Nima Arkani-Hamed - What's Fundamental in the Cosmos?
Register for member-only exclusives with a free Closer To Truth account today: closertotruth.com/.
Dig down to the deepest level of reality, the smallest things that exist, the building blocks of everything else. What do we find? What’s there at the very bottom? That’s what’s ‘fundamental’. Everything else is derivative, built up from the bottom. So what’s there at the bottom? So what’s fundamental?
Subscribe to the Closer To Truth podcast with new episodes every Wednesday: shorturl.at/mtJP4
Nima Arkani-Hamed is a Canadian/American theoretical physicist with interests in high-energy physics, string theory and cosmology. Formerly a professor at Harvard, Arkani-Hamed is now on the faculty at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton.
Watch more videos on cosmic fundamentals: shorturl.at/fwAQ9
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
This is a wonderful explanation by Nima, though I wish I could get it much more clear but I think our universe is made to be special because of those specific values and there's no way it couldn't have in the way it is. And that's the natural explanation it could have.
The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Nima is awesome 👍
in quantum wave function, potential energy equals kinetic energy? does the potential and kinetic energy of quantum wave function have anything to do with quantum probability? virtual particles?
What’s fundamental: Dialectic materialism as an eternal sequence of being and becoming something else via dialectical negation of what was. This takes the form of struggle, strife: objects have to risk ceasing to be in order to be reproduced in a new form. Matter (of which energy is just a form) and motion are indestructible and cannot be created.
Sez who?
@@squeakeththewheel read Engels: „dialectic of nature“ and Engels: „Anti-Dühring“ for instance
Will do.
@@markuspfeifer8473 Thanks for the suggestion. I just read through Engels: „dialectic of nature“ . Very interesting philosophy. Of course, he wrote in the 19th century before quantum and relativity theory and thermodynamics theory were discovered. So one has to take most of what he says about physics with a large grain of salt (meaning not too seriously). For example, he says it's obvious that in addition to light being a physical thing (which it is), darkness must also be a physical thing (which we know it's not). And his idea that motion is indestructible and cannot be created is archaic and does not agree with current physics knowledge (and I don't mean theory, I mean confirmed knowledge through modern experiments).
@@squeakeththewheel I think he uses the word „motion“ in a more philosophical sense. The particulars have to be updated of course. But I have yet to come across a more compelling way of thinking about science and the world as such. You seem to be a fast reader or have a lot of time per day, I highly recommend to also check out Anti-Dühring. It’s more instructive in terms of how *not to* think about science/nature, as it explicitly debunks a (now forgotten) 19th century thinker who makes tons of mistakes that still come naturally to us when philosophizing about science.
If! This is the content of this interview. If!
When would it become unreasonable to postulate that all possible values of every fundamental constant are allowed to " roam " in a froth of universes other than ours, where they independently settle on sweet values, in ours ?
That's basically multiverse theory. It has the disadvantage of being completely untestable.
@@fluffysheap you're right. It's almost unscientific, and yet, we distinguish the constancy of Pi, or e, from that of G in gravitation, or the charge on the electron. The first two can only be what they are, no matter the universe whereas we can accept the possibilities of variability in the second pair. That which is imaginable as at least potentially variable, may be a tool in the evolutionary toolbox for universes.....at least in principle. It may also be a useful measure of how hard we can run from our own souls.
While his candid approach to what appears to be an intriguing value of vacuum energy is appreciated, beginning at the level of vacuum energy, is clearly a leap, a jump, if your theme is "what is fundamental in the cosmos?". Since most physicists are misled into thinking that space and time had a beginning, the question dealing with the fundamentals of the cosmos must address the causality of space and time before discussing the vacuum energy of space.
Well, he quickly brushed by the anthropic principle which may actually be the answer to his fine tuning conundrum. It's quite possible that this universe can only exist if these parameters are exactly as we measure them. If they aren't, then we wouldn't exist to show the parameters at any other value. It's a bit of a tautology. Using a Squid Games sort of an example, if you don't win the lottery you die. But if you're alive and talking about the lottery, then you must have had the extremely rare combination that allowed you to live and you realize that the parameters for your existence are extremely fine tuned. We might be better off trying to understand the real fundamental aspect of the cosmos -- dimensions. You can't completely analyze a cup of coffee, for instance, if you don't understand the cup as well as its contents. Spacetime is the coffee, but the dimensions are the cup and beyond the mathematical/geometrical understanding of dimensions, we don't know very much at all. Why would we have 3 or 4 or 11 or an infinite number of dimensions? Are dimensions causal, stemming from some action or set of circumstances that cause them to arise? Do dimensions emerge sequentially or all at once? Might we have had previous 1 and 2 dimensional precursors to our current universe? Seems like that might be fundamental.
