i just came across this today, and coincidentally, also just finished reading sean's book on the bus this morning! this is basically a summary of it in 15 minutes. he's an amazingly clear, articulate and concise speaker! i could listen to him talk about this stuff for hours on end. if you want a lot more detail, i'd highly recommend 'from eternity to here'.

Drs. Sean Carroll and Brian Greene do an exceptional job of bringing physics and cosmology to the public commons. Thank you both.

Wow this dude is amazing. I mean of course, I suppose. I rarely ever regret not having good professors, because learning is a personal thing, and I am self-taught in my career and all of my hobbies and interests. But this dude makes me wish I had someone like him. Kids are so lucky today, with KZfaq and Coursera, and all that. Jeez.

Totally enthralling and down to earth explanation in laymans terms with some humour. I enjoyed this presentation and will watch it again. A good wish likely granted. Thank you.

Thank you TED Talks, Thank you Ms., Mr. Carroll for being my colleagues and testing my ideas on our existence, I cant wait to work with all of you, peace and love, Doug.

I love these TED Talks, thanks for posting it online.

This is still what I consider to be the best Ted talk ever released. It's grounded in science (not this soft-science shit they've been spamming my feed with lately :[ ), it addresses the current problems within it's field, it's highly factual, and it's content at large is very thought provoking. Cheers, Misour Carroll.

I understood your analogy as minimum variations vs maximum variations. Easy enough to grasp that way.

I love that you left us with a big open question for us to ponder and discern. Thank you!

His lectures are excellent, I wish he was my professor

Wow, he hardly took a breath to cover inception to extinction. Amazing lecture!

Impressed by how easy Sean Carroll talks about these subjects. Thank you!

Prof. Carroll's talks are always engaging.

Sean Carroll is excellent. He got one thing wrong near the end. He exclaims he agrees the universe is expanding forever. Then at 12:54, he talks about how all of the cosmos will die out as if fact. That is quite a statement to propose. If the universe is expanding for eternity as he claims, new stars can be forming, new space/dimensional pockets, etc. Infinite expansion of nothing? Even if true, for infinity/casualty that should at the very least cause something to happen, given a timeframe of infinity. It will never be an infinity of nothing, we will still always have cold debris such as rock, ice, and old technology for infinity, and if something is truly infinity, then by smashing together something is bound to happen. So rest assured most scientists don't think that far, when we found we are expanding indefinitely it meant a chance for life to survive. Even advanced civilizations prepare for it in several ways, creating wormholes to other universes, if you want to get really deep.

Very good info!!! This is an invitation to see a theory on 'time' with an emergent uncertain future that gives us a new understanding of quantum mechanics.

I have gone through his lecture in TTC videos , excellent 👍👍

Sean has a great way of taking an immense exhausting subject and making it immense and exhausting.

Awesome video, great talk. Fun & informative.

this is the ultimate conversation

Great, very interesting talk. Thanks.

6:24 from _Time lapse in the future_

The Cosmic Chicken! Of course! One of the best Ted Talks ever. Mahalo!

Fascinating! Especially the part about the apple pie!

It's annoying that these are so short.

Thank you for your reply.

I've always wondered where do forces play a role in this 'randomly moving particles' (statistical mechanics) view of the world. Although I cannot calculate anything, say A is the event of a galaxy forming, G is the existence of gravity, S is the distribution of matter through space in the early universe, the probability P( A | G & S ) is almost 1. Particles aren't just randomly moving, they exert forces on each other that increase the probability of forming structures. A

There is something intrinsically assinine and simplistic going on in here that is difficult to describe

my brain! it can barely take it.the flow of knowledge into my head is glorious right now.

11:20 Pie in the sky joke becomes funnier with the Boltzmann's suggestion

Great speech Sean. I've become more fascinated the past few yrs with the origins of the Universe & very quickly I recognized you were headed toward our supposed beginning in the immediate aftermath of the big bang in the "Egg of Life." Where we all truly were as 1 within a much smaller frame. I believe the egg "split" with the intro of gravity into the equation which drew out matter from the egg continually expanding the Universe since. Really interesting your thought that maybe the big bang isn't our origin. The more I learn the less I'm bound to our Earthly mindset but realize that our Universe seems to be a reflection of itself so we are able to like you said not only know our past but can ostensibly learn much of what's ahead or is it actually behind? My question comes back to why? Obviously there's intent behind existence so where did that originate? Was the big bang essentially a much higher intelligence than we cannot fully comprehend? I definitely don't see our origins from the big bang as a fluctuation something had to give us the matter that allows us to know what we've come to understand. I'm so looking forward to the rest of eternity & the twists & turns in our existence.

great video. I understand entropy a little now.

