Martin Kunev Actually known universe. Our own universe is said to have in observable matter, beyond observable horizons, owing to faster than light inflation.
@@petersinclair3997 there are in fact three different horizons: particle horizon, hubble sphere and event horizon (for the universe, not for black holes). These are all different values. See this interesting discussion physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93428/can-matter-leave-the-cosmic-horizon
@@petersinclair3997 That inflation is an observation. That matter or energy is part of the observable universe. If it isn't observable, it can't be known.
@@TwoEcksKay The observable universe does not include objects that have passed beyond observable horizones due to cosmic inflation. However, we still know they are there; they just cannot be observed as they are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. Our observable universe combined with the known objects outside of our observable universe is what we call the known universe. Just because we cannot observe it doesn't mean it is unknown.
+seansaurus Sure. The Big Bang model explains how the universe *as we know it* expanded from an extremely dense and hot state to its current state. It does *not* describe how the universe came into being. So the notion that the universe came into being from nothing is simply *not* the Big Bang and is only held by those who aren't sufficiently informed about the model.This video is aimed at debunking that false notion (the misrepresented version of the Big Bang), not the Big Bang. Hope that helps.
Rahul Upadhyay This type of argumentation is called a strawman. You set up an false imitation of the topic and the proceed to debunk that false imitation. Just like burning a strawman. A rather disgusting way of gainibg views.
The scientific method is very fundamentally agnostic at it's heart. Question for you, Wes: Do you think that sometimes atheists also crave certainty too much? I feel sometimes atheists expect science to provide a level of certainty which it cannot reasonable offer. For example, I've heard Richard Dawkins state pretty emphatically that soon science will have a complete theory of the entire material universe. Really? That would mean a description of events before the big bang or a description of the finite or infinite multiverse if one exists? That would be extraordinary. Current science says these are things we may never know for sure. My own view is that agnosticism, specifically scientific agnosticism is the superior philosophical position and the closest to the scientific method itself.
@@douglascutler1037 yeah you're definitely right. I am an atheist but i know the limits of science. I still believe in evolution and the big bang because I've learned about the theories and it's all incredibly reasonable and there's plenty of proof. Yet, many atheists - especially those who aren't scientists like me - tend to see science as too certain when that's not what science is. I have to work on that too...
@@douglascutler1037 Personally, I'm an Agnostic Atheist which I believe to be the most reasonable position. I'm atheist towards man religion because the most reasonable conclusion is that it was written by humans, with all its dogma and mental gymnastics. But I think it's fair to be agnostic on perhaps the question of a creator or some "spiritual" things. We can't know. But at the same time, it's reasonable that there is a naturalistic explanation for it all.
Also, I get why he uses clickbait like this, it's a clever way to get people who don't believe in stuff like the Big Bang to watch his videos, and I'm all for it, I just like pointing out clickbait.
Well, "debunk" is a pretty strong word. He just showed that we do not know what happened. But the universe still could have come from nothing. By the way "We have never seen something come from nothing." is such a stupid argument to debunk this. First of all, we have never seen "nothing". Secondly, our laws only works within the universe you can not apply them to "nothing". There are still 2 choices. 1- The universe was infinite. 2- It came from nothing. We have no way to tell which one is true at the moment. The title is just a huge clickbait.
We have never seen something from nothing isn't the worst argument. In science, the law of conservation of energy, which he mentions, is taken for granted. Plus it's part of the idea of the scientific method that "true" things are things that are repeatable
Nope, since we've never had any nothing we don't know what nothing does. It may always produce something, inevitably. And, no, it isn't about repeatable. There is only one sun and its birth is not repeatable by us, but stellar physics is still a science.
HAHA!! Same here!! You're a Croat, right? I can tell from your name. I just returned from a vacation in Croatia, it's the most beautiful place in Europe I've ever been to. I visited the islands of Brac and Hvar and even the bigger city - Split where I flew in/out of, is stunning!! It's like Verona or Florence. Now I'm sorry I hadn't spent more time in the city. I'll have to return. Plus, Dubrovnik/King's Landing has been on my bucket list for a long time. You played amazing football at the world cup btw. I cheered for you after you knocked us out...I'm from Denmark. We're also red and white, lol!
"All matter and energy was condensed down to a singe point, near infinitely small and dense, then burst to create that which we now see" "You mean, everything came from nothing? Sounds like proof of my god to me." "That's not what I said. How did you come to that conclusion? Were you even listening?" "Too late already posted about it on social media, now its a fact."
When writing the script for this video and deciding on a title I was torn between "The Big Bang - Debunked" and "Creation Out of Nothing - Debunked". To decide, I asked 10 people I know personally what they think the big bang theory entails, and because they answered "creation out of nothing" I choose the former. I can see that some of you think I should've chosen the latter... noted for the future.
I read the title and (knowing that a lot of people wrongly assumed there was nothing before) assumed you would debunk that. But it looks clickbaity and not smart at all.
I hesitate to personally share this with believers on account of the title, and on account of Carroll's unqualified statements at the end, e.g. "General Relativity is wrong". He makes good points there, but I think some unfamiliar will throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.
