+A SAID WEE MAN Also just love him. Done so much for advancement of mathematics at postgrad level in Africa.

Bernard Fitzpatrick he's a true champion of knowledge and education he makes what are quixotic and non intuitive ideas and concepts understandable to the layman.

Because he's a real scientist. My guess is that most "scientist" are just modern versions of religious priests, they repeat dogmatically the holy scientific texts with no thinking involved. Neil thinks.

***** I have to disagree, falsifiability is the cornerstone of evidentiary based science. Just because you have a theory that sounds plausible does not make it so, it has to be testable and in this case the multiverse can not be tested (at least that I am aware of). Its the same (as I noted previously) as the belief in God, saying God created the universe is just as falsifiable as saying 'branes smushed together and had a baby universe' theory.

Me too.

+Matt C most scientist do admit that it's still weird though

+Matt C Maybe, but not just yet. We have miles to go before we sleep. And since it is the hunt for understanding how things work that is the fun part, why be in a hurry to throw in the towel? What else are we going to do with our time except keep ourselves distracted. Seems awfully banal to me.

There was NO "everything magically exploding into existence..." this is a misconception and misunderstanding of the Big Bang Theory that religions use all the time.

I've always enjoyed sci-fi as a way to speculate about concepts which cannot, or cannot yet, be tested as a hypothesis.

+Garrison Fork "Physicists seem to fight dirty sometimes when denying the existence of deities" Agree as Krauss and Hawking have done lately in trying to explain that everything came into existence uncaused out of nothing. Lawrence M. Krauss, a well-known cosmologist and prolific popular-science writer, apparently means to announce to the world, in this new book, that the laws of quantum mechanics have in them the makings of a thoroughly scientific and adamantly secular explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. Period. Case closed. End of story. I kid you not. Look at the subtitle. Look at how Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to super­naturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is ­devastating.” Well, let’s see. There are lots of different sorts of conversations one might want to have about a claim like that: conversations, say, about what it is to explain something, and about what it is to be a law of nature, and about what it is to be a physical thing. But since the space I have is limited, let me put those niceties aside and try to be quick, and crude, and concrete. Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that. He acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that every­thing he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted. “I have no idea if this notion can be usefully dispensed with,” he writes, “or at least I don’t know of any productive work in this regard.” And what if he did know of some productive work in that regard? What if he were in a position to announce, for instance, that the truth of the quantum-mechanical laws can be traced back to the fact that the world has some other, deeper property X? Wouldn’t we still be in a position to ask why X rather than Y? And is there a last such question? Is there some point at which the possibility of asking any further such questions somehow definitively comes to an end? How would that work? What would that be like? Never mind. Forget where the laws came from. Have a look instead at what they say. It happens that ever since the scientific revolution of the 17th century, what physics has given us in the way of candidates for the fundamental laws of nature have as a general rule simply taken it for granted that there is, at the bottom of everything, some basic, elementary, eternally persisting, concrete, physical stuff. Newton, for example, took that elementary stuff to consist of material particles. And physicists at the end of the 19th century took that elementary stuff to consist of both material particles and electro­magnetic fields. And so on. And what the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all there is for the fundamental laws of nature to be about, insofar as physics has ever been able to imagine, is how that elementary stuff is arranged. The fundamental laws of nature generally take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of that stuff are physically possible and which aren’t, or rules connecting the arrangements of that elementary stuff at later times to its arrangement at earlier times, or something like that. But the laws have no bearing whatsoever on questions of where the elementary stuff came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular elementary stuff it does, as opposed to something else, or to nothing at all.

100% what I have been thinking. Thank you for writing it!

Not meaningless at all... but not answerable scientifically... unless one suscribes to the notion that anything that cannot be answered scientifically becomes thus meaningless which is obviously false as everyone seems desperate for meaning which is presumably why we watched this presentation in the first place in spite of the fact that we all knew full well that science can only answer "how" and not "why" questions. While meaning can only be provided by consciousness, we notice how that the question was carefully avoided throughout, as it is most of the time, even though consciousness allowed for such conversation to occur and perhaps also for the entire universe and/or multiverses to arise in the first place.

