Why? The only thing which attracts masses are masses. So there must be a large mass out there, large enough to attract the "local group" "Virgo cluster" etc.. By what evidence the accumulation of mass has been caused we don't know. There are just a few possibilities, which are capable to accumulate high densities of mass.
Perhaps the universe is not 14 billion years old as mainstream scientists think. I see implausible that so much structure could have formed in such short time especially if the outrageous and extravagant Guth's inflation hypothesis is correct
Ah yes, another quote goes something like "there are those who say it was a big mistake when man came out the trees, there are others who argue our biggest mistake was crawling out of the water "
I also think that people like Sabine existed in a previous iteration of the Universe, they did their jobs too well and now we're in a more strange, complicated iteration that replaced it. Sabine et. al. are bringing about understanding this Universe and it'll also be replaced by something even more inexplicably complicated.
Thank you for pointing out “naive extrapolation;” quite often in videos of this type, speakers treat the concept of the “singularity” Big Bang as if it were written in stone - not that I take issue with that as an assumption given the paucity of data we have regarding the earliest periods of the universe, but I think it’s so important to point out, at least, that it is an assumption.
Kind of a gigantic assumption purely based on math equations which love using infinity, but we have never observed infinity occur anywhere. Black holes are described as infinitely dense while we have now observed many different sizes of black hole which would point to them being very, very dense certainly, but different in size and structure as their spin velocities change as well. Obviously we are missing a big piece and I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume we are missing an even larger piece when it comes to the big bang singularity theory. Personally I think we are misinterpreting red shift over great distances and the significance of the cosmic microwave background. Not a physicist, just a thinker, could be wrong.
It's almost futile to try to dispel the popsci notion that black holes are not actually postulated to be singularities, just an exotic state of matter/energy. Singularities are like trying to divide by 0.
That's one of my biggest gripes with many mainstream physicists. They talk about speculative things that have not been verified by experiments as if they were fact.
This is the "12 law of power" which states "use selective honest to disarm your victim". This lady is not a valid thinker, she is honest in one matter to gain your trust and you think her honesty in one matter is a constant when actually it is a variable. Your trust is now a constant when it should be a variable dependent on the independent circumstances. Check every premise and you will soon find her theories and ideas are based on fluff, sophistry, and verbosity.
After having watched several videos, I want to compliment you on being an excellent science communicator! I appreciate how difficult it can be to explain complicated topics to laypersons, and you're doing great! Thanks for sharing your knowledge with me😁
She is indeed a very good science communicator and also keep the things on the right size paying attention not to say gobbledygook like "in entanglement particle interaction is faster than light" or "the highs interaction can be seen as a ball moving in water".
Yea, I only graduated high school but I am deeply in dented to people like her, Degrasse Tyson, Hawkings etc who have helped up my science knowledge tremendously. IF we had more teachers like this, especially at the high school level it would take far more people to higher places thus increasing our knowledge overall.
If a wildman from a time of civilization that dates a few millenia ago can understand what's discussed in a video, then that person is very much a good scientific communicator
I feel you. I can follow along only so far. Usually I cannot keep up. But the more I watch Sabine, the more I realize, when consuming other media, that she has actually taught me some basic principle that I had not previously grasped. She must be a wonderful professor. It IS fun to try to keep up.
@@SabineHossenfelder It was a good tease but I think we can assume it's a Superclusters such as the monster that is the Shapely, which the great attractor itself is moving towards. Or it could be a decillion number of Death Stars :). Thanks again for the content.
I absolutely love Sabine’s explanations. I have a high school education and she makes this stuff plain. I also loved Uncle Kerr’s dismissive remarks, because he opened the door to some even more elementary explanations of the basic understanding of cosmic physics. Thanks, everybody (but especially Sabine, who did the lion’s share of the work).
the Great Attractor was a nickname giving to a very Fat Dude that we were afraid about adding some grams to his weight because that would tearing down-inside space-time fabrik ... Believe me ( you don't have at all to do it ), Nobody felt attracted to him just some local mass got sucked by inertia ...
@@curiodyssey3867 Jeff, King of Amazon, Feudal lord of new age, 200 Billion dollar man and Master of plastic bottles as replacement for WC is that you?
@@firstnamesurname6550 everybody needs some weight to exist otherwise you wouldn't have own atmosphere around yourself. That's my last fat joke. Fatshaming is not cool.
Recent research has shown what the 'great attractor' is. It's 'just' another gigantic cluster of galaxies. Can't remember the name they gave it though.
ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Forces are responsible for effects. Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force). Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality. Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
Why does everyone act like the big bang isn't an event still in progress? If the expansion is still accelerating doesn't that indicate we're still in the early stages of the bang?
ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Forces are responsible for effects. Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force). Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality. Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
It's not considered an event still in progress because the Big Bang is a term in reference to a time when the celestial particles that we know of were so close to each other that they interacted in a way that our current knowledge of science cannot explain. You are correct that these particles may have interacted in a way (prior to that time) which also simply expanded from a smaller point, but if that were the case, we just don't know how to make our current knowledge of science explain how scientifically.
@@bentonrp a time when the celestial particles that we know of were so close to each other that they interacted in a way that our current knowledge of science cannot explain. So, like a singularity..
@@derekflegg2510 I would be careful to agree with that. Singularity can be defined as the mass within a black hole. We know how a black hole operates. We're talking about something that we're unclear about the operation of. It could be similar, but it likely isn't.
ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Forces are responsible for effects. Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force). Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality. Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
So, if we could magically go in an instant to a galaxy on the edge of our vision and looked, we would still be in the middle ? Just like we seem to be here? Makes sense in a strange relativistic way.
The galaxy on the edge of our vision might not exist anymore at the present moment, unless you also go to the past. If you limit your travel velocity to the speed of light, you will never get there because space is expanding faster than speed of light.
9:03 "Please choose a new password. It must have at least 10 digits, it cannot contain your first name, must have letters both capitals and not, at least one number, one special symbol, *and three golden hairs of a mammoth plugged 5 minutes after midnight when the moon is full.*" was probably the best and most hillarious description of password rules I ever heard. 😂
Asking “Where was the Big Bang?” is similar to asking “What happened before the Big Bang?” It’s something that’s difficult to visualize because we tend visualize everything in time and place. No-time and no-place are hard concepts.
I studied this for years and you just blew my mind, I understand the Maths but to actually be able to visualize it is utterly fantastic. The universe has always been infinite, the space between everything just grew really fast to the point where things were allowed to happen as they do now. The grapefruit visual helps in that I imagine that as the observable universe with effectively an infinite number of grapefruits next to each other. That was the environment of how the universe was. The environment changed because there was more space for things to move around in. Space lowers the temperature and allows for things we are familiar with to happen.
Oh my god. THANK YOU for explaining the co-moving frame. I thought I was going crazy trying to make peace with "physics looks the same for all inertial frames" and "things that are far away can retreat faster than light if the space between it and you expands quickly enough".
The center of the universe is outside of our small portion of the visible universe. If you extrapolate back from the vector of dark flow, it will intersect with the center of the universe. This point is equidistant from all points on the holographic surface of the universe.
I had previously learned about center of expansions as the center always being one dimension away. For example, a circle is just a one dimensional line curved around so you can only go one way or another in that dimension and always end up where you started but the center of the circle is in a two dimensional plane. For a two dimensional surface that curves on itself, you can move in two dimensions and, again, always end up where you started but the center of the resulting sphere is in the unreachable third dimension. Which, of course, would mean that a three dimensional expanding volume that curves on itself would have its center in the unreachable fourth dimension.
There are no "two dimensions" in space. If the third real spatial dimension is zero then the so-called 2 dimensions in the real space are also zero. It is one thing to just imagine that something non-existent might exist, and a different thing of what exactly and real exists in the material reality of the real Universe.
Perhaps broken symmetry of a singularity comes as an expansion contraction leaving a shell circle event horizon. A drop in dimension, and again if time is used in small line segments, introducing linear motion as quantum fluctuations and breaking the circle. Oddly enough, the drop going from 1D to 2D and 3D, not the other way around. The singularity still there untouched.
This analogy only works if the expanding surface has positive curvature (it loops back around to meet itself - and hence is finite). A flat surface or one with negative curvature goes on forever. The analogy I like to use for a flat surface (which seems to be the case for the spacetime we live in) is to imagine a flat plane with grid lines drawn on it. The plane is, by definition, flat and goes on forever in all directions. There is no single point that is the center of the plane. Now, to visualize expansion on this plane, simply imagine the spacing between grid lines to double every second. If you look at the plane at different points, it will look exactly the same. The expansion will always look like it's happening from the center point - even if you move your view to a different center point. And, crucially, we can note that this central point is just the center of our viewing of the plane, and the point does not lie in a third dimension outside of the plane. In fact, there is no need for an extra dimension outside the plane in this analogy to view the expansion.
@@cefarix I think that our Universe is just so large that it looks flat up to the MWBR just like our Earth looks flat up to the Horizon because we are so small compared to the surface we are on. If the multiverse theory is correct you can have the multiverse be infinite but the individual universes in it have to be finite. And, Yes, I know that Cantor proved that some infinities are contained within others but, to me, that's just math not physics.