'The universe came into existence out of nothing' and 'The universe came into existence out of a hot and infinitely dense pont' are not identical statements. Edit: I should have watched the whole video before commenting :D
@Karl: No doubt there are at least two different big bang theories. I commented on the early part of the video where different sources are combined to illustrate what big bang theory means without the distinction made at the end. Those two theories make different claims but neither can answer the fundamental question where everything comes from. If we take the hot and dense point as a start, we don't know how this point came into existence and what made it explode. If we take 'nothing' as a starting point, we don't understand anything.
I've always liked the Janus Point / Mirror Universe concept. A similar universe to ours, connected in time at the point of the big bang, but where time flows in the opposite direction. Viewed from our time flow, their universe would contract into a point where the arrow of time flips and our universe expands. And viewed from their time flow, exactly the same, our universe contracting into a point and then expanding into their universe. This is not an oscillating universe model, there is no big crunch in our timeline, only expansion. I like this model because of it's natural symmetry and it gives a finite past and an infinite future (to both universes). But if viewed from "outside of time" it forms a balanced eternal existence while maintaining entropy.
It’s funny how ppl refer to the big bang as an actual thing like we know for certain it happened. It’s funny because we DON’T know and never will but ppl are too stubborn to accept it. We are humans, with limited mental capacity and comprehension
@@f1ibraaa since the big bang theory specifically describes the universe only as far back as we can still understand it, we can, by definition, understand it.
That's an excellent point and one I've discussed with religious people and atheists alike. The Big Bang Theory only describes what happened once the process was in motion and nothing about what caused it or where it came from or if it was even a beginning at all. The general public is certainly confused on this point and people waste a lot of time arguing over the misconception. This video definitely needed to be made. I love your videos, dude! You're a damn smart fellow and immediately when I got the notification and read the title of your post I thought to myself, "Hmmm, clickbait? Maybe but he's definitely gonna set the record straight on something here!" Bravo! Keep 'em coming!
Its just wrong, literally nobody thinks otherwise i dont get the point. Big bang literally describes theory how our universe came to be. Its theory how chicken grows from egg not how egg came to be lmao.
The trouble with the Ex Nihilo Model is that (from my understanding of Physics at least) it cannot be disproven without being an external observer. When people in general think of the big bang they are viewing it as an explosion of sorts that requires time, space and matter in order to perceive it. An interesting thought experiment is to imagine being inside the 'big bang' as a fake particle existing within the theorized point mass and examining your surroundings as time and space become perceivable. After all, that's really all we have to make sense of the universe. If you really want to look at the 'big bang' from the outside, it's all going to be conjecture and fantasy. The rules governing 'outside' everything we can measure can be played with in almost infinite ways, if pedantic enough about it. You can insert gods, copulating pixies, the giant spaghetti monster: Whatever you want basically. You can believe our existence to be whatever you want on that scale, but that does not make it the right answer. However, if we are to assume what we define as energy existing outside of our universe, it is logical to assume that there exists more energy than is contained in our universe in order for that outside to exist. But would our perception of space, time and matter exist there? I don't think there is anyone with the authority to say it does. But why should it? It may well be the case that the universe observable from the outside is nothing more than a particle in a form of physics beyond what we are capable of EVER defining and what we define as 'the big bang' being an almost complete nonevent on that scale. Or if you really want to institutionalize yourself from overthinking, consider there to be no outside. That the sum of all energy in the universe is nothing more than a value we attribute to scale everything we know. Then imagine that the most basic subatomic particles capable of ever being observed are actually a universe and an anti-universe, we're just incapable of observing those properties. Furthermore, the inside of each of those particles is the same universe/anti-universe - our universe/anti-universe. Everything is inside and outside of the universe simultaneously with its constituent particles being itself and anti-particles of itself. Perhaps there are only those 2 particles existing in multiple positions simultaneously... at least in the way that we recognize space and time. At the end of the day when it comes to 'before'. I'm of the opinion that we will never know the actual answers as the scope of the question is outside of what we're capable of quantifying and there'll always be a 'god of the gaps'. Personally, I think that we should just have fun with ideas, even if they're laughable. The actual truth is probably too complicated or depressing to deal with once understood.
"What happened before the expansion" is a pretty fascinating question indeed… It's like the last frontier of scientific knowledge. The big secret we might never figure out.
@@juniolucena5606 true but their conscious is seared and they are not sensitive to things of God..this is why they can literally believe in the universe coming out of nothing but yet can’t explain how
The biggest problem is, that the question: "what was before the big bang" does not make sense. And as there is no time, there is no cause (or at least no cause as we know and understand it) because time did not exist. It is a bit like asking, what is north of the north pole when you can only make observations on a sphere. However, the statement, that there was a time where the universe started to exist holds true (at least as a limit), so for every positive time epsilon there is a time t0 so that at t0-epsilon the universe as such does not exist. From what I gather you want to basically get at the Kalam and debunk the "Everything that started to exist has a cause", by saying we don't know if the Universe started to exist. I would argue, that everything that exists, existed from the beginning of time and was rearranged from there.