"meaningless"? - "All three panelists agreed on that" And therein is just one of the serious problems. “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”--Michael Crichton

Max McByte I agree with all of that, but I was just trying to help the viewer who might want to know what *their* answers were. They did a lot of rambling around to get to their very brief answer.

how are you?

Bob Aldo Want the solution for the problem? I did it!

+Seekmosttoprophesy In this day and age, quoting from the Bible only proves you are stuck in the past with the primitive people who wrote the Bible.

+Hamid Mat Sain MD,FRCS The finitude of the past and the finite universe we live is prima facie evidence for ex nihilo Creation. Question is what is the more plausible explanation "because of laws like gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing" (Hawking) OR that there is a non-contingent, immaterial, atemporal creative mind that brought being into existence from non-being? (theism) the finitude of the past as proven by the impossibility of an infinite regress of past physical events is all the proof I need to justify ex nihilo Creation. If u have any more doubts google "if you think science leads to atheism" for a litany of the most eminent scientists who will shatter your illusions. When u admit to Creation I can detail how the Christian religion best articulates the true nature of God. The essence of our humanity is to love and be loved. Nothing gives life a deep sense of joy with meaning hope and destiny than the shared experience of a loving supportive community of believers.

+Hamid Mat Sain MD,FRCS Who do you rely on then? Aren't these people the most reliable?

+Hamid Mat Sain MD, FRCS As J Krishnamurti implied with his book, "The Impossible Question".

+Gerry De naro The concept of a finite existence doesn't necessitate a state of nothingness. You were conceived at a certain time, and so your life had a finite beginning. The materials that physically make you up were not "nothing" prior to that. They were simply in another physical form. Where are you getting this concept of "nothingness" from? We certainly have no examples of any such nothing. You're making it up because it suits your beliefs.

+Gerry De naro What a pile of crap. The god hypothesis does not make predictions and cannot be tested. It can form no part of knowledge.

+ozskipper I'D SAY THEY NEED TO SAY " I DON'T KNOW" WAY MORE OFTEN RATHER THAN ANNOUNCE THAT THE NET ENERGY OF THE UNIVERSE IS ZERO. ESPCLY WHEN THEY DON'T KNOW THE QUANTITIES TO BEGIN WITH. BTW, GOD OT GAPS WAS COINED BY ATHIESTS , NOT REALISTS.

+ozskipper Ever heard of the science of the gaps, ozzie? That's when atheist scientists like Krauss and hawking want u to believe "b/c of laws like gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing". So which is it, nothing or gravity? And how do abstract laws even exist in a purely materialistic worldview, let alone 'cause' anything? The a priori assertion everything came from nothing is the sort of deification of science that atheism is coming to. I always thought to pull a rabbit out of a hat u actually needed a hat and a rabbit, not least a magician? “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.” -Albert Einstein “God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.” -Nobel Prize winning physicist Paul A. M. Dirac, who made crucial early contributions to both quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics.For a litany of the most eminent scientists see "if you think science leads to atheism." by Scott Youngren

+Gerry De naro I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. - Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2 I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. - Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2 You do not quote a source for Dirac, but I believe it is a quote mine from Scientific America, 1963. if physical laws are such that to start off life involves an excessively small chance, so that it will not be reasonable to suppose that life would have started just by blind chance, then there must be a god, and such a god would probably be showing his influence in the quantum jumps which are taking place later on. On the other hand, if life can start very easily and does not need any divine influence, then I will say that there is no god. Dirac did not commend himself to any definite view, but he described the possibilities for answering the question of God in a scientific manner.[41] I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest-and scientists have to be-we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. Paul Dirac, Solvay, 1927.

