything. Some have proposed unstable micro black holes, but I see this as a handwaving argument. So the second problem is how do you keep the energy in the universe stable until it reaches the point in which matter can aggregate without forming black holes or having energy pour into the universe. This point in time is as much as a million years after inflation ends. IOW how does expansion maintain perfect isotrophy until energy density everywhere falls below the density of a black hole. The second problem is more hideous. We have argued that because of the gravitons small size it would require more than the energy to form a black to create a perturbation in its field. But as the energy density of inflaton increases in negative time, there is more than adequate energy to perturb gravitons. Therefore the nature of the graviton could be more particle than wavelike. This creates a problem in the scope of spacetime. Moreover when one increases energy to a point before reaching a singularity energy becomes infinite when spatial dimensions are reduced, not to zero but from 3 to 2. Therefore one can conclude that spacetime in form we can understand must evolve either in the inflaton or at the boundary so that the discussion of 10E-36 seconds is moot. If one ignores this then it places the onus of the problem back to the previous, how is energy kept in a stable form. So rather than dance around the problem of how the spatial dimensions of the universe begins, my critique here is where and how did the energy come into those spatial dimensions, are the laws of energy conservation inadequate to explain the early universe? The other critique is that as energy density increases the is no reason to assume spa time behaves as it does currently.

[@wulphstein]

Since discussions of quantum gravity seem to be too technical, perhaps we should try a different discussion. Can you please ask your guests if they believe that the chakras hold the key to the spirit occupying the physical body as a manifestation of immortality. In other words, we are already an immortal spirit that reincarnates life time after life time. Do the chakras hold the key to physical immortality?

[@Chirality452]

I feel humbled by the people I seem to disagree with but here goes. I don't really see the entropy problem. When we say entropy is higher in the early universe. OK, but it is even higher now given the black holes? Also, if black holes have high entropy compared with a random gas the what about neutron stars? Less entropy than black holes but higher than gas. So stars less entropy than neutron stars but more than gas. So entropy is higher now than at the early universe. What is wrong with my reasoning?

[@theknowledge.6869]

Is Gravity ? Space-Time extracting Space-Time from Matter so that it uses that Space-Time to expand as Space-Time does.

[@advaitrahasya]

I wonder what happens to entropy and allied notions when they meet the fundamental truths which physicists avoid via their dogmas? Those truths being: All arises in the eternally arising moment of creation. (time is not a thing) All apparent forms arise in the one undivided and indivisible sub-stance (which you call 'vacuum with properties') and are "made of" true (property-less) vacuum. There's more, but that plus a little (real and rigorous) logic … and most of the current conundrums evaporate. You will never get to enjoy the deep mysteries of champagne if you keep insisting that the bubbles in it are all there is ;)

[@kronkite1530]

Interesting, BUT… what is that stupid farting noise played every time there is a caption or image? Totally unnecessary and totally ridiculous.

[@illogicmath]

We do not see the broken eggs rebuild themselves but we do see matter organize itself in the form of life. For example, we see how atoms of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, etc. organize themselves to form a tree.

[@gregoryhead382]

The Watt sum is a charm parity for a one inch equation to explain how easily our World 🌎 began. W=kg m^2/s^2)/cP

[@Michael-tq6xm]

Time itself is so paradoxical , for instance it is said that before the bog bang there was no time. so the question to ask is for how long was there no time.

[@Metal73Mike]

That stab every time some text appears in the video is ruining it, what an appalling sound and waaay too loud...

[@davidjohnston4240]

"From whence" - whence means "from where". So "From whence" means "From from whence".

[@Bless-the-Name]

I once had an argument, with a friend, in which I insisted there's no such thing as a stupid question.

[@MadScienceWorkshoppe]

I'm not sure if the sound that keeps popping off is intentional, but it makes this video unwatchable with headphones on (such as the one @3:03)

[@TheSimJoh]

These seem to be synth 'hits' and are a very bad choice in edit.

[@jasondelong83]

Isn't the expansion of spacetime just the entropy of nothingness?

[@gregoryhead382]

1380649/100000000000000000000000000000 J/K is a bit like the Botzmann constant for qubits.

