Alan Guth - How Did the Universe Begin?

It’s among the oldest questions because we humans are rightly obsessed by ultimate origins. Cosmologists can now explain back to the first 10-36 second of our universe - with the theory of “cosmic inflation”, which is what put the “bang” into the Big Bang. What is recent thinking on the beginning of the universe?

[raymondparsley]

The conversation is deeper than the river flowing behind them. It is good though, we have people who understand this stuff, to the benefit of us all... one would hope.

[Vlazzyk]

This channel is simply wonderful. Keep up the good work!

[synthvault]

Guth is one of the best. You could warm your hands near his head.

[deletethisnananabz]

And here we are, on our planet, in one little section of the Milky Way galaxy trying to figure out the universe. I love science. We will get our answers someday.

[shiddy.]

the editing is great and makes these videos easy to absorb and feel like the watcher is part of the conversation ... bravo

[esra_erimez]

How does Alan Guth not have a Nobel prize?

[skipsch]

Inflation happening earlier than we first thought is what I've gathered from recent videos, especially those with Roger Penrose, in which he talks about maximal entropy & space winding up at the end of this universe/aeon as geometrically identical to the low entropy tiny beginning stage

[zekeman]

God in the palm of his hand and with the breath of his mouth spoke heaven and the earth into existence... so simple.

[bobbyosborne]

Guth...brilliant, brilliant, brilliant man.

[tedbishop]

This universe began when two mega black holes collided. The resulting debris field became our universe. It is spreading in every direction due to the gravitational pull of the other massive black holes that surround this universe. Our universe will eventually be absorbed by those surrounding black holes.

[logikgr]

How does this only have 26K views in one year on 7/21?

[daithiocinnsealach]

Who chooses these gorgeous locations? Damn! Do you fly these guys out there?

[georgequalls]

If, as some people say, the universe was infinitely hot and infinitely dense at its beginning, how can it ever be anything less?

[Oceansideca]

I want to just sit there and listen although I guess I’m doing that on my phone right now

[guilhermesilveira]

Alan Guth, Joseph Silk, John Barrow, Martin Rees, Ed Tryon, Andrei Linde, Alex Vilenkin, Ed Witten are all good writers.

[daithiocinnsealach]

Statistically speaking there has to be a few who press the dislike button. They're just doing what they were destined to do... 😂

[akramkarim]

so level 1 multiverse is finite and not infinite, ok
but if it's bigger by 1000 time is this in volume or in distance ?

[Im-just-Stardust]

Alex Honnolds free soloing in the background.

[Folkert.Cornelius]

I never knew Andy Warhol was a physicist... and alive and well😆

[reimannx]

Whenever a scientist repeats, "good question, good question", he/she is in trouble explaining a core feature of a theory.
Besides the highly problematic assignment of probabilities to "everything imaginable happening, does happen" scenario in the infinite spawning universe to the different ill- defined notions of "something from nothing", this is looking more like turtles upon turtles ad infinitum.
And where exactly is the infinite energy coming from for the generation of infinite universes?
Drawing a one to one correspondence between purely mathematical notioqn and physical reality is highly problematic. For example, a mathematical notion of a point has no correspondence in physical reality. So, when we say a point particle in physics, we mean for all practical purposes, let's ignore the dimensionality of the particle . However, this is only an approximation. No one would jump to a one to one correspondence and say nature has zero dimensional particles.
Similarly, while the mathematical notion of infinity does lead to interesting mathematical results, it would be incorrect to draw a one to one correspondence between the mathematical notion and the physical one. Mathematics can be used to model, but never be used to draw an ontological equality. It would be a category mistake in the Aristrolean sense.
An initial inflaton field cannot have infinite energy as potentiality. Even guth has acknowledged that the universes are "ultimate free lunch" in this theory because one has negative infinite gravitational energy to balance. This seems like an accounting gimmick worse than the subprime loan accounting of 2009 financial crisis. Starting out with the implied assumption of potentiality of infinite energy is like postulating an infinitely omnipotent omnipresent, omniprecient God.