gamesbok I JUST CAN'T FOR THE LIFE OF ME FIGURE OUT HOW anybody CAN'T GRASP WHAT ACTUALLY had to HAPPEN IN ORDER TO GET FROM NOTHING TO WHAT YOU SEE AND KNOW NOW. YOU'R TALKING BEYOND ASTRONOMICAL CHANCES FOR AAAALLLLLL THAT TO ORGANIZE BLINDLY N HAP HAZARDLY FROM MUONIC PARTICALS TO THE ATOM , WHAT THAT DOES, AND THEN NEXT INTO MOLECULES N ON UP. FORGET IT MAN .

trijezdci .......try multiverse, as well as parallel universes.

trijezdci but a parallel universe isnt just another universe. It is the same universe but with a different outcome. Same atoms same molecules yet they converge and mix differently. Basically everything could be in the same space but in a different reality such as time. Maybe time is what seperates parallel universes. Every X amount of X mesurements of time we transfer universes or transfer realities.

It's not self-defining because we're the ones doing the defining. But otherwise I agree completely. Universe is all that exists, and the word should be used in this broadest sense even in physics. Instead of "parallel universe" I prefer the word "timeline". It's not even parallel in the geometric sense anyway.. ;-)

what happens when you reach the end of the known universe, do you enter into the unknown universe, study it and it becomes known;

+joe shmo what did you expect? It's a period of time that was before our timeline, and we are currently limited in the very branch of physics that could likely explain it

Ludvig Burman WOW ! REFRESHING TO HEAR YOU ADMIT TO THAT ! I'M ALL FOR THEORETICAL IDEAS AND RESEARCH, JUST GET ALITTLE WONKED WHEN IT STARTS GETTING PRINTED AND TAUGHT AS FACT. ESPCLY WHEN NO FOREWORD THAT IT IS JUST EXACTLY THAT.

joe shmo where is it taught as fact?

Ludvig Burman SERIOUSLY ? HS N COLLEGE TEXTBOOKS do not HAVE A PREAMBLE STATING : " THE FOLLOWING IS NOT CONCLUSIVE, IS SPECULATION, JUST THE BEST WE HAVE SO FAR, AND not ACCEPTED BY ALL SCIENTISTS ". NOT IN MINE FROM THE LATE 80'S OR MY SON'S FROM JUST 8 YRS AGO.

+smashu2 No you do not get to a black hole, a black hole has a huge entropy whereas the BB was a low entropy boundary condition. And no the BB is not in contradiction with GR lol, GR puts no limits whatsoever on how fast space can expand, it only limits how fast information can travel in space.

But their video can still be useful to promote my solution because I actually did it.

solofox Qq

Instead of Big Bang we should think on the relationship between noomenon phenomena

we dont 'understand' the universe with our eyes......zzzzz...

Raven Reda advance beyond the physical body...and what makes you so sure youre in a physical body right now?

*noumenon

There's actually a lot of these ideas floating around the scientific community - they definitely deserve more interest. Here is one of many alternative-model papers from Cornell on the issue. arxiv.org/abs/1007.1750 "There are four conspicuous features of these models: 1) the speed of light and the gravitational constant are not constant, but vary with the evolution of the universe, 2) time has no beginning and no end; i.e., there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity, 3) the spatial section of the universe is a 3-sphere, and 4) in the process of evolution, the universe experiences phases of both acceleration and deceleration. One of these models is selected and tested against current cosmological observations, and is found to fit the redshift- luminosity distance data quite well."

Circuit7Active guth's idea has serious problems associated with it. yes, the theory was influential and revolutionary. yes it holds part of the truth, but Newton's theories held part of the truth as well and relativity has ultimately shown Newton's insight as brilliant, but fundamentally flawed. guth's theory will prove the same. the theory can be correct, and virtually useless, all at the same time. a minority of those actually educated on the topic believe guth's theory is the last word, and explicitly true. it happens to be Mathematics true, but that's all.