[@viewer3091]

What if there was multiples more times of matter in our Universe = = How would that change our Universe ?

[@sonarbangla8711]

At the big bang how can there be low entropy when temperature was very high?

[@nkmahale]

Could be akin to "Chicken and the Egg" problem.

[@-Gorbi-]

Around 9:00 - I’ve never understood how Newton’s laws are time reversible. If I watch a woman spinning in a long dress, then play it backwards, the dress just looks backwards. So what am I missing?

[@diamondisgood4u]

The idea is that microscopically you absolutely would see 0 difference. The common reason you can notice a difference in real life is because of entropy, watching a single atom in a box you couldn’t tell if it was moving backwards or forwards in time. But start a group of atoms clustered together, and there are just more ways for them to be spread apart than to be clustered together, thus you can macroscopically tell the difference between past and future

[@diamondisgood4u]

What’s most interesting is this is actually (my guess) probably the next problem we’re gonna solve in meta-physics because we’ve been using a few hundred year old ideas for entropy and it seems like we have a hold on QM enough now to say more about it

[@-Gorbi-]

@@diamondisgood4u Okay, I see what you’re saying I think. But science channels don’t explain what you just did. Entropy only applies to atoms? Again - the world we live in is NOT visually time reversible. Dresses flow one direction only. Those atoms are part of the dress which does not move time symmetrically. I don’t understand why atoms bound to larger structures don’t count as part of Newton’s laws. They aren’t time symmetric.

[@Skukkix23]

sound effects are highly distracting and confusing-

[@sonarbangla8711]

What is meant by 'inflation implies multiverse'?

[@robertflynn6686]

Bouncing inflation not bouncing universe reverses entropy.

[@viewer3091]

A competition between Space and Matter = = Matter seems to want to reduce Space( and / or Matter ) to the Minimum while Space seems to want to increase Space to the Maximum. Is Time just our Journey through Space or our attempt to make sense of our Journey through Space.

[@Bill..N]

Let's hope there are MORE choices to describe time than the two you suggested, because NEITHER of them are correct..No?

[@sunnybee8176]

The Camille Flammarion woodcut picture at 1:50 reminds me of the book by H. Floris Cohen (2015): The Rise of Modern Science Explained A Comparative History

[@DrBrianKeating]

Nice

[@PearlmanYeC]

To book-mark 5:27 'flatness problem'. at what minute does Dr. Keating mention how the flatness issue increases w/ distance? or if a different episode please advise.

[@PearlmanYeC]

at what distance does the flatness issue start to factor in? I assume w/ parallax, under 1k Light years there is no flatness issue. How about 6k LY? 30k LY? 100k? 1M? to what cause, if any known, does it 'increase with distance'? If i understand the issue, SPIRAL would explain why a Flatness issue starting we predict as near as 5782 LY to date + one per annum, and also how/why the further, the flatter after that.

[@septopus3516]

So this far, not a single iota or shred of anything remotely close to a hint of proof or likelihood of a multiverse..? Are there any other accepted hypothesis of this nature in all of physics? (Besides string theory) Let's not create the evidence when our imagination comes to a road block, let's accept the road block for what it really is.

[@Bill..N]

Yes, and let's agree to REALLY try hard to resist any unwarranted disparagement of physics since it is SOLELY responsible for our modern technological world.. Good plan I would say, Peace..

[@Jason-gt2kx]

Great content. Please, keep them coming!

[@morphixnm]