I was wondering about that if there was a point in which there was an "absolute nothingness" or a lack of any reality ten it would logically follow that there are no laws of nature, including the laws of conservation and the laws of causality mean the commonly long and well held ideas of the natural laws cannot be presumed to apply when thinking with regards to Creation Ex Nihilio for true nothingness requires that even the laws of nature do not exist, if he seriously considered Creation Ex Nihilio and brought it to its logical conclusion he would have realized its still entirely possible from both a scientific and logical perspective and in truth doesnt contradict anything due to the fact that its quite literally nothing and we have no such absolute nothingness to compare it to because if we could, well it wouldnt be nothing and if this is true though it presents a crisis in science as it would require the scientific community to accept it at some point being acutely aware that even though it doesnt contradict science as we know it, science will fundamentally be unable to ever prove that such an origin is the origin and as a result even if it is true it will sadly never be confirmable making it potentially an irrefutable and simultaneously unprovable idea, it something thats rolled around in my head for many years at this point
How do we know time did not exist? Perhaps the previous universe's timespace contracted into a singularity, and whenever that contraction is complete, it "explodes" outward again, while time is continuously "ticking" in whatever state spacetime is, whether inflated or collected in a singularity.
@@jesan733 I think this is likely. I think our "universe" is little more than a giant rarefaction wave of spacetime perhaps surrounded by other "universes" in a state of compression. We will never be able to see beyond our own area of rarefaction (or compression when it eventually does start to compress again).
I don't think time started at the big bang. Some process in the condensed universe must have led to the expansion. On going processes wouldn't be possible without time moving forward. I might be too uneducated on the matter but the assumption that time and space didn't exist before the big bang always seemed unlikely to me.
Being capable is only somewhat neccessary. Simply continuing to exist over time, blindly shooting in the dark will yield progress by process of elimination.
Muted, it's debunking the Nihlo model of the big bang, which, believe it or not, is the one that most people believe in (and falsely attribute the evidence towards).
It seems "nothing" itself is impossible. So why wouldn't there be more than just our universe? Even if our universe has a beginning, this must be so. I watched a Lawrence Krauss video where he suggests universes may pop in and out of existence all the time; it's just that ours has the properties to continue, at least for awhile. Still can't wrap my head around any of it.
'I don't know' is the response of intelligence, for most things. Theists wish for certainty. Unintelligent people often have higher certainty. Even better might be 'we can't know' sometimes.
ThomasTrue, It is not only theists that use the word explosion in relation to the Big Bang. I wish that people would stop criticising the word explosion in relation to an explanation to the Big Bang. Its a metaphor and has more explanation power than the rapid expansion of matter, space or more accurate space-time. With out advance knowledge in Physics the phrase the rapid expansion of space is meaningless. it also sounds like an explosion.
In areas like that you and those said "theists" merely confuse natural sciences with theology and philosophy. Natural sciences and religion don't work on the same exact field, they don't answer the same questions with the same kind of an answer. Natural sciences give answers worthy of natural sciences and religion gives answers worthy of God. It is tragic when natural sciences ( "natural" is important, because theology and philosophy are also sciences, we work on them with ou reason and we need proper set of tools (!) to operate within them), when natural sciences become "polluted" with attempts to answer questions that really religion should be answering, when they answer them in an ideological manner (lots of modern scientists, cosmologists). The same tragedy happens vice versa, when things like darwinian evolution (ideological theory) are being carpeted over with God, protestants are really keen on doing that (Luther hated reason, it was the Whore of Babylon for him). If you want to really be at peace about reason then there's the only way, Catholic Church. If we're all created by God, then our physical reason is also created by Him, and in that light it must be good (and dificult at the same time :D) to be a scientist. I feel for you guys, all people look for the truth, thats our disposition and it pains to see what protestant revolution left you with, what answers they can give. It simply started all those revolutions and degradation of our world that's been happening over past 500 years.
I always thought it was obvious that the big bang theory does not claim to know anything about the reason for the big bang. It just describes the fact that the universe expands (and is still expanding) from a singularity.
f. g No. It is very much a human trait which instilled unlike the larger brained neanderthals the ingenuity to create stories, the will to pass them on and prosper when odds were stacken against us. And thus the propability that some would survive gave an edge to those who could not see no hope in their assumed uphill battle. And we are stilll religious still in faith by heresay of science without being scientists with vast knowledge of every field of expertice. A leap of faith is neccesary bcs without it, we end up nowhere. Some people need god and as an atheists the last thing I want to do is to deprive man that which in all its ingenuity can act rationally also keeps people what I would call human. If we would only base things on science, when would race realism not become a matter of fact and instead of transcending trends and evolve after time, I suspect the hidden religious bone in tge race realists would easily do what the ”leftists” are doing now. A pendelumswing, pivoting man to be able to take a step forward right and left until facts and myth are in mind in secular harmony creating the world we wish it to be rather than an irrational generalization of what it entails if we would act as though what is what will be when the objective truth from the atom to the being and the maliable nature creates the path which religion needs to play a role in before all become more for atheism, yet able to not let it dictate us to what we are as if now in whole as a species. Sorry. Just thinking outloud and being propably off.
These topics always end up giving me little existential panic attacks. Just thinking about why there is a universe rather than nothing at all, gives me chills. Thinking about an infinite plane(s) of existence that has always existed or even came into existence spontaneously or otherwise, is just a lot to wrap your head around. It begs to be answered, but we are so far from truly understanding.