Watch at 0.75x speed for more time to absorb everything!!

Powerful , keep it up

Time is affected by the density of space and/or matter, and, it seems reasonable to me that an object's 'observed' acceleration must reflect this. If we assume that 'new space' is not being created and that existing space is expanding, then the 'density' of that space would be more rarified toward 'the edge' of the universe and show non-linear results in the measured velocity of galaxies. Time would run faster the closer you look to the edge of the universe. This would require no dark matter or dark energy. I'm not refuting anything but merely offering up an idea.

I could listen to this guy for hours.

Awesome talk

This is the most mind boggling part of this lecture: "The amount of energy in the vacuum of space remains the same as the universe expands"

Universal chicken!!! Best explanation of God I've heard so far :-D

Fascinating! :-)

Thunderbolts of the Gods utilizes archtype imagery from around the world that suggests that they were all influenced by witnessing the same events. It postulates that the planets were much closer together giving off plasma displays that can be reproduced in a lab.

So he's saying that, as one of the many possible combinations of particle arrangements in space time, they once assessed into a single point, and have been moving apart ever since. That is our experience of our universe since the Big Bang. A low entropy turning to higher entropy period. So we experience the arrow of time. Sound correct? But I'm not sure how we hopped from that, to the multi-verse.

Proud nerd moment when I was like, "I know this face, but from where.... Oh from Sixty Symbols!" haha.

this confirms what I believe, and that is that the big bang was a regional event in an infinite universe caused by the collision of two universes within a multiverse. Such collisions would cause the release of energy that could cool and form stars and planets. As for dark energy being the matrix of energy that is the universe, thats bang on. All things are energy, or another way to put it, all things are spirit and what we, the observer sees as physical is due to a limitation of perception.

Wouldn't cause of relativity the past and the present and the future all exist simultaneously, so there would then appear both a big bang and not one simultaneously, it just depends on where you maybe located and how fast you maybe traveling whether you maybe seeing a depiction of a big bang or not, correct? If you could travel so fast then maybe you could travel to a place where the big bang had not yet started and so forth, so time maybe an illusion like the movement of a big bang through space it maybe relative to the observer.

"Back when I was your age..." ??? He's never been my age. I think hes flipped his ever-lovin universal arrow of time.

Can someone explain Feynman's debunking of Boltzmann's hypothesis to me? I'm not really sure of what he means by that expectation of order...

My favorite elements are candium and ballonium. The candy and balloon atoms respectively....

No chicken. It's eggs all the way down. :)

@cristianfcao That is why you need to learn. Take a lot of Mathematics (Calculus, Differential Equations, Partial Differential Equations, etc) , Physics (many components), Astronomy, etc. Then, after about 6-8 years of graduate school you have a solid grasp of this. Throw in a little post-doc work in there also. He does a good job of explaining things to laymen. I.e. Explaining things to someone with maybe a high school science background.

Theory: Objects in the universe that are further away are accelerating faster because of gravitational pull. The initial big bang explosion was so high in energy that it was strong enough to push objects away from the universe's gravitational core. As objects continue to get pushed outwards from the core, it accelerates faster thus causing less gravity to have an effect on the objects being forced away. With less gravitational force, there is more acceleration.

14 is one such. To create more entropy means random numbers will have to have additives rather than subtractive. There is no subtraction or division in physics.

45 years to go!

I love Sean Carroll!

3:30 Boltzmann portrait looks like it came from the Fullmetal Alchemist screen-in-between.

the first 3 words of any sentence in such a Sean Carroll talk should be: "we assume that ..."

It thinks for itself....It creates itself.... Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... THE UNIVERSE!!!!!😍