Yo Sabine, you once again blew my mind with Big Bang = The moment when the density of matter in the Universe goes to infinity everywhere. Thank you thank you thank you
In a black hole the matter falling toward the singularity doesnt actually arive at the singularity until all at once some time in the very very far future
The density of matter tends to infinity with the caveat there is only one place in the universe to be at that moment, so everywhere is a single location.
So do I get that right: in the standard theory the universe was still infinitely large when the Big Bang happened and only if we look at our observable (finite) part of the universe it was an infinitesimal tiny space-time-dot? I had no idea that the universe is assumed infinitely big in Einstein‘s theory since that causes some weird paradoxes (Olbers).
There is no answer, at least not in science. Whatever is outside of the skin of the grapefruit never entered in contact with what we can see and will never be, so there no way it affected our observable universe and no way to infer what is there, so we can do any assumption we want. Even if what is outside affected some other point nearer than us to the border of the observable universe, this happened at a time that still makes impossible for us to observe it.
The universe isn't the stuff in it, it's the place the stuff happens in. The place was always there, expanding, and infinitely large, the stuff is being carried with it and used to be closer together to a degree we cannot model for reasons we do not know. If I understand it right.
What is infinitely large is the third dimension. This is why she mentioned that a one-dimensional line is made up of an infinite number of zero-dimensional points. Every dimension is infinite, even if from the "outside" it would appear to have a border, because it is always made up of an infinite number of points, lines and/or planes. Space can expand forever in an infinite dimension, even though it may occupy the entirety of the dimension. That seems to be a paradox, but, oddly enough, it is only a mental paradox, and not a physical one. The Universe has no edge, anymore than the Earth does, and everyone on Earth finds themselves at the center of this "plane".
I see a lot of "common sense" in what you said, and less speculations that in other's presentations, and for that reason, I really enjoy your videos. Like!
@@unclekerr4369 If you really dig in the science subject, you may find many inconsistencies. Scientific and proved are other things that are not the same thing. Math, one of the ... robust system we are aware of has also inconsistencies. Godel proved that (in a math way!) through those 2 incompleteness theorems...., which roughly says - any logical system (including math) is at least incomplete or at least wrong.... But, it might be both. I remind you that for a thing to be scientific there must be fulfilled 3 conditions at once: - to predict something - to test it in at least 2 different ways, in a reasonable time - repeating tests, yields the same results. There are a lot of things presented to be scientific but they are not. Note: for a thing to be true it's not necessary to be scientific. I give you an e.g.: My birth is a unique event, but it's not scientific because, it can't be repeated. Nevertheless it is a true event.
Since I found your channel I have been enjoying your videos very much. Love your sense of humor. I have also recently caught myself noticing your wardrobe (very chic), and this morning I watched a video that is several years old. You appear to be ageless. Oh, also, I really like your music videos. I really wish I had a teacher as engaging as yourself when I was younger. I think I appreciate most that you make it clear that a lot of what we "know" based on the maths, we don't really know for sure because we lack direct observation. That admission soothes my nerves when it comes to understanding both the quantum and the cosmos.
Theoretical Physics is so interesting, part of me still wishes I would have gone that route, but then I wouldn't have had the very fun and challenging and rewarding career I did as an Engineer. It would be fun to be able to rewind the clock and see what I could have made of my life as a theoretical physicist, but until someone figures out how to deal with the pesky challenges of building a time machine, I guess that isn't in the cards. I am so happy to have found Ms. Hossenfelder's channel, a true treasure chest (a Ph.D. Aerospace/Computer Engineer who spent 36 years at a large American defense contractor.
@@twigsagan3857 we need a word that means "the best we have proven so far" so that is clear that we know no better now as proven, but it is not closed completely.
@@twigsagan3857 Karl Popper used the term conjecture. Anybody literate in science should understand that theory equals explanation. It’s technically incorrect to talk of scientific theories being proven; scientific theories can only be corroborated or falsified.
"A long time ago, actually never (and also now), nothing is nowhere. When? Never. Makes sense, right? Like I said, it didn't happen. Nothing was never anywhere. That's why it's been everywhere. It's been so everywhere, you don't even need a where. You don't even need a when. That's how *every* it gets." *edit* - Bill Wurtz, The History of the Entire World, I Guess.
Question: If the milky way (includes us) is traveling at 630km/s relative to the CMB, how much slower is time for us than the CMB? (aka time stops at 299,792.458km/s) > Put another way, if our galaxy continues to accelerate, at what point does time slow so much (for us) that our movement through the universe will appear to be an infinite journey? (or is it like the photon and our journey is over (from our perspective) without even knowing we have moved such a long way through space?) > We can further reduce the speed of time if we include the net mass of the galaxy. Sorry if my question is not well put.