I realised something There are brown, white, blue, yellow, red and orange stars There are also brown, white, blue, yellow, red and orange cheeses Therefore the sun is made of cheese and the moon being made of cheese is a conspiracy to cover it up
You did not debunk the Big Bang theory/model, you just debunked its extreme interpretation (the Ex Nihilo model). So the title *is* somewhat "clickbaity" in my opinion. For me this was one of your weaker episodes, but it might have been necessary.
It is only the extreme version because it's far from YOUR comprehension (or at least implied comprehension, you could be faking it to support your YEC theology) of it. It is THE big bang theory for some. And therefore not extreme.
@Clover Muffins The term "debunking" implies that whatever it is you are targeting is being removed from the logical realm of possibilities. If you say "vaccines debunked", by stating that vaccines back in the 1700's consisted of pouring infected pus into open wounds had a small chance of killing the patient, you didn't actually debunk vaccines.
@@shaggmiester3196 If that is a response to me, you'll have to take another look at my post. It seems the person I replied to deleted their comment. Either that or I just can't see it.
@@akostarkanyi825 Exactly, he claims the Universe was made from pre-existing matter, but matter is not eternal. Yet Something has to be infinite, because if something exists now then something has always existed, just not this Universe. To say Einstein's theories are wrong is to say all the observations showing it to be true are wrong as well. This is bogus.
@@MountainFisher "but matter is not eternal"It isn't? How come? As far as I know, matter can not be created nor destroyed ...Sound pretty eternal to me."Yet Something has to be infinite, because if something exists now then something has always existed, just not this Universe"At least not this universe as we know it.We can look back into time, to the very early stages. Then there was the big bang and before that ... we don't know.And hence we don't know, we can not say if matter existed before that or if it didn't. If it didn't, then yes. Something needs to make it ... but if it did exist before that, then this is the thing you are looking for. Matter is eternal and simply changing form. That's it.If you disagree, do you have evidence to support your claim, that matter is not eternal? If not, then the option stands and your conclusion that there must be something else, besides the universe, is faulty
@@BestAnimeFreak Planck Time, know what it is? No matter is not eternal, who told you that, oh people 20 years behind the times. Quantum theory and particle physicists are not sure if anything solid exists at all as the base of matter, the Higgs boson appears and then disappears to where? Do you know? What is a proton made of? Quarks, mesons and etc. It appears more and more that the Universe is made from an unknown principle. The Command of God is as good an answer as all the metaphysical meanderings of pop physicists writing books acting like poor philosophers.
@@MountainFisher "No matter is not eternal, who told you that"The first law of thermodynamics.Matter and energy can neither be created, nor destroyed."oh people 20 years behind the times"So you say, thermodynamics is false?"Planck Time, know what it is?" The planck time does not propose, that matter and energy are finite.It's the smallest time interval for us to observe stuff ... except that our technology is not good enough for that."Quantum theory and particle physicists are not sure if anything solid exists at all as the base of matter"It does not need to.Matter and energy are essentially exchangeable in that regard."the Higgs boson appears and then disappears to where?"I don't know.To not know, does not propose an answer to the actual topic though, so why are you bringing that up?Red herring?"It appears more and more that the Universe is made from an unknown principle."Are you able to *prove* that those are able to *not* result in matter and energy and therefor it is impossible to have matter and energy before the big bang?You are not.So proposing that matter and energy could not have existed, is false.And no, I do not propose that they did exist, I say that we do not know, so proposing either is dishonest ... until you can show otherwise."The Command of God is as good an answer as all the metaphysical meanderings of pop physicists writing books acting like poor philosophers."Your wrote god wrong.Because God didn't do it. This is not even a 'you can't know that' statement. As long as you do not talk about a deistic god, but the Abrahamic God, it is evidential, that the Abrahamic God could not have done it, hence he doesn't exist.For a deistic god though ... sure, why not. If that's what you want to believe, it's possible. It's also possible for that to not be the case. ... So I'm not sure where your problem is right now, hence 'We don't know' is still the most valid answer when it comes to the question of the planck era and what lies beyond (or rather, before) that. This is what science does ... It does not propose to know stuff, it doesn't know. You on the other hand ...
Karl Smink so he used the equivocation fallacy by conflating the Big Bang with creatio ex nihilo?Then it's not just clickbait it is a lie meant to deceive people.
The reason for the video is stated in 2:56 and I see no reason to not usu that as the tittle, as another comment has pointed out, instead of the current tittle (which is clickbait).
I was working on a similar video. You did a great job explaining the history and details behind one of the most misunderstood scientific theories alongside the theory of evolution. You also did a great job at obliterating the universe from nothing hypothesis. I would also like to add that people who use this model and then using it against atheists are committing the straw man fallacy.
JOBO4414 J Well, there was a mistake in it. They placed the Great Wall of China before the pyramids, pisses me off every time I hear it... And now it can piss you all off too! :-P
Or should it be "Misconceptions About the Big Bang - Debunked"? Great job, Steve, as usual. One concept that blows my mind is the premise that Time itself began with the Big Bang. If that is true, then there is no _before_ to the universe.