I have a problem in the phrase "looking back in time". My very simplistic view is that a "moment" at my location is the exact same "moment" at any point in the universe or beyond the universe. The fact that the very distant "moment" can take numerous light years to tell us that it (a particle, a group of particles a star) has just had its moment for me to observe that moment on earth I will need to live all most forever to witness the arrival of that moment at my location . The conclusion that I draw is that each and every particle has a "moment" in which every other particle has a mathematical fix in space. If you will, a "Universal General Positioning". What the human race is observing is "Change" in the absolute coordinates of all partilces in what ever form. Being that is the case, the need to have a "dimension of time" becomes redundant. After all, the measurement of time is one that we humans have invented and is a concept to allow us to organise when and where our bodies our things, our World can be coordinated. Given that, once Einstein got to Special Relativity he got stuck on General Relativity and then he really got hung up that Gravity is observed but cannot be explained. Einstein had a buddy, a mathematician, who he turned to with his problem. His problem was given that a particle with mass is travelling in a straight line through space how can a second particle travelling through space on a different trajectory be mathematically cleared to meet with each other. Thats when Herman Minkowski offered a solution which was to cause a depression, a vortix, in which a particle can be taken through a change of direction by following a straight line which has been curved. It is referred to as Minkowski Space Time. This clever solution has never been proven and has led science, in my humble opinion up a blind alley trying to bring together Special and General Relativity together as one. The concept of travelling back through time is therefore binned as to travel, "to return", to a original form would infer all the particles of the universe would have to conform in a mathematical relationship to each other coincidental to the form that is anticipated by travelling back in "time". Similarly, the concept of travelling forward through time would infer an arrival in the future would need all the total elements of the Universe to be in lock-step in accordance with the mathematical lock on their postions at that "time" chosen. If time is binned it will make the understanding of our universe that much easier as I feel confident the solution will turn out to be a very precise but simple one

Could we have an Arrow of Time for each object? The organization is not formed at the beginning of the Universe with a big bang but is being formed here and now as a process of continuous spherical symmetry forming and breaking. The electron is the most spherical object in the Universe this forms the organization for statistical entropy or disorganization that we have in the second law of thermodynamics. By the way this is an invitation to see an artist theory of the physics of ‘time’

TIME flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.

Excellent. no more no less!

Question: Can any answer pl? In a positively curved Universe, acceleration of distant supernova would mean - beginning of contracting phase. Is it correct? If it is correct why it is not predicted in that way? I think there is no dark energy. In a positively curved universe galaxies should accelerate in contracting phase and would be seen receding even if they are approaching (for curved space).

after a bit more study i definitely wanna read up on it. I like any book with the format blank of the gods my new favorite being food of the gods which tells the theory that human brain size was caused by pre-modern humans eating halucinagenic mushrooms. but i mean its trying to explain phenomena which are already explained by gravity. Stars are formed by masses of hydrogen with enough gravitational force to start fusion. the resulting star is electric true but resulting from gravity and fusion

That was fun!

I love Sean Carroll.

I like the idea of a multiverse- but i prefer to think of these as branching timelines for each computational point or virtual particle- not "parallel" realities as some suggest. You can't have time without space, and visa/versa, so there's no doubt in my mind that Sean's radical ideas will be vindicated. Yes, it's a set of alternative universes defined by tensor networks, or maybe a "co-existing" multiverse of alternative timelines for each, virtual particle. We have free will, and sometimes do things that statistics and AI supercomputers fail to accurately predict.

Every Once and awhile I'll swear I'm listening to Alan Alda giving a lecture.

14:45 when you find out you have still have 1 egg left after thinking you ran out days ago

the past is also added some of the knowing things go in the sens inverse of time .....

The answer to multiverse is that if Einstein is always coorect that particles become waves at superluminal velocity then beyond the expansion luminous horizon no matter exists hence entropy there decreases normally. His hypothesis predicts antilife IMO!

I know this guy from Sixty Symbols. He is the man!

They don't know. So much speculation short of confirmation. Our knowledge of the universe is in it's infancy. So much to learn and so difficult to investigate. I'd love to be around a hundred years from now to see what our best cosmos are saying then.

Did the Organizers also ask Sean to finish with his Jazz Combo?

I wonder, ¿What relation is there between the arrow of time and the big inflation of the first instants of the Universe?

Maybe it's not a "push" but the resultant backflow of a "pull"

The universe is a collection of minds. Consciousness came first.

thX!!

Does it mean that there is an apple pie somewhere in the universe?

@nifedonkey3 Bold, unfounded conjecture. What have you to support it?

Just a thought or two.. Gravity is the sum of all possible timelines which we see as superposition states, ie the primary principle of quantum theory. All particles and wave perturbations are entangled with each other. The closest those wave perturbations are in their respective fields to each other in 3 spatial dimensions, the more entangled they become resulting in spacetime curvature around those more entangled regions. Could this be what gravity intrinsically is? ... Or have I had too many shots of Jack Daniels this evening?

What is the universe expanding in to?

But why must infinity create infinite fluctuations/events/systems and compositions? Let's say, instead of particles we have all the letters of the alphabet; Now with infinite time and letters, what is to say that all possible words and phrases must come about by default? That universe could consist of scarce amounts of low entropy systems and fluctuations, such that you may find half the words of shakespeare some where once, perhaps, but mainly it would be A's and O's for infinity.

