Cookies   I display ads to cover the expenses. See the privacy policy for more information. You can keep or reject the ads.

Video thumbnail
The year is almost over and a new one about to begin.
So today I want to talk about the beginning of everything, the whole universe.
What do scientists think how it all started?
We know that the universe expands, and as the universe expands, matter and energy in
it dilutes.
So when the universe was younger, matter and energy was much denser.
Because it was denser, it had a higher temperature.
And a higher temperature means that on the average particles collided at higher energies.
Now you can ask, what do we know about particles colliding at high energies?
Well, the highest collision energies between particles that we have experimentally tested,
are those produced at the Large Hadron Collider.
These are energies about a Terra-electron Volt or TeV for short, which, if you convert
it into a temperature, comes out to be 10 to the 16 Kelvin.
In words that’s ten million billion Kelvin which sounds awkward and is the reason no
one quotes such temperatures in Kelvin.
So up to a temperature of about a TeV, we understand the physics of the early universe
and we can reliably tell what happened.
Before that, we have only speculation.
The simplest way to speculate about the early universe is just to extrapolate the known
theories back to even higher temperatures, assuming that the theories do not change.
What happens then is that you eventually reach energy densities so high that the quantum
fluctuations of space and time become relevant.
To calculate what happens then, we would need a theory of quantum gravity, which we do not
So, in brief, the scientific answer is that we have no idea how the universe began.
But that’s a boring answer and one you cannot publish, so it’s not how the currently most
popular theories for the beginning of the universe work.
The currently most popular theories assume that the electromagnetic interaction must
have been unified with the strong and the weak nuclear force at high energies.
They also assume that an additional field exists, which is the so-called inflaton field.
The purpose of the inflaton is to cause the universe to expand very rapidly early on,
in a period which is called “inflation”.
The inflaton field then has to create all the other matter in the universe and basically
disappear because we don’t see it today.
In these theories, our universe was born from a quantum fluctuation of the inflaton field
and this birth event is called the “Big Bang”.
Actually, if you believe this idea, the quantum fluctuations still go on outside of our universe,
so there are constantly other universes being created.
How scientific is this idea?
Well, we have zero evidence that the forces were ever unified and have equally good evidence,
namely none, that the inflaton field exists.
The idea that the early universe underwent a phase of rapid expansion fits to some data,
but the evidence is not overwhelming, and in any case, what the cause of this rapid
expansion would have been – an inflaton field or something else – the data don’t
tell us.
So that the universe began from a quantum fluctuations is one story.
Another story has it that the universe was not born once but is born over and over again
in what is called a “cyclic” model.
In cyclic models, the Big Bang is replaced by an infinite sequence of Big Bounces.
There are several types of cyclic models.
One is called the ekpyrotic universe.
The idea of the ekpyrotic universe was originally borrowed from string theory and had it that
higher-dimensional membranes collided and our universe was created from that collision.
Another idea of a cyclic universe is due to Roger Penrose and is called conformal cyclic
Penrose’s idea is basically that when the universe gets very old, it loses all sense
of scale, so really there is no point in distinguishing the large from the small anymore, and you
can then glue together the end of one universe with the beginning of a new one.
By the way, you find references for all this in the information below the video.
Yet another theory has it that new universes are born inside black holes.
You can speculate about this because no one has any idea what goes on inside black holes
An idea that sounds similar but is actually very different is that the universe started
from a black hole in 4 dimensions of space.
This is a speculation that was put forward by Niayesh Afshordi some years ago.
Then there is the possibility that the universe didn’t really “begin” but that before
a certain time there was only *space without any time.
This is called the “no-boundary proposal” and it goes back to Jim Hartle and Stephen
A very similar disappearance of time was more recently found in calculations based on loop
quantum cosmology where the researchers referred to it as “asymptotic silence”.
Then we have string gas cosmology, in which the early universe lingered in an almost steady
state for an infinite amount of time before beginning to expand, and then there is the
so-called unicorn cosmology, according to which our universe grew out of unicorn shit.
Nah, I made this one up, could you tell?
So, as you see, physicists have many ideas about how the universe began.
The trouble is that not a single one of those ideas is backed up by evidence.
And they may never be backed up by evidence, because the further back in time you try to
look, the fewer data we have.
While some of those speculations for the early universe result in predictions, confirming
those predictions would not allow us to conclude that the theory must have been correct because
there are many different theories that could give rise to the same prediction.
This is a way in which our scientific endeavors are fundamentally limited.
Physicists may simply have produced a lot of mathematical stories about how it all began,
but these aren’t any better than traditional tales of creation.
Thanks for watching.
See you next year!