So dark matter has not been empirically identified. It is a placeholder for something needed to explain the anomalous rotation of galaxies, for which standard models have no explanation. Dark energy is likewise needed to explain inflation, which is anomalous for conventional physics. It also has not been empirically observed. And then, as if these epicycle-like theory patches were not enough, we are given the story of multiverses. These are rather extraordinary claims and so are, not surprisingly, lacking empirical substantiation. What if time does not exist as part of the physical universe? Aristotle thought that time is the experience of noticing a succession of movements or changes of location, which experiential phenomenon he called the "number of motion." In that view, time is in the mind of the observer while out in the physical universe there are simply things in motion. The arrow of time then comes from the fact that all things move with some kind of orientation, whether angular or linear, and change is the result of such motion. In this case clocks do not measure time, they simply produce a recurrent motion that can be used to gauge the incremental changes of other things, whether of their motions, their successive locations in space,, or whatever else can be related to the ticking/movement of a clock mechanism. Atomic clocks likewise provide a regular output of particles that can be used as a reference, but in no way "measure time." The other important aspect of this alternate theory is that it does not get into a problem where the definition of entropy requires the arrow of time but the arrow time is defined by entropy. Clearly an unacceptable case of definitional codependency. By sticking to the fact that matter and energy exist and that their motions of necessity have an orientation or direction, we avoid the reification of abstractions. So, for example, we can then attribute entropy to the fact that, when viewed in their totality, the universe of physical things in motion becomes less orderly and more thermally homogeneous as changes progress. This leaves open the question of where and how consciousness may be involved in that progression, and whether it may even be able to counter it, which is another interesting area to explore.

[@morphixnm]

Comments?

[@spaceinyourface]

Love these short little vids , you keep yourself so busy. I know I've said it before, your a very honest , eloquent passionate & talented individual who we allways feel privileged to watch,, thanks for taking the time & effort Brian to keep explaining physics to us all. We really hope you detect this polarisation sooner rather than later. We could do with a big break through in cosmology. You deserve it. 👏

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks sooooo much. I love your feedback

[@kadourimdou43]

As there's no evidence of B Mode yet, does this decrease the credibility of Inflation. How much more sensitive do the microwave telescopes need to be, before it would be ruled out?

[@georgewaldkirch3604]

Thank you for presenting such complex and nuanced information in a relatable way!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks Olga. Love to hear that!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Is the *Bouncing or Conformal Cyclic Cosmology* preferable to the *Past Hypothesis* for the low entropy state of the early universe? Check out this episode for another cosmic voyage kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJCueHyNaruJe9U *Make sure to subscribe and hit the notification 🔔 so you never miss an episode!*

[@wulphstein]

Cyclical universe seems unimaginative. It doesn't explain anything at all. It's like trying to explain how a car works by talking about how there are millions of cars on the road today. You would feel disappointed if you enrolled in an automotive class and they didn't teach you about the mechanics of the engine, but instead spent weeks telling you about how other cars might exist.

[@sirbruce70]

Answer: No, because then it's just an infinite regress (impossible) or a finite regress (in which case you still need to answer the question of where the universe came from, but you can claim it's even more impossible to discern because you have 10^nth universes to extrapolate back through instead of just 1). Also, your 10 minute thesis took 20 minutes!

[@Bill..N]

I would choose CCC as being the more probable of THOSE two..Another excellent offering, thx.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thank you, Bill. Have a great weekend!

[@TysonJensen]

Whatever actually happened is preferable, of course. The Universe doesn’t care about our preferences. Asking ourselves what we prefer is how we get an Everett-Wheeler multiverse out of no evidence or 30 years of pretending that String Theory is still promising. The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to us. That it mostly does so is nice, but it is in no way required. I like Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, but so what?

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

Grey head is maybe not exactly two gravitating circles, but smth very simple, motionless and eternal in sub-3D. Ellipses are the clue

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

The last step in 2D before it becomes 1D circle maybe

[@0neIntangible]

3 phase split field elliptoid interpoles extracting from the "null"...or in other words, a "null knot" of sorts.

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

@@0neIntangible more key phrases? I want terminology. I'll put it into my description of my model.

[@0neIntangible]

@@GEMSofGOD_com the phrases of the phases, interloping within the hysteresis shadow envelope, tuned to the boundary cancellation conditions in the surrounding environments.

[@namelessjoe27]

Great video, liked and subscribed (text notification sound is a little loud)

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks I fixed that for future videos

[@bobtimster62]

By the way, Borde's name is pronounced, "BOR-day".