That's a possibility but it's no more than speculation. There are many plausible scenarios that have been proposed and that have rigorous maths and established scientific principles to back them up. Not surprisingly, the god hypothesis is nowhere to be found among the many plausible scientific theories. The god hypothesis is pathetically childish and completely irrational. We don't know what happened but we know what didn't happen: god. Because god makes no sense.
Thus Spake Mike Yeah, it's not found in science because it's bullshit. Science deals with what's real not with fantasy. Also, there have been plenty of scientific tests of supernatural claims, from prayer to people who claim to have telepathic powers or claimed to be able to predict the future or talk to the dead, etc. Every single one that has been done with a proper, controlled, double blind methodology has failed. Religious claims have been tested plenty. They have always failed. We have looked extensively for evidence of a "soul" and there's nothing there. Prayer doesn't work, people can't rise from the dead, they can't walk on water, can't turn water into wine or split seas. Religion is nonsense. It's time to accept reality. Religous belief is infantile and frankly embarrassing.
Thus Spake Mike Everything is science if it's real. The only things not accessible to the scientific method are things that don't exist. If religion is true they should be able to prove it. Otherwise we have to conclude it's bullshit, not as a matter of belief but as a matter of scientific fact.
Thus Spake Mike No but science can disprove shit that definitely isn't true. And it can amass evidence showing what is likely to be true. And religion has zero evidence to back it up and a whole bunch of religious claims have already been debunked. We can never know anything for certain but it is downright idiotic to believe a claim that has literally zero evidence or logical arguments to back it up. I agree with the doctor in that scenario. Lying is not justified even when it makes people feel better. It's still a lie. I don't care what's comfortable to believe i care what's likeliest to be true based on evidence.
Thus Spake Mike Well the fact is there are lots of idiots in the world. And sure religion isn't the only source of bullshit but it's the biggest and most widespread, only politics comes in a close second. So you would knowingly lie to someone just to make them feel better? In my view that means you don't respect them, you think them too weak or too stupid to handle the truth, which is we have zero reason to believe heaven is real. As for the religious doctor, i would tell him he's an idiot and that his religion did nothing to save me, science did. And that he should be immediately fired if it's found that his beliefs interfere with his work in any way.
"Before" the big bang is a nonsensical statement as it implies time before time existed, as space and thus time started at the very beginning of the big bang.
Not clickbait, but a title that entices one to watch with perhaps a preconceived notion of what will be debunked (cosmic expansion), and the actual thing debunked is "creation out of nothing" which is a (subtle) different point. I say "bravo" because the title, and my anxiety of what you were going to attempt to do (debunk cosmic expansion), put me in a very receptive state to pay close attention to that subtle difference and really understand your point.
Thanks. I've been trying to figure out how to explain this to others. Somehow, in certain atheist groups, I was seen as being a bad atheist if I disputed the big bang as the origin of matter. I truly appreciate the time you took to make this video and the sources you've provided.
You do know matter is literally what defines physical existence right? Otherwise there’s a physical matter defining the existence of a basis like a species or sex. it’s generally defined by genetic makeup and DNA. it’s not physical it’s a basis of determination, determined by biological factors from matter based substances called genes and chromosomes.
Fred Hoyle seemed to go a bit weird in the latter half of his life. Big Bang was a disparaging term meant to make clear his dismissal of the concept. There's a documentary on Feynman in which they visit Yorkshire, the birthplace of his then wife. He meets up with Hoyle in a pub and they discuss various things, but, for me, the stand out moment was when Hoyle essentially stated he was primarily interested in finding out how the universe 'could be' and Feynam immediately rejoined that he was only interested in how the universe IS.
Anyone else love it when Theist try to throw in that because something can't come to existence from nothing, that is proof that God exist. Yet, they completely ignore that this adds a new question that they never bother to answer, who created god? and honestly why are you not worshiping the creator of God?
What do you mean they don't answer it? They typically say that something that begins to exist has a cause and then they say that God never began. Typically, I just quote Carl Sagan when I hear that, tho. Why not save a step and say the universe never "began"?
I always understood the 'Big Bang' Theory not as "the universe came from nothing" -- but as "something existed, which the universe expanded from" .. I also understood the Biblical model as the nihilo model : *_In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth_* none of it existed before God acted
I hate discussing with my theist friend, and showing the evidence of big bang, as the CMB and the expanding galaxies, and then he says that the scientists are just liyeng about it.
Waizzo X I have encountered that myself. It is bizarre. It is the ultimate response to cognitive dissonance 'your facts destroy my delusion so your facts are lies!!!'
If you are talking about the using the Kalam model - there are several big holes in holes in it. In a nutshell, it argues that cause always precedes effect. The second part is, the universe must have had a cause - and that's it. No gods or universe-creating pixies involved. From a scientific point of view, we *cannot* show that effect always follows cause. Anyone who is familiar with Quantum Electro-Dynamics (QED) will know that the equations *allow* the effect to become the cause, and vice versa. Check out Richard Feynman _et al._ The second part ("Nothing comes from Nothing") The Standard Scientific model posits that all the evidence (so far) points to an original singularity - What Lemaitre called a "Cosmic Egg" (He was the Jesuit priest who first made this conjecture). If such a 'singularity' _DID_ exist, then gravity would also have to be included (Even if no other Natural Laws were operating) THAT was the key ingredient - see for instance Bekenstein/Hawking radiation. As for 'debunking' the whole 'Big Bang' idea goes, not all scientists follow the Standard Scientific Model - see for instance what Sir Roger Penrose has to say on the subject. Well worth chasing these people up. Philosophic arguments are all very well; but our 'common sense' types of human logic go out the window when considering say, Quantum Theory and General Relativity which have particular counter-intuitive conclusions.