First! (Always wanted to do that 😂)
Secondst!
We(our body,minds & soul)were specifically made for these earthly lives ....can't live without a lights
Interesting how gravity keeps the galaxies, stars, planets, moons all together, enormous amount of mass and energy, yet it doesn't crush us little bugs on Earth..
Nothing can be created nor be destroyed
I created a Lego masterpiece, then I destroyed it.
You do transformation on lego
@@Deepakyadav-vp8xx Yes I can transform a car into a robot etc.
Too many assumptions to be coherent. Define the terms : Nothing, Created, destroyed.
You just created that comment.
If we changed the constants a tiny bit, the universe would be empty, or it'd consist of only helium, and so on. But that helium-only universe would also have to be finely tuned in order for it to exist, so what's the point?
All combinations of lottery numbers are equally likely. When they draw the numbers, something is going to come out. But if you have the winning numbers, that's remarkable. Now assume they drew 10,000 numbers, and you only got one ticket, and you still won. That's fine tuning.
@@fluffysheapthat's not a fine tuning it's just still a random number or random event by chance and mistake. Just beacuse only you wins it in 10,000 doesn't mean it is fine tuning. We all know that the odds of winning the lottery is extremely small, but people win the lottery all the time. Rare things happens all the time. Rare is rare but rare things keeps happening in the universe and before the universe all the time.
@@fluffysheap looks like you feel special
The degrees of freedom in a universe full of Helium, and only Helium, would seem to be far less. It's less " demanding " in its conditions for existence. Once the Helium begins to clump, with gravity accentuating quantum effects, now it requires more, of electrons, of weak and strong forces to build as far as carbon in the clumped stars. Then it requires subtleties in the exotic forms of carbon isotopes, to get further again..... The rungs of the ladder up to haemoglobin are ever more improbable.
@@genghisthegreat2034 what degrees of freedom? The helium universe is as improbable as our universe to exist in terms of probability, but seems like most of us feel special, feel that the universe is "made for our existence". Hubris is not a virtue, we must overcome it.
4:11 So many “somethings”, put a name to them, it helps the explanation. AND “Supersymmetry” is mostly a no go, so this must be a very OLD interview.
Fine tuning is only a problem if you define it as such. People commonly accept there are brute facts about the cosmos: the big bang, the fundamental particles, the forces of nature, etc. Why is it okay for those things to exist as a brute fact, but a few very specific numbers is not okay?
Most of those things aren't really brute facts. The fundamental particles and forces (except gravity) are all described by the standard model, which relates math and observations in a really remarkable way. That's what allowed physicists to predict the Higgs boson, and then the LHC found it exactly where they expected it to be. (And the same thing happened a couple decades earlier, with the top quark). But then these parameters just stick out. Nothing gives them their values, no theory connects them. They are brute facts in a way that the standard model just is not.
Because the odds for those values are infinitesimally low. Fine tuning is a big problem.
@@metheplant9655 You don't actually know what the "odds" are. For all you know, the odds of these parameters being what they are is 100%
@@fluffysheap You know, the SM doesn't actually predict what the masses of the particles are. Those values need to be measured and inserted into the theory. Same with the strength of the interactions. My point still stands that you can make the same fine-tuning argument with any of these brute-facts.
@@BaconMaker1 one single example (there are countless); carbon (necessary for life) has an unique resonance feature whose excited energy level matches precisely that of beryllium + helium, which should decay in 0.0000000001 seconds. It does not decay only because of that resonance, You can calculate the odds for that. I’m lazy.
For me, the answer is fairly clear - metabolising life developed on Earth, and over billions of years it evolved a world model and a self model. The brain is blind and deaf, trapped in a dark vault called a skull, it has to infer reality based on the sparse sampling of quantum information. We developed a sophisticated and robust world model that was doing incredibly well with basic cosmological observation and classical Newtonian physics, it could even accommodate relativity. However, quantum mechanics was the start of the end, with regards to how much sense our generative world model could make of the staggeringly complex quantum and cosmological reality we find ourselves in. And so, I feel that many of the staggeringly fine tuned, symmetrical and coincidental aspects of our understanding of the universe, as well the strikingly anthropocentric nature of the Axis of Evil in the CMB, and the universe at large scales being mathematically similar to complex brains, is all just an artefact of our perceptual interface. It’s the limits of satisfying and neat explanations that serve to reinforce the notion of a mind independent, objective, external reality. Our reality is a participatory, inferred, constructed generative model. It’s simply our brains best hypothesis.