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks

[@blengi]

my uber sophomoric pick for a resolution of the low entropy conundrum lol - Years ago tried to program computer sim once to generate abiogenesis. It basically entropically compacted random states under various simple couplings to find meta persistent arrangements... Curiously the information structure generically acted more like an inflationary multiverse and not like the protean ecological window I had hoped for. Anyways, basically it nucleated low entropy bubbles via flow of low entropy residual states which competed until one typically exponentially extracted all the free energy, and then did a whole lot of other interesting things... Suffice it to say, outside of this inflationary state existed all the higher entropy states, in something akin to geometrically inverted version of a swarm of blackhole surfaces. So my prediction is that, all that expected entropy is still there outside the universe, we just can't see it. In fact eye balling the crude spectral output, it seemed to suggest some sort of signature (hawking rad style v2.0 lol) on the residual free energy which itself smelled a bit like a cosmological energy thing - heck, maybe it's an empirically falsifiable notion lol! Ultimately though, would be righteously kool if abiogenesis and cosmogenesis were connected in some fundamental thermodynamic sense.

[@Bill..N]

That Simulation you programmed SEEMS like a herculean task, OR was it simple algorithms that generated unanticipated complexity..? What language did you use..? Platform? Inquiring minds want to know, Peace...

[@blengi]

​@@Bill..N Hi. my simulations were pretty basic, just a giant matrices of numbers randomly transforming into one another under some basic constraints/information conservation. In fact , was essentially one simple function - maybe 5% of the code mostly generating small random sub partitions - with the rest of the program generating output and statistical analysis to help me "tune" things. I just used various MS visual studio SDKs,(C,VBnet) i.e. no hardcore GPU parallelism via shaders or anything lol . They're not super trivial either, I probably done a few 100 quadrillion transform iterations in some simulations...As it is, it hasn't generated the proto life like complexity I hoped(yet), just alot of somewhat indeterminate configurations. But curiously at particular couplings, it did seem partition geometry into various interesting entropic configurations which oddly evolved a bit like putative universes, even generating a kind of field/group structure like the typical laws of physics near certain boundaries/interfaces after a few phase transitions. I'm still currently integrating out these aspects. Truth is, I'm a bit bummed my abiogenesis sims aren't working out, I thought I had accidentally stumbled upon something better than natural selection lol. Oh well. My post is a bit of intentionally contrarian fun .As I'm no Phd candidate, don't take me too seriously lol. Suffice it to say, I genuinely think my prediction has at least a %1.3 chance of being accurate lol - Cheers and go well. .

[@mahtdickey677]

If you’re new, and just getting into searching the deep curiosity. This educator has some wonderful guests, I would watch those interviews . As far as him speaking on his own behalf. He’s coming from a religious root. So, if that’s what you’re looking for, he’s perfect. If you’re looking for someone who’s giving information without reason or tribalism I wouldn’t watch his solo lessons and take them to heart unless you find the scientific community agreeing.

[@jari2018]

With the bounce what if a object of a huge amount on uiversa bounced simultainiusly with different configureations - why do scientsist we are a single unique objcet -its dosent seems so- could we have leaks or mergers ?

[@tokajileo5928]

what was the entropy at t=0? is there a derivable entropy like planck entropy similar to planck length? and if higher temperature means higher entropy but the universe is cooling how can a hotter universe had lower entropy?

[@trucid2]

Dude fix your audio.

[@DdesideriaS]

Effects are too loud and distracting. Echo in the voice due poor room acoustics.

[@b.griffin317]

Would primordial gravitational waves have very long wavelengths? If so what are we talking about?

[@JH_Phillips]

Excellent as always, Brian! And thank you for making the solo playlist 😊

[@marlou169]

A clock as an entropymeter🤩👍🏻...ticking away multiverses like notes in a symphony

[@AK-bw8xk]

It's the classic chicken or the egg. It depends if you want breakfast or dinner 😆

[@andyoates8392]

Would the way that light escapes a black hole when a star is enveloped give any clues to the way early entropy works?

[@enterprisesoftwarearchitect]

At 8:43 time symmetry is not a thing - neutral K-meson decay is time asymmetric!

[@Jack_Parsons-666]

This question may be more philosophical Concerning Entropy defined as the degree to which a systems energy is not usable to do work. Is it true that biological systems temporarily decrease entropy/ increase order as they grow from a single cell into adulthood, increase order through evolution/ natural selection? Considering us conscious observers are all biological beings, is it just a coincidence that we define the thermodynamic arrow of time/ entropy as being directly opposed to how we relate to our environment? "order" = "useful to humans/ biological life" To what degree is the definition of entropy anthropomorphic?