@@georgelionon9050 George as smart as you appear to be, it seems English may not be your first language. Saw you spell a word docents for dozens ... and now Physits for Physicists... or is it just laziness or sloppiness? Or is it you simply do not spell very well. In either case, do not sweat it. Throughout history there have been very successful, wealthy , influential people who were poor spellers.
8:25 There's an absolute rest-frame and we can measure our speed relative to it! If you said such a thing on April 1st, I wouldn't have believed you. This is really engaging educational material. Thank you!
@@georgelionon9050 What's the difference between a rest frame and a reference frame? I thought they were synonyms for the "inertial reference frame" concept that special relativity textbooks frequently refer to.
ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Forces are responsible for effects. Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force). Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality. Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
Interesting how Sabine reframes the sentence ' I don't know;' to 'nobody knows'. If all self declared experts would do this then we all know nothing. But then again, that may actually be the case and even the goal of academia, since we made no progress for 40 years...,
@@EnglishmanB3 When the Hubble telescope and other devices played their powers of magnification on the supposedly youngest of galaxies a mere 500 million years from the Red Shift limit, they found themselves looking at 2nd generation - carbon content stars - in these galaxies. Well folks, that's a far cry from a realm that was predicted to merely consist of primordial beginning-of-the-Big-Bang subatomic primordial ooze. When the Webb Telescope takes a gander with its magnification 20 times more powerful than the Hubble, there's going to be some serious reevaluation...Or will the Big Bangers merely move the goalposts further into the Red Limit?
@@StephenGoodfellow A native American tribesman while high on some hallucinogen mapped out a certain part of the galaxy before any telescope was able to stretch that far because "he'd been there"... 20 years later (ish) ... the telescope folk found it, precisely.
Hey, Thanks for making these videos, Sabine. I'm a mathematician who left his phd because of health reasons, but I still do math. Videos like yours help me remind me how much I love science.
If you think it's possible to add infinite zeros and have a result that isn't zero you should perhaps not be practicing math without supervision. You cannot possibly have a PHD in math and actually believe you can do any math operation with infinity as a value. Perhaps with your expertise you might give us the answer to infinity multiplied by two? Should be simple for you.
What if it is all a Big Heartbeat? Boum boum. Inspire. Expire. Contract. Relax. In. Out. In an endless spiral. My two cents. Have an amazing day everyone.
no surprise, when science is hijack by religious “scientists”, always find easy way to make conclusions. And the most celebrity scientists just regurgitate it in the media
ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Forces are responsible for effects. Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force). Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality. Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
Not as lost as I thought I was on relativity; with someone who can explain it so well it falls into place easier. And the great attractor gives me chills at every mention.
ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Forces are responsible for effects. Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force). Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality. Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
A Great Attractor that we don't know what it is or why we're going there. A bit like life, really. : ) Also, Popular Scientific Confusions is the name of my electro-clash noise album.
ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Forces are responsible for effects. Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force). Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality. Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
When we go back in time we are also going into a higher gravitational field since the density of matter is increasing. So why is gravitational time dilation never included in to the calculation of the age of the universe?
The page Nexus of Physics has now given the following two writings the thumbs up on their page. ALSO consider this: E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE UNIVERSAL AND MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY: Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE SUN AND THE EARTH are described and represented by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational (IN BALANCE). Objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS the SPEED OF LIGHT is RELATIVELY CONSTANT AS WELL. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. In fact, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. So, THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are not "falling" in what is "curved SPACE" in RELATION to what is THE SUN. This is nonsense. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. This truly explains PERPETUAL MOTION. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. By Frank DiMeglio EINSTEIN NEVER UNDERSTOOD PHILOSOPHY, MATHEMATICS, AND PHYSICS, AS HE HAS BEEN TOTALLY OUTSMARTED BY SIR FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO: The balance of being AND EXPERIENCE is ESSENTIAL. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. THE SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. MOREOVER, the ability of THOUGHT to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE. Dream experience is/involves true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. MOST IMPORTANTLY, in dreams, BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE is invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE. IMPORTANTLY, dream experience is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. THE EYE is ALSO the body. Dreams improve upon memory AND UNDERSTANDING. Indeed, there is no outsmarting the GENIUS of dreams. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/with what is THE EARTH. NOW, get a good LOOK at what is the translucent, SEMI-SPHERICAL, QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AND BLUE sky. Excellent. The DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. THE EARTH IS also BLUE (as water). F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that, why, and how ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, and describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. SO, it is NECESSARILY a matter of precisely how these equations are understood in a BALANCED, EXTENSIVE, AND INTEGRATED fashion in RELATION to/with WHAT IS THOUGHT. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Get a good LOOK at what is THE EYE. POINTS are points. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. OPEN your EYES. NOW, LOOK at what is the FLAT, SETTING, AND ORANGE SUN (with the SPACE around it THEN going invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE). This ORANGE SUN manifests or forms at what is EYE LEVEL/BODY HEIGHT as well. This ORANGE SUN is manifest ON BALANCE as what is NECESSARILY the BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE of THE EARTH/LAVA. The viscosity of LAVA IS BETWEEN what is manifest as WATER AND THE EARTH/GROUND. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. F=ma AND E=mc2 do provide absolute, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, and CLEAR proof that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THEREFORE, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent with/as what is F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is PERPETUAL MOTION; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are NOT "falling" in what is "curved SPACE". In fact, this is nonsense. It is PROVEN. By Frank DiMeglio
Age of the universe is estimated in several ways by direct observation of the universe and they have to be adjusting for Relativity but that getting into stupid hard math to explain to us lay people.