Why make it sound so difficult when it is so simple?
@@sven888 Why put down complexity?
@@jsphotos So true. The purpose of complexity is indeed love. Bless you brother and have a good weekend.
Very interesting and illuminating. The multi-verse explanation, while valid, seems to me to be more of an attempt to come with any explanation other than an originating and original mind with intention. Why would this not be an equally valid possibility? The Achilles Heel of the atheist scientist. AND.... once again the title has nothing to do with the content. Who the hell writes these? It's firing time, Robert.
It's all about clicks and money my friend... for truth... read the teachings of Jesus in the NT.
Professor of Rivendell...
its interesting that the logic if fine-tuning points to a multi-verse which isnt measurable to observable... but to just say God set it up this way to show us he made it that way suddenly we are in religion... whether you say mutiverse or God, both wouldnt be science.
The problem with fine tuning is we don't know if the constants even can change. Also you're limiting god such that he must follow specific rules and tune the knobs just right to11 make the universe exist when in reality the god that everyone believes in is all-powerful and he can just go bonk and whatever constant he chose would work gravity will be this strong and that's that and it will work that's all god has to do. Until someone tells me all the situations in which life can exist then also what values the physical contents can take then I might start down the path of believing what you're saying. Otherwise you are making things up and you know it
And what's more, build a model of the universe where God does exist build a model of the universe where God does not exist compare the world that we live in and I'm sure you will find it is the world where a God does not exist otherwise how could you explain the problem of evil the problem of divine hiddeness. I think it's wrong to demand worship from any sentient being whatsoever regardless of their power.
@@robotaholic From ACIM The Bible repeatedly states that you should praise God. ²This hardly means that you should tell Him how wonderful He is. ³He has no ego with which to accept such praise, and no perception with which to judge it. ⁴But unless you take your part in the creation, His joy is not complete because yours is incomplete. ⁵And this He does know. ⁶He knows it in His Own Being and its experience of His Son’s experience. ⁷The constant going out of His Love is blocked when His channels are closed, and He is lonely when the minds He created do not communicate fully with Him. -------------- The lonely part is confusing to me.
Consciousness may be
Consciousness is a curse, look how broken and fallen the world is 😮💨
@@rohin1432you're being tested. It's part of your journey
@@Jack-gn4glwhy are there so many people like you in these comments? Can't you go somewhere else?
(3:10) *NAH: **_"There's an idea called naturalness that says that you should never have to fine tune parameters, you know, that that there should be an explanation for all of them."_* ... Ahhh, it's the fine-tuning dilemma once again. This is where we try to figure out why the universe is so perfectly orchestrated as to not fly apart. Nima has suggested that if we have _"ten to the 500th power universes, then there is a likelihood that that fine-tuning can be explained."_ *Translation:* Out of 10^500 universes, ... _we got lucky!_ I am amazed at what absurdly great lengths people will go to explain something in an effort to avoid a much simpler answer that they simply _don't like._ Intelligence absolutely exists in the universe. If you're reading this, then you know this is true! Intelligence also has to come from somewhere. Intelligence didn't "evolve" from nonintelligent matter as that would present the same logical paradox as "something from nothing." The easiest, simplest, most logical conclusion is that the universe has a *minimum amount of intelligence* embedded within its structure. It's _just enough_ to facilitate its existence and not enough for us to detect. Even though this makes far more sense than a "Multiverse," most people choose to reject it because it undermines their *core ideology or belief* (theism or atheism).
Naturalness is not about avoiding fine-tuning altogether, but rather about understanding why certain parameters have the values they do. Naturalness does not necessarily imply that parameters cannot be fine-tuned but rather seeks explanations for observed values based on fundamental principles of physics. The Multiverse Hypothesis was not made up to explain away fine-tuning through sheer numbers. In reality, the multiverse hypothesis is grounded in theoretical frameworks such as inflationary cosmology and string theory and is motivated by fundamental principles of physics. When considering Occam's razor and evaluating the simplicity of explanations, it's essential to examine the assumptions and implications of positing that a minimum intelligence is embedded within the structure of the universe. This introduces additional assumptions without necessarily simplifying the explanation. It raises questions about the nature and origin of this intelligence, which may complicate the overall explanation. Moreover, the assertion that intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligent matter overlooks the well-established principles of emergent phenomena, whereby complex behaviors and properties can emerge from simple underlying rules or structures without the need for external intelligence. Intelligence and consciousness are often conflated, but they are distinctly different. Consciousness is discussed within the framework of philosophy of mind, where the dualism versus physicalism debate offers nuanced perspectives. While dualism raises intriguing points, including the hard problem of consciousness, advancements in neuroscience bolster physicalism's position. But the counterarguments to the claim that whether intelligence and/or consciousness is fundamental are the same. For example, what form does this intelligence take? How does it interact with the physical laws of the universe? How did it come to be embedded within the structure of the universe? These additional assumptions and unanswered questions detract from the simplicity of the explanation.