[@obiecanobie919]

It is a lazy assumption that random fluctuations in entropy are responsible for all that universe/life is ,life is the only known system that does that ,it takes matter and it turns it into a different order not observed anywhere else in the visible universe . Entropy is a measure not a cause ,if it changes one must look for the cause or else fail to understand its function .

[@pdutube]

Thank you Dr. Keating!

[@DrBrianKeating]

My pleasure

[@tdv7811]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is magnificent even in a form of eggcell

[@merlepatterson]

"Which came first,time or entropy?" - Yes

[@243david7]

This was good therapy

[@JH_Phillips]

Thank you for the video, Dr. Keating! I would love if you made a playlist of your solo videos. I know they appear in other playlists, but I don’t believe that they have their own.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Great idea Jess - I’ll take care of it

[@roncraig3582]

Really informative! You continue to elevate the relay of scientific information so that it is accessible to a wider audience; than just scientists and those well read on the concepts.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks Ron! Have a great weekend!

[@Seekthetruth3000]

👌👌👌👌👌👍👍👍👍👍

[@____uncompetative]

No

[@sebastianclarke2441]

Well done Dr Brian, your presentations are exuding real polish now! Keep it up, you are on a roll!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks buddy that’s the feedback i LIVE for!

[@janklaas6885]

🇺🇳13:48

[@smlanka4u]

If the multiverse (or megaverse) expands with eternal inflation still it can have a sort of bouncing nature like filling gaps in space during each big bang. Thanks for the great explanation. (An extra comment: I think background music can help to reduce the stress of the videos. Some KZbin creators use only one background music for all their videos. There are free background music on youtube too.)

[@troysright]

Good story

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks very much Troy

[@chriszachtian]

Hi Brian, three hints from the milk maid, concerning low entropy: First - Definition of entropy: S/kB = ln W, W = 1? >>> ln W = 0? S = 0? Void is 0. Second - Ideal Gas in the Planck-era (index p): Np = (PV/T)p/kB = 1 >>> Planck's Avogadro's constant at Planck-values seems to be 1. Third - dS = dE/T: >>> dS small for small dE and T =! Tmax Maybe its getting easier from this side of the inflation? Maybe one has to FEEL THE SINGULARITY first before it is possible to understand creation?

[@Bill..N]

Feel the singularity first..? I could be mistaken friend BUT, that doesn't seem a necessary step in the effort "To understand creation".. Please explain..

[@chriszachtian]

@@Bill..N Well, that is the tough part. By the way, I am aware of above equations being far beyond application, but it is fascinating that they nevertheless do yield a somehow useful result. This is a kind of philosophical approach, still to be continued, and: it is translated from german to english via translator app, sorry for this cruel method. In the beginning, "in that point" an awakening, thoughts and desires "grow". Growth "takes" time. Revolution/turning around as first action, dizziness. Then somehow getting out of itself, stretching, somehow left, right, forwards, backwards, up, down, creates a concept of numbers, mathematics, space? Still random, still unintentional, unconditional. Awareness, clarification of what-why-where-...questions - out of nowhere. Is there still someone/anything/...? I do think, therfore I am? Lonliness? Desire for change? Giving up reversibility, getting excess potential, what then? Leaving the (not self-inflicted) physical-factual "immaturity" with the aim of not returning to the (agonizing?) lonely and restrictive original state? Finally try to formulate all this in a mathematical framework... Do you FEEL the helplessness 😉?

[@Bill..N]

@@chriszachtian I want to be honest, I don't understand much of your explanation friend but that's ok, there's Alot I don't understand.. In response to your question tho, yes all of us know the feeling of loneliness..I get the philosophical argument that Consciousness is fundamental to the universe, an ancient and STILL hotly debated topic, but I've never imagined it in your way....Thanks much for your response..Peace.

[@chriszachtian]

@@Bill..N ...yeah very little science, more an effective method to fall asleep at night. And also: my personal "...into the impossible..." - but with a high risk for "against the wall". Peace!

[@Bill..N]

@@chriszachtian I meant to say the feeling of HELPLESSNESS not loneliness...Thx again..