It seems like a reasonable question, really deserves an answer from sabine herself. The key is that there are no reference frames outside of the universe to compare with.
Sabine, I've heard and read a lot about the size of the universe but you are the first who mentioned that that refers only to a visible part. That explains a lot of interpretations of the calculations! Thank you! But come on, why such a small but valuable clarification does not exist in all the descriptions?)
I have the same question. I am not sure this is true though, otherwise how could no one else mention it but Sabine? Another posiibility is, as we've seen in last few decades, all initial simplisctic assumptions about the Bing Bang theiry seems to be fading away and it soem more scientists like Sabine speak their mind a little more freely, and I mean outside the box.. There are many more questiones begging answers than any one ever answred by this theory. One more fundamental questions I have always thought no one mentionening is how much can the universe possibly be squeezed?
I the biblical creation something was created “god” before creation. And somehow no one cares to postulate “god’s” creation except those who realize god was created by humans.
Impressed Sabine qualified the speculation of the "big bang" in that the math worked backwards results in a certain condition, that in all intents and purposes is just a guess with the math we have available do describe the observed conditions. Math works perfectly in certain areas within certain conditions. 10 cows minus 1 cow equals 9 cows. 10-1=9. This equations works everyday all day, every time all the time. It however tells us nothing about the cow, i.e., there is no such thing a a negative cow. The negative 1 we invented to describe this specific condition perfectly predicts what happens when a cow is sold, or dies or walks off, and expounding on that simple precept we have developed mathematics which describes and predict future or past conditions, but the cow doesn't care.
ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Forces are responsible for effects. Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force). Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality. Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual. "May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying. "The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
Richard Feynman's lectures made me feel that I understand something. Sabine Hossenfelder makes me feel this way too. Of course, it doesn't mean that I understand anything, but if I want to spend some time trying, here I have a good place to spend it :) From what I understand so far the Great Attractor is a tabletop in the kitchen of "God", and we are creatures living on the spec of dust under his fingernail. It's reaching for a bread :p
It's not that difficult to visualize in a way that is more approximately correct than an explosion... just fade from white to fluffy gas clouds spreading out and then an expanding universe with coalescing stars and galaxies, rather than having a camera sit in space watching a point go boom. I think the most important part to drive home for the average viewer is that the Big Bang is the density of the universe abruptly dropping from (near?) infinity, not exploding outwards into somewhere that was already there.
@@CAThompson the thing was ... that the first time that I went for a walk outside ... It was terrifying to watch 'my' body from 'out there ... and the face just makes me return inside-in as inside-in I could ... In the 'inside' place where I can not even watch my self again ... the only stuff that could scare me are the mirrors ... but at least, I will not see my face from all the possible 'out there to in there' perspectives ... Sometimes, just a single time out there is enough to never return to it ...
What is crazier than trying to comprehend this video is this very smart person has but 365K subscribers and someone like a Kardashian has about 3 million followers on Instagram. Humans, still so primitive.
And 100k people in concentration camps in bother Korea being tortured while we write and watch. That will help complete the picture of human civilisation as a whole on this planet.
"I am in everything and everything is in me" . This describes the big bang perfectly. This was how Lord Krishna described his true self, in Bhagavad Gita. It was written about 4-5K years back.
I actually know where “the Big Bang” happened, but as a gentleman, I can disclose neither a name nor an address. 😉 But seriously, very interesting video.