@@j.oaklley8965 The overwhelming majority of the human race has believed in some 3000 gods, throughout history. Statistically, we know that - at best - only one of these gods could possibly be real (presumably the one YOU believe in, of course). This means that the overwhelming majority of believers, throughout history, have been the liars. It also means that every person who understood these gods weren't real - atheists, in other words - were right. The only dispute you have any grounds for - given that you likewise don't believe in any of the other gods - is whether YOUR god is real. Spoiler alert: it's not real, either.
Jakub Svec I would say it relates to Jordan Peterson in that, the title of this video is ambiguous, and everything Jordan Peterson says is wallowing in ambiguity.
I'd compare the big bang to an inflating balloon, before expanding/inflating it looks smaller because all the matter/material is kept very close together, but as the space between particles increases (the air inside the balloon) it will start looking bigger. that balloon hasnt gained any rubber tho, it is still the same balloon that already existed before you blew air into it, the rubber is just stretched out a lot more... This comment left me wondering why I am explaining this... I honestly feel condescending and a little stupid now... this seems like it should be common sense...
Love your vids, Stephen! Just a minor tidbit, it's "Alan" Guth. He's really the "father" of the Inflationary model. You go into more depth than any other RU-vidr to support your arguments and it's much appreciated! Keep up the good work, man!
Well, "the big bang" was not an explosion but an expansion. And also, worth mentioning that "a singularity" gave birth to our universe as we know it. Hence, the universe was not created from nothing.
I'm finding it difficult to visualise a Singularity, my own mind finds an 'Eternal Universe' much more appealing. The alternatives seem to be a non-existent lump of nothing in the middle of nowhere in which (within the actual timeless nothing nowhere) something changed to upset a balance and cause a massive explosion out of which we got ... everything. Or, an infinite deity who was never created 'cos He (She, It ... They) always existed in the eternal universe which we ourselves aren't allowed. (I prefer Eternal Universe to the alternatives myself.)
The subtext you gave at 8:15 is also rather interesting by suggesting that most of this can be bypassed by framing it as a quantum event... there's simply a chance for things (including black holes and universes) to randomly come into existence via random fluctuations in the quantum field without a previous cause that would violate other physics. 2 things to note about this: 1- Such quantum events require an outside observer to take a measurement in order to collapse the wave function for something to "have really happened." A God outside of the creation would satisfy that. 2- If you accept the idea of a universal quantum field fluctuating to affect other universal fields (all matter and energy are a function of)... you accept the omnipresence and omnipotence of that underlying field. So, what if it's not random? If that field itself were sentient, even sapient and intentional... then you've got a physically plausible explanation for a deity such as described in the bible. Interestingly, the act of that intelligent quantum field "vibrating" things into existence sounds (pun intended) a lot like the concept of such a being "speaking" the universe into existence.
I once heard that the most genius answer is comprised of these 3 words: "I don't know." Thank you for making this video and I agree with you completely.
The Big Bang Theory is not "the universe came from nothing", so this video is debunking its own straw man. The BBT is that our universe appears to have had a starting point in time at which point our universe was incredibly small. It says NOTHING about where it came from or what came before.
I believe that the problem lies within that small speck of a universe, since any energy and matter that exists forever is in contradiction to Quantum theory. So removing all matter, even that small speck from the equation allows for a theory that at least doesn't break those laws........ at first glance.
Mike. A no boundary point is an alternative to an incredibly small point. Both are worth exploring. The former, though, better handles time and causality. I suspect physicists might still be scratching their heads for decades to come, where, questions are as important as answers.
@@petersinclair3997 I don't mean to be picky but you stated that "Energy comes in two forms, positive and negative..." actually more accurately it's been theorized that energy comes in two forms. The theory is there to try to explain some of the problems in quantum physics that are within the current Big Bang theory. Negative energy isn't actually a well established fact, it's just a hope for resolving a problem in another theory. Okay, I'm off my soapbox now...
Actually their are solid scientific reasons to doubt the universe is expanding. Problems with Necleosynthesis of elements, the lack of darkmatter, the duration of type Ia Supernovas, and the angular size of distance galaxies, the later being a test called the 'Tolman surface brightness test' that directly attempts to measure geometric expansion of space and which was developed very early in the debate around the expanding model and which conclusively disproves it.
The Big Bang Theory only talks about the universe expanding (not exploding) from a point called the singularity, it does not touch on HOW the universe came to be. Honestly it would be better to call the video "Creation Out of Nothing - Debunked" because you did not talk about The Big Bang theory, only a misrepresentation of the big bang theory, thus constructing a strawman... Still liked the video
This video is the Strawman or at least a Red Herring because he intentionally dodged the question & the evidence refutes the conclusion he made. The only option left, according to the evidence is either nothing exploded or something outside the universe created the universe even if it started as a tiny point.