@@mortedelsogno *"The Multiverse Hypothesis was not made up to explain away fine-tuning through sheer numbers."* ... That's fine, but Multiverse produces even more unanswered questions then you'd have with explaining a single universe. *Example:* In this video, Nima proposes that out of 10^500 universes, we happen to be in the one that works. ... Yay us! This assumes that each universe that is a failed configuration is supplanted by another attempt, and sooner or later you end up with a winner through process of elimination. What this fails to consider is that a nonintelligent universe wouldn't know what works and what doesn't, so it could produce the same failed configuration over and over and over. You could have 10^500 universes that are constructed using the exact same "failed configuration" as before because there's no filtering agent to suggest otherwise. *"The Multiverse Hypothesis was not made up to explain away fine-tuning through sheer numbers. In reality, the multiverse hypothesis is grounded in theoretical frameworks such as inflationary cosmology and string theory and is motivated by fundamental principles of physics."* ... Maybe so, but positing the existence of 10^500 universes to compensate for something that can be explained in a far simpler way doesn't speak well to "viability." You might as well go one tiny step higher and attribute it all to an omnipotent God. *"Moreover, the assertion that intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligent matter overlooks the well-established principles of emergent phenomena, whereby complex behaviors and properties can emerge from simple underlying rules or structures without the need for external intelligence."* ... And if we had a single example of intelligence emerging from nonintelligence, I would tend to agree ... _but we don't_ It is a far more "reasonable" position to argue that intelligence has always been present in some form, and it has evolved into greater complexity right along with everything else and in the same way *Example:* Complex life emerged from tiny single-celled procaryotes, complex humans emerge from a tiny zygote, the universe emerged from a tiny singularity. Likewise, self-aware intelligence emerged from a tiny representation of intelligence. *"Intelligence and consciousness are often conflated, but they are distinctly different."* ... They are interdependent in biological lifeforms. The only way you can be consciously 'aware" of anything at all is if you possess a minimal amount of intelligence that's able to process whatever you've become aware of. *'For example, what form does this intelligence take? How does it interact with the physical laws of the universe?"* ... It can be as simple as "flipping a bit" all the way up to a hyperintelligence over time. Whatever intelligence is present is commensurate with whatever tasks are required of it. Two atoms sharing an electron could be result of a minimal amount of intelligence setting up that exchange template. If I was the universe, and I rolled 100 marbles down a 45-degree surface to observe their interactions, all physicists would be able to observe 13.7 billion years later would be a bunch of marbles rolling down an incline because physics is an after-the-fact information-gathering process. Physicists can only deal with what has already happened. Anything beyond what is directly observable is reserved for the shady realm of "speculative physics." *"How did it come to be embedded within the structure of the universe? "* ... The same way that matter, energy, space and time are embedded within the fabric of the universe. It's all the necessary ingredients of the "universe cake." leave out any of the ingredients, and you have no cake (or a cake that nobody wants to eat). The truth is people don't want to consider this because it directly conflicts with their "core ideology" (which must always be protected).