This is why you'll never find the center, because people refuse to think more deeply about things. How do you find the center of a sphere in motion? How do you find the center of an explosion in a jet stream? You find the speed of the wind, the direction of the wind, and the rate of the expansion of the explosion. All those things are quite possible with modern technology. If we did try to find a supposed center and it was severely off centered, we'd know a great deal more about just how big the universe actually is. Especially if the relative center is out of our cosmic horizon. Or imagine if we find some galaxies are centered around one core, and others around different cores. This would bring up the possibility of multiple big bangs that collide over cosmic distances. Another reason this question is relative is that if you look at the CMB, there appears to be a cold and hot side. The hot side is simply us moving away from the center and the cold is us moving away from the other side of the sphere as it would be traveling longer distances to get to us.
Current assumptions in Physics 1. The Universe began 2. Gravity is an attractive force 3. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant 4. The Universe has a measurable size Admitting these are only assumptions what would we observe differently if we assume the following 1a. The Universe has always been there 2a.There is a force being constantly generated and absorbed pushing things together 3a. The speed of light varies as the strength of this force 4a. The Universe is in fact infinite.
perhaps the universe size is constant and everything inside it is getting smaller leading to the illusion that from the point of view of something inside the universe, that the universe is expanding. Max Plank has a ruler to measure the smallest possible distance but his ruler also gets smaller.
The Astronomy Professor at UIS (University of Illinois Springfield) had an interesting idea. He said if the Big Bang produced energy that create matter and a slightly less amount of antimatter and the matching quantities of matter and antimatter recycled back into energy, that would show up. So his idea was the Big Bang created Neutrons that mostly decayed into Protons and Electrons or paired up into H2 / H3 / He3 / He4. Of course if you were going to create Neutrons you would expect an equal number of Anti-Neutrons. Of course, if you are going this route, just say once a black hole gets to a certain size, gravity goes away and the trapped neutron star explodes. This implies a universe with many creation points, which we haven't seen an impact on the Microwave Background.
Actually, isn't the observable universe far larger than 13 billion light-years of radio? Because of the universe's expansion, places whose light took all this time to reach us are actually much further.
I’ve wondered for a while now if what is called ‘the big bang’ could be more accurately described as ‘the big shift in scale’. My conjecture is that the universe is more like a fractal where there is no scale ground zero.
It happened in my college rental house when my roommates and I piled too much dirty laundry in the closet. The big bang was accompanied by a mushroom sprouting out of that pile. When electrons began condensing we decided to move out.
Imagine after some billions of years: "Dear passengers, we've arrived to the great attractor galaxyport. Please remain in your solar systems untill the galaxy comes to the complete stop. ... Parking position. ... Light speed limit disengaged. ... Business class passengers are invited to leave the galaxy first."
SABINE I like the way you talk about science and your HOHESTY . In reality we are starting learning about the universe. I like the way you approach every single subject. A lot of Scientists try to state that they know everything and they know nothing. Another guy I like because his Honesty is Michio Kaku. He is a good one too.
Asking where the center of something is implies that you know the shape and boundaries of it. Because we don't know the shape of the unobservable universe, we simply don't know where the 'center' is.
Awesome job putting it into terms us peasants can understand! Everytime I find myself stuck in traffic and I see the traffic light turn green 8 or 10 vehicles ahead of me. I then find myself anxiously anticipating my turn to start moving. Then I wonder where is Earth and/or our galaxy in this similar pathway/line of traffic except in all dimensions...traffic in front is moving but I'm still standing still.
A cyclic universe of Big Bangs and Big Crunches is the most logical form for an infinite universe to take, but if the universe doesn't collape toward its centre it must collapse toward its point of origin. Why couldn't that be regarded as its centre? There couldn't be an infinitely long time or time of any sort without the presence of matter, and to have a universe with no predecessor spring suddenly out of the void for no reason is contrary to the principle of cause and effect. It also violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which says that matter and energy can neiither be created nor destroyed. If the new universe is simply the old universe recycled, these problems are avoided.
As I see things it makes much more sense to think of the "big bang" as an event that took place at the periphery of the universe rather than its "center" -- especially since, as Bee explains, there actually is no center. This notion is consistent with the fact that the farther out our telescopes take us -- in any direction -- the closer we come to the origin. What I'm suggesting, in other words, is the possibility that the universe actually IMpanded rather than EXpanded. And I'm wondering whether there is anything in the evidence that contradicts such a hypothesis.
Its metaphysics with physics language and equations that leads to more questions than answers. Using physics language and equations to develop theories that expand the language and equations more as field of study that perhaps gets us closer to solving the mystery of the Universe and us.
I like how whenever people ask fun questions about traveling the speed of light, they're often responded with the stone wall reply "it's impossible to travel the speed of light". And then you get, the Milky Way is travelling 1 million mph. We know we can't travel faster then light through normal means. But space time expansion does allow it. If the Milky Way is travelling 1 million mph in relation to a fixed point, then we're moving faster than light right now.