Mark Proffitt or there might be another option we can’t understand right now, right? Oh of course not it’s always just “god did it” if we don’t understand it.
"Everything is rearrangement of all existing matter" So you're saying we can't assume everything came from nothing because we simply don't know yet you make this claim about the Big Bang. Okay Also the Law of Conservation of matter does not exist without the Universe. Therefore Creatio Ex Nihilo is not a violation of that Law because it did not EXIST.
It's not what he says, he simply says "we don't know", and so should you. The only thing he said is that we didn't ever observe somthing created out of nothing.
@@MinisterRedPill I would say most accurate explanation is that as far as our universe and it's laws (time, space, whatnot) are concerned, there probably was nothing. So you kinda could say there was nothing, but ofc that doesn't mean there wasn't something. Really, we just don't know.
@@mukkaar so if that's the case, why not go back to the drawing board and drop this nonsense? If the theory doesn't give us the answers we need then it's obviously not the right option.
@@vmb1432 You do understand that big bang is theory about expansion of the universe. Inner workings of it are still to some extent unknown (as you addressed with dark matter). You could disprove dark matter for example and it wouldn't change the fact that galaxy is detectably expanding.
We discussed the Big Bang in my Astronomy class, and one of the most important points my Professor had to make was that "we don't know what happened before." He also stated, "one of the biggest misconceptions is that it all started in 1 spot and exploded out from there. Rather it originated in billions or trillions of locations and not all at the same time." Now I'm not sure if I heard this from somewhere (which is more likely the case) or if I thought about this on my own (not likely), but to me, with how it was explained, it seems that things weren't created out of nothing, rather protons and electrons existed, possibly from a previous "universe", or, as some hypothesis' state, from an alternate universe through black holes, and their reactions of combining created the big bang. Now I'm definitely no scientist and it's mostly a thought based on what I've heard, and it's also going to be very difficult, if not impossible to know for sure about the state of the universe prior to the big bang. Unless it's proven the multi-verse exists and it's proven black holes can send matter to other universes by finding white holes where matter spews from, but as I learn more and more about black holes, I'm finding that less likely since from my understanding, black holes do spew matter. But now I'm about to ramble, so I'll stop here. It's definitely fun to think about.
The KCA is almost always tied to another argument deducing properties a cause would have to have that isn't physical and they deduce it down to a mind, which isn't crazy but it's speculative since we don't know if minds can exist without the physical even though they aren't identical to it.
The KCA states such, but as an assertion. An unsound assertion. Unproven assertion. Unknown assertion. "The universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause." And that is unknown to be true.
Well yes but so it goes with almost any argument, we don't throw out arguments because we aren't 100% certain a premise is true, a deductive argument is an "If then" argument, meaning given the truth of these premises X would follow. Even the most established fact of science we have could be undermined by the possibility we are wrong in some way because without omniscience it will always be possible we are missing something.
We DO throw them out if we have no evidence the premise is true. We also throw them out if we find the premise is untrue. IF we call a tail a leg, how many legs do dogs have? Four. A tail is not a leg. That premise is false. Mind you the kalaam doesn't get god anyway. Just a creator. Which would, for the big bang, be the singularity.
Exsanguinate same here, I know he believe the big Bang Houston actual thing that happened. So I saw the title house like what I got to see where he is going with that.
Great channel brother, very well thought out. Way to present an intellectual argument without being ambiguously inflammatory for views. You can tell you put a lot of research into each argument...Cheers!
At no point did you actually debunk the ex nihilo model, you only argued that we don't know that it's true. It would have been helpful to define "nothing" like Lawrance Krauss does in his book, where he gives several plausible definitions of what could be considered "nothing" and describes how many of them still allow the emergence of a universe (with physical facts that give at least some support for this).
Thulyblu He did show why it is completely unjustified to say anything other than "We don't know", that it is completely unjustified to claim that the universe did come from nothing.
@@rockysandman5489 at 9:16 he begins to explain how we have no evidence of a scientific law being violated. According to current scientific laws and theories, it is impossible for the big bang to even happen.
@@basharun But 'tis only the time to believe a claim when it has rational justification that warrants belief. Until that point, the *default* position is to disbelieve the claim. In this case the default position is to disbelieve that the universe came from nothing, due to lack of rational justification that warrants belief in that claim. In fact, it may even be an irrational claim to begin with, due to the fact that "nothing" is a concept of which we cannot concieve to begin with and don't have evidence that there ever was a "state of nothingness" so it's more than justified to reject the claim due to its inherent irrationality.
Thanks Steve, you've relieved years of angst. You can't have one rule apply throughout the universe and then change it to fit the beginning. No creator, just the created.
It depends on the English you speak (eg. received British or standard North American). The "h" is not dropped in the British pronunciation. When people who speak a certain form of English assert that their pronuciation is the correct one, it is often simply wrong.
@@Rabbithole8 What English you speak has fuck all to do with it. It's a Latin term, meaning "from nothing." It's pronounced the same regardless what primary language you speak.