Praise the Universal Chicken!:-) I´m gonna form a new church:-D

This made me search out Hoyle's paradox.

Im wondering if this idea has a strong connection to mandelbrot fractals?

In the midst of this awesome lecture is a 1968 Fender Super Reverb

I think his speech was the start of the big bang.

Every system with a finite ending time will fail to be time-reversible, and since current physics' classic solutions are always never-ending, there is a flaw in the traditional mathematics' tools used: since they are always holding uniqueness of solutions, they will never model accurately phenomena with finite duration, which left us with models that don't show the direction of the arrow of time on their 2nd order differential equations. As example, I have found an interesting issue with classic pendulum equations: if you consider the Drag Force as the classic Stokes' force: F=b*x' the pendulum eq. is (for some positive constants {a, b}): x'' +b*x'+a*sin(x)=0 a diff. eq. that under the transformation: t --> -t is not time reversible! (which is commonly only atributed to entropy by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). But if instead the standard Drag Force: F=b*(x')^2 is used, the diff. eq. becomes time reversible, but its solution are never decaying!... so it is needed to modify the Drag Force in something like: F=b*x'*|x'| to recover the decaying solutions, so somehow, the condition of been non-time reversible is required! But even with this improved drag force, solutions are never-ending in time, since the diff. eq. holds uniqueness of solutions due Picard-Lindelöf theorem... but, if I change the Drag Force by something like: F=b*sign(x')*sqrt(|x'|)*(1+|x'|^(3/2)) which resembles Stokes' Law at low speeds (non-near-zero), also resembles the quadratic version at high speeds, but introduce a non-Lipschitz component at zero speed, now the differential equation: x''+b*sign(x')*sqrt(|x'|)*(1+|x'|^(3/2))+a*sin(x)=0 will be having decaying solutions that will achieve a finite extinction time t=T< infinity (so x(t)=0 exactly after t>T), also with a diff. eq. is not-time-reversible. Hope you can review this, is easy to see it in Wolfram Alpha.

@fryingsok id like to see you do a similar speech as intriguing, entertaining and within the time limit whilst GETTING ALL PRECIOUS DETAILS JUST SO.

Was there fields in "space" before the big bang?

“Cats and humans have been partners for over ten thousand years. And what you realize when you've lived with a cat for a long time is that we may think we own them, but that's not the way it is. They simply allow us the pleasure of their company.” ― Genki Kawamura, 世界から猫が消えたなら

Now we just need to find a Universe making machine infinitely more complex then the un-explainable Universe that we see, that's outside our time and space. Some physicist have this bad habit of just pushing the problem back a step and saying "solved". One of my favorites is Francis Crick who discovered DNA. Very bright obviously. He admitted there just isn't enough time on earth to explain such complex life forms by un-directed, blind, random forces with no signs of mistakes or transitional forms in the fossil record. Let only the origin of life with it irreducible complexity that has to come into co-existence all together. His answer: Earth was seeded by another planet! Now we just need to find the planet where amino acids can form to make a functioning and stable 3D folded protein against the odds of 1 in 10X77 power. And that is just one protein. We are so eager to have an explanation of the really big questions but the science is not there yet obviously.

It seems like the Universe once expanded to a point of thermal equilibrium is the same as the universe before the big band at thermal equilibrium. What about a Bose-Einstein condensate could it be state of matter at the point before the big bang at the end of that expansion?

What will happen if the entropy keep increasing?

I have one word for you, TENET!

is there an underlying function,we can't see, that dictates what outcome will actually occur out of the many possibilities??? coz even if we make a computer program, that is programmed to accept one possibility out of the many, it has to rely on an underlying function. it can't generate randomness on it's own....

@jknengr796 I really don't get your comment. Of course you need to learn a lot to better understand cosmology, so what? I'm just saying he used a misleading mental image. You don't agree? BTW I LOVE listening to Sean Caroll and I appreciate his effort to explain science to the laymen as you've said. I'm not sure his style is one of the best (he always speaks too fast and presupposes a high level of familiarity with many concepts) but I really like him and appreciate his work.

@Sky2042 It turns out they both happened to randomly occur at the same time.

jack parsons worked at caltech too they even named a crater after him

Dogs are central to the universe. lol. I love Sean's humor.

Anyone else notice it's the same place as the big bang theory is set (Caltech university Pasadena California)