"Naive Extrapolation". There is a gem in every Sabine video, love it. I already know that the answer to "what happened before the bang" is "time and its arrow arose with the bang itself, so there was no context of time outside of it, no "before" existed. The space between the galaxies still bothers me, especially since, apparently like Sabine, I guess I subscribe to the quantum gravity people telling me that space is quantized. That means, grainy, right? That means tiny tiny particles, right? So, what is stretching? Do there need to be new particles? New Spaceons? I believe I am falling into a trap like "before the big bang" Sabine probably has a video on this, I will look for it.
“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.” ― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time
If I understood correctly, prior to the big bang, the size of the universe was around a grapefruit? Does that mean that all the matter in the universe, without empty space, is the same as the original grapefruit? I would appreciate it if someone could clarify this for me, as I will never look at a grapefruit in the same way again. Thank you in advance!
Nobody says seriously it was the size of a grapefruit. All what is known, the universe was extremely dense and extremely hot (so it was a quark matter or something like that). As to its extent, it might have been finite or infinite. If it was finite, I think, it is unlikely that would be the size of grapefruit. It was something far larger than that. Since the current physics breaks down on singularities, there might be the minimal volume of space that makes sense to speak about. The space may be actually granular, and what we call a point-like elementary particle (like electron) may occupy exactly a single unit of space (or just a few of them). If that's true, that may give the minimal possible extent of the universe after Big Bang, implied from its total energy we currently can observe. But if the universe is infinite now, so it was from the very start. We also currently have very vague ideas about the true nature of time. But I think, it must play the crucial role in any interpretations of the origin of Big Bang. And since we currently lack any ideas what time actually is, all talks about the origin of Big Bang are essentially senseless.
I mean, if the grapefruit theory is correct, after the (supposed) big bang we would search for a CJB (Cosmic Juice Background) and the Great Attractor perchance could be a GDS (Great Drinking Straw)
Why does there need to be a "great attractor"? Can't we just be moving in that direction simply due to inertia we got during the chaos of the Big Bang, unless we're accelerating?
I like Sir Peneose's idea that the initial thermal equilibrium state is the bigbang that leads to an expansion, that leads to another thermal equilibrium (Hawkins' heat death), and so on.
"We're going towards what's called the great attractor, and no one knows what it is or why we're going there" - this is kinda spooky
The Great Attractor sounds like the plot device in a Star Trek episode.
Why? The only thing which attracts masses are masses. So there must be a large mass out there, large enough to attract the "local group" "Virgo cluster" etc..
By what evidence the accumulation of mass has been caused we don't know.
There are just a few possibilities, which are capable to accumulate high densities of mass.
But where is the great attractor going?....-;,'....
The “Great attractor?” Hmmmm….🤔 It sounds to me like someone is on the verge of a “Eureka” moment!🙂
Perhaps the universe is not 14 billion years old as mainstream scientists think. I see implausible that so much structure could have formed in such short time especially if the outrageous and extravagant Guth's inflation hypothesis is correct
"In the beginning the Universe was created. That made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move"
Ah yes, another quote goes something like "there are those who say it was a big mistake when man came out the trees, there are others who argue our biggest mistake was crawling out of the water "
The amount of angry people before was infinitely smaller!
I bet we're heading towards Millliways. I should probably invest that penny now, hey.
I also think that people like Sabine existed in a previous iteration of the Universe, they did their jobs too well and now we're in a more strange, complicated iteration that replaced it.
Sabine et. al. are bringing about understanding this Universe and it'll also be replaced by something even more inexplicably complicated.
@@waynedarronwalls6468 "We never should've started synthesizing RNA. Waste of energy."
I came to see why it took over 10 minutes to say “everywhere” and I was not disappointed. Brilliant as usual.
Thank you for pointing out “naive extrapolation;” quite often in videos of this type, speakers treat the concept of the “singularity” Big Bang as if it were written in stone - not that I take issue with that as an assumption given the paucity of data we have regarding the earliest periods of the universe, but I think it’s so important to point out, at least, that it is an assumption.
Kind of a gigantic assumption purely based on math equations which love using infinity, but we have never observed infinity occur anywhere. Black holes are described as infinitely dense while we have now observed many different sizes of black hole which would point to them being very, very dense certainly, but different in size and structure as their spin velocities change as well. Obviously we are missing a big piece and I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume we are missing an even larger piece when it comes to the big bang singularity theory. Personally I think we are misinterpreting red shift over great distances and the significance of the cosmic microwave background. Not a physicist, just a thinker, could be wrong.
@@Swolecows How would one observe infinity? We can only make a finite number of observations in finite time
It's almost futile to try to dispel the popsci notion that black holes are not actually postulated to be singularities, just an exotic state of matter/energy. Singularities are like trying to divide by 0.