@@DaZebraffe Which Latin pronunciation? The constructed Latin that the Latin tribe called the "Romans" spoke, classical (restored) Latin? Is it the Latin that developed after which was used by the Christian church, or "Christian" (Church) Latin? Christian Latin also has a variety of pronunciation depending the native language (L1) which is spoken. For example, German Church Latin was pronounced differently than French Church Latin, and both were pronounced differently from English Church Latin. They were pretty similar but still had differences. Generally Restored Latin, for example, pronounces the diphthong “ae” as a long "i." Church Latin pronounces "ae" as an "ay." Of course, Old English, Middle English, Early Modern English and contemporary English also has different internal rules, which affect the pronunciation of loanwords. In addition, regional pronunciation also comes into play. This was true for all English (and any other language) of the past as it is true today. When Latin vocabulary was incorporated into those languages the pronunciation went through changes (as of course the actual vulgate Latin developed into the Romance Languages). You are under a misapprehension that the pronunciation of loanwords always remain intact. I wonder how you pronounce the word "malaria" which is a loanword from Italian into English. I doubt you trill the "r." The term "ex nihilo" has Latin roots but is now also a word in English just as malaria; restaurant (French); gestalt (German); etc. All those loan words have been anglicized, including ex nihilo. Just check out the following link for modern variations from one Latin pronunciation, British English and French: forvo.com/word/ex_nihilo/
A funny thing is that the question "what happened before the big bang" makes no sense. The big bang was the creation of space,matter and therefore time. And thus, you cant ask that question as "before" implies there was time before the big bang.
accodting to the theoiry of relativity, time cannot exist without space. So before the big bang, time didn't exist. obviously making assumptions but its only a joke.
Leonlx watch the last 20 seconds of the video. We know that GR is not true, it's just a really good model with some problems. Time is one of those problems.
Oh my lord. You didnt debunk anything. Nobody KNOWS how the universe started so there is nothing to debunk. Any theory can possibly be true since nobody knows how it started.
@@NotSoSerious69420 not even that. He (apperently) debunked the justification of assertion of "everything came from nothing", as the Big Bang is commonly understood.
Hubble's Constant now solved with simple equation from "The Principle of Astrogeometry" 2 X a Mega parsec X C, divided by pi to the power of 21 = 71 K/S/MPS. This is derived directly from Maxwell's Aether based equations that also led to Relativity. This is not pure guesswork as much of cosmology is, but a proven fact. This means Hubble's Constant is a true Constant, directly related to light speed, and therefore a property of the Aether.
@Curiouser and Curiouser From the Astrogeometry Hubble equations, the rate of time slows RELATIVE to the observer. So this causes matter to "fall" away from him towards the region of "slower time". That's what causes the the red shift and the Universe to expand at 71K/S/MPs.
Time is movement so the big bang started time because it started movement, but how did the movement start in the first place when there weren't time? They must have happened simultaneously, but "happening" imply movement so it's a chicken and egg game. At the edge of our understanding of physics, our explanations become more mathematical than physical, like when we are talking about the singularities of black holes and big bang. At the end, maybe there was time before the big bang, an infinitesimal duration before the big bang, because there might have been a big crunch before it. So it's more correct to say that there is no time at the instant of singularity but before that, no one really know!
Most of the time we just call the observable Universe that we know of "the Universe" and the known universe began to exist at the Big Bang, but the Universe could extend beyond what we can observe.
Asimov was motivated by a hatred of religion. Einstein's theories have been verified to an unmistakable degree of it being debunked and I have heard nothing debunking him. Calling him wrong or the work of Penrose/Hawking wrong needs some powerful evidence and all I hear is weak fallacious arguments and poor assertions.
I loved that story. Asimov was a truly gifted scientist who made the choice of deciding that the idea of a god was ridiculous. So he handicapped himself by outright denying that anything that wasn't science was garbage. Great author though.
I work in conservative media and they CONSTANTLY set up this straw-man argument of "You know, we're always told that science knows everything, but... [insert pseudo-intellectual idea]" And it annoys me because any REAL proponent of the scientific method would NEVER say that. Willful ignorance makes me really said
Matter coming together maybe..maybe not an infinite dense matter but an incomprehensible amount and something always has to give just like supernovae.. we all out of our depth here bud 😂
We know it is quantum fluctuations...of what, we aren't sure but if Inflation is true, then it was the Inflaton field that was undergoing quantum fluctuations based on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Why is there an Inflaton field? Not sure about that.
this randomly popped up in my feed. very satisfied to see it considering i had an argument with someone not so long ago that i had to explain this very thing to them.
Love the video! not sure if I misheard though i think you said "Edward Hubble" when in fact its "Edwin" hah not a big deal but just thought id point it out.
Fusion creates space in a universe filled with atoms. The distances between galaxies ate increasing because they merge to their closest neighbour. All galaxies are connected, like a spider web.
If that was true, expansion would be proportional to the number of stars in an area, not distance. Since it's the latter, the best conclusion is that spacetime is essentially 'multiplying'.
Plus the fact that the denser you get, time gets stretched out to the point of infinity as well so even if it came from nothing, it may not make sense to say the universe 'began' at all.