You said ‘Intelligence didn't "evolve" from nonintelligent matter as that would present the same logical paradox as "something from nothing." - I thought you said the universes had a beginning; that nothing could exist eternally. In fact, You challenged someone to “tell you how something exists that didn’t have a beginning.” Now you’re telling us that intelligence didn’t evolve, so you’re saying it didn’t have a beginning. You said “The easiest, simplest, most logical conclusion is that the universe has a minimum amount of intelligence embedded within its structure. It's just enough to facilitate its existence and not enough for us to detect.” - how could anything “facilitate its own existence?” Please give proof of anything that facilitated its own existence. I would love to see an effect become its own cause.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC “Intelligence didn’t “evolve” from nonintelligent matter as that would present the same logical paradox as “something from nothing.”” This is simply not true. ‘Intelligence from nonintelligence’ is clearly an example of ‘something from something else’, not ‘something from nothing’. (In fact, there is arguably only one example of ‘something from nothing’ since it’s a very precise issue facing anyone presenting a theory of the origin of the universe.) If you were right that ‘intelligence from nonintelligence’ compares directly to ‘something from nothing’, since intelligence (the ‘something’) comes from something without intelligence (what you’re clearly referring to as the ‘nothing’), then that logic would have to extend to all emergent properties, since the property that emerges did not previously exist. ‘Sponginess cannot come from nonsponginess’… and yet sponge cakes exist. There may, of course, be other reasons to deny the plausible emergence of a property like intelligence, but comparing it to ‘something from nothing’ is a logical misstep. To be clear, and hopefully to save some time, this is a precise logical issue. If you choose to respond, please limit yourself to the logic that is under examination. I’m not denying your ‘minimal intelligence hypothesis’, I’m not arguing that intelligence can evolve from nonintelligence, I’m not suggesting that I can provide examples of intelligence coming from nonintelligence, and I’m definitely not suggesting that ‘sponginess’ is anything like intelligence. I’m only challenging the logic of the claim I quoted, and would need to see how nonintelligent matter can plausibly be considered to be nothing before I could seriously entertain that claim.
@@dr_shrinker *"I thought you said the universes had a beginning; that nothing could exist eternally."* ... No, I said "infinite origin" is impossible (inconceivable). You should really try getting this right before commenting. Once something comes into existence, it's potential for eternal existence is present unless there is a barrier to its sustained existence. And yes, the universe has a beginning. *"Now you’re telling us that intelligence didn’t evolve, so you’re saying it didn’t have a beginning."* ... No, I said intelligence cannot evolve from nonintelligence. Get it right! *"how could anything “facilitate its own existence?” Please give proof of anything that facilitated its own existence. I would love to see an effect become its own cause."* ... Why do you think I would waste my time explaining my ToE to you when you can't even get your first two points correct? Besides, I could write out right now what ends up being discovered as the truth later on, and all you'd do is marginalize every word I've written today. You're not interested in my take on reality or any thinking outside the box. Your only interest is marginalizing whatever I write. That's your goal ... and it's good to have goals!
Tell me you're a string theorist without telling me you're a string theorist.
Nima is such a personable scientist! 🥰
Yeah, love his “chalk-takes”! /s
The simple fact that we can IMAGINE it being otherwise is the ONLY thing that makes us wonder why it ISN'T otherwise. Ultimately, the meaningfulness of the problem is an illusion.
Physicists will explore 10^60 possibilities and still be limited by the structure of their brain wiring. It makes them great linear thinkers but unable to envision possibilities beyond 3D.
decay
Some claim information is fundamental. Shine a flash light in the darkness and everything you can perceive, is the fundamental. Illumination is fundamental, is what they're saying. Things in form, i.e. information, can not be antecedent to that of its cause. To say information is fundamental is saying that things conferred Being unto themselves, and brought themselves into existence. Imagine that. Violates Reason. Such persons aren't after Reason but reification of their relativity.
What do you mean by a state of being? Something you can touch? Something that exists in space? What if at the bottom is something more like information or a series of rules? Something we would call abstract. Tables and chairs would supervene. Their form and being would be inferred by us as observers.
You can talk and talk and talk forever, but what do you want? Where are you wanna go? Truth just offers itself more tangible, when we are just still. There's nothing special to do or to think.
Does it actually matter……nope
We don’t know . Fine tuning is pseudoscience.the laws of physics stop working below planck measure, inside a black hole or before the big bang … after all ,does constant are not that constant at all 😂
Rambling gibberich.
Ah yes, the fiendish and elusive Gibberich, an ephemeral creature that rambles across the celestial horizon, snatching the moon dust crystals from the grubby paws of the Bantamocks.
@@FigmentHF *"snatching the moon dust crystals from the grubby paws of the Bantamocks."* ... While also marginalizing every hypothesis, theory and proposition ever presented on the CTT channel. Yes, the elusive Gibberish Creature hates them ALL!
You are an enigma, Maxwell. But I shall persist in my efforts to learn your language and to determine your motivations. 😊
He needs to calm down a bit; he wants to talk faster than his mind can process.
Magnetism/Aether fundamental. I'm a disciple of a man who has cracked the G.U.T. who, too, is expert on magnetism. Everything in the universe is either the shower head or the drain. Nobody is interested in the drain. The shower head being all the material things and phenomena. The drain is the dissolution,and in this, is the real energy. It is that simple.