[@nolan412]

This egg had a chicken in it.

[@nolan412]

Ten minutes, a reading assignment, and a video presentation and this'll be a full course.

[@nolan412]

⏪ Medieval beer 🍻 interesting wood cut

[@nolan412]

...save that for the JRE.

[@nolan412]

...save that for the JRE.

[@nolan412]

...humanity 100 years sober.

[@michaelwhalan9783]

The early substance of the universe was probability waves: we now ride that wave as observers.

[@SheikhN-bible-syndrome]

A wave is not a thing a wave is something that something does in a medium so what was that medium that you think everything started in 👁️

[@michaelwhalan9783]

@@SheikhN-bible-syndrome Both light and gravity waves travel through empty space from other suns as self-propagating waves: what you are claiming is the inflaton-field is that medium, but it is only a speculation to support dark-energy.

[@SheikhN-bible-syndrome]

@@michaelwhalan9783 there's no such thing as empty atomism has your mind twisted. Look around you you are a particle touching other particles but traveling through a medium which is air likewise no matter how far you scale down it's the same basic principles. Keep in mind any of the scientific theories you try to use to argue this are just that theories not facts and yes I've studied this more than you you need to learn how to pay attention to words and how wordplay is used in science

[@michaelwhalan9783]

@@SheikhN-bible-syndrome I have three University degrees in science and forty years science employment experience. You are just rude

[@SheikhN-bible-syndrome]

@@michaelwhalan9783 it amazes me how blind people can be . You of all people should know that we have never seen a single atom to confirm its existence because as you scientists say "the light wave is made of atoms and so a single atom is too small for a wave to reflect on it and then back to the machine in order to see it therefore it's impossible to see a single atom" and so the hypothesis about the atom remains a hypothesis. There's more than one reason for a reaction so just because you can predict an outcome and get it right does not mean that the reason you attach to that is accurate demonstrably it just means that you were able to predict the outcome of an event and then you attached potato to it or unicorn for the reason but that doesn't mean demonstrably fundamentally that is the actual reason because you can't actually confirm that the atom exists and as we all know it was thought up in the mind of some lunatic philosophers hundreds of years ago. And secondly like I said what is waving what is the solution in which things are waving for instance if I throw you in a pool and you wave your arms the water makes waves well that water exists but according to you using your logic the water isn't there doesn't exist and your arms are actually extending out from your body and hitting the sides of the pool because there's no such thing as water see how ridiculous that sounds? Now I realize you have to think like a scientist because you'll be rejected by your peers and outcasted and we all need money to live and so you've programmed yourself to think like you've been taught to think for the past 30 years worth of school that you took and heaven forbid you think about something that contradicts your peers so you naturally have gotten so used to believing what they believe that you've become worthless your mind is dead you're an automated robot that runs off of food.

[@henryseldon6077]

I don't believe in entropy. Order and disorder are human concepts based on the human experience. The universe isn't human and doesn't see or respect human concepts. Any example of "order" can be seen as "disorder" depending on the reasoning used.

[@Bill..N]

If the highly ORDERED complexity of the human brain can be REASONED away as disorder, WITHOUT Invoking an overall increase in entropy, what would be the reasoning you hint could be used?

[@henryseldon6077]

@@Bill..N The brain can be viewed as highly ordered, it has also be described as chaotic with neurons having no patterns in their many connections. The universe doesn't see it like we do, as order or chaos. It only sees cause and effect.

[@ToypediaVideos]

Wolfram seems to be the only ‘physicist’ at the moment who is actively contemplating the ramifications of human ‘observers’ being part and parcel of the universe they are ‘observing’ and attempting to understand.

[@thilobrill8261]

Can one ‘believe’ or ‘not believe’ in entropy? It’s like believing in ‘pressure’ or ‘chemical potential’.

[@henryseldon6077]

@@thilobrill8261 I don't believe that the definition of "entropy" as used in science is correct. If two fluids are mixed, they say entropy (chaos) has increased. But if a sample of the mixture is removed and analyzed from any random location in the container, you will find an equal distribution of both fluids. That isn't chaos, it's order, if you choose to see it that way. Nature doesn't choose, it's just cause and effect with an arrow of time.