That's one of my biggest gripes with many mainstream physicists. They talk about speculative things that have not been verified by experiments as if they were fact.
This is the "12 law of power" which states "use selective honest to disarm your victim". This lady is not a valid thinker, she is honest in one matter to gain your trust and you think her honesty in one matter is a constant when actually it is a variable. Your trust is now a constant when it should be a variable dependent on the independent circumstances. Check every premise and you will soon find her theories and ideas are based on fluff, sophistry, and verbosity.
After having watched several videos, I want to compliment you on being an excellent science communicator! I appreciate how difficult it can be to explain complicated topics to laypersons, and you're doing great! Thanks for sharing your knowledge with me😁
Liebe auch diesen Kanal 😍
She is indeed a very good science communicator and also keep the things on the right size paying attention not to say gobbledygook like "in entanglement particle interaction is faster than light" or "the highs interaction can be seen as a ball moving in water".
Yea, I only graduated high school but I am deeply in dented to people like her, Degrasse Tyson, Hawkings etc who have helped up my science knowledge tremendously. IF we had more teachers like this, especially at the high school level it would take far more people to higher places thus increasing our knowledge overall.
If a wildman from a time of civilization that dates a few millenia ago can understand what's discussed in a video, then that person is very much a good scientific communicator
"You can be at rest with the universe".
Thank you for this awesome phrase, I'll go meditate.
LOL..... OMMMMMMM....
@Mike JJJ %%% ???? @@@ #### ?????
Absolutely mind boggling. I simply can't wrap my mind around these concepts. So much fun trying to do so, though!
I feel you. I can follow along only so far. Usually I cannot keep up. But the more I watch Sabine, the more I realize, when consuming other media, that she has actually taught me some basic principle that I had not previously grasped. She must be a wonderful professor. It IS fun to try to keep up.
@@Sharonmxg Sabine is a wonderful teacher!
Ain't that the truth!!
The Universe is both particle and a Wave.
Why do we always speak of it as if it is a particle only.
I'm just grateful that my ignorance of these mind-boggling topics doesn't make it more likely that I'll, say, get in a car accident or catch COVID! 🤞😷
episode about this great attractor would be really entertaining
Thanks for the suggestion, I will keep this in mind!
@@SabineHossenfelder Yes, I'd love to hear you talk more about it!
@@SabineHossenfelder It was a good tease but I think we can assume it's a Superclusters such as the monster that is the Shapely, which the great attractor itself is moving towards. Or it could be a decillion number of Death Stars :). Thanks again for the content.
Harry Lesch talked about it in an Alpha centauri episode. Only in German
What about the Shapley Supercluster? It has been determined, its much closer and mass richer than the GA.
I absolutely love Sabine’s explanations. I have a high school education and she makes this stuff plain. I also loved Uncle Kerr’s dismissive remarks, because he opened the door to some even more elementary explanations of the basic understanding of cosmic physics. Thanks, everybody (but especially Sabine, who did the lion’s share of the work).
The Great Attractor sounds like someone's nickname with overabundance of confidence
Oh, nah ur thinking about the nickname for my pp, the great contractor
the Great Attractor was a nickname giving to a very Fat Dude that we were afraid about adding some grams to his weight because that would tearing down-inside space-time fabrik ... Believe me ( you don't have at all to do it ), Nobody felt attracted to him just some local mass got sucked by inertia ...
@@firstnamesurname6550 That sounds a bit rude.
@@curiodyssey3867 Jeff, King of Amazon, Feudal lord of new age, 200 Billion dollar man and Master of plastic bottles as replacement for WC is that you?
@@firstnamesurname6550 everybody needs some weight to exist otherwise you wouldn't have own atmosphere around yourself.
That's my last fat joke. Fatshaming is not cool.
I can picture the Great Attractor being a restaurant in Doctor Who where all people end up lol. Evil Dalek plot.
Nah, it's the restaurant at the end of the universe.
@@vauchomarx6733 Yeah, Milliways out past the Magrethea turnoff.
Recent research has shown what the 'great attractor' is. It's 'just' another gigantic cluster of galaxies. Can't remember the name they gave it though.
That's probably the most likely answer. We just can't see it is because its obscured by the plane of the Milky Way.
ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Forces are responsible for effects.
Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force).
Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy.
Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality.
Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz.
Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual.
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.
Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
Why does everyone act like the big bang isn't an event still in progress? If the expansion is still accelerating doesn't that indicate we're still in the early stages of the bang?
You're assuming that this process has to stop. Who knows.
ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Forces are responsible for effects.
Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force).
Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy.
Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality.
Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz.
Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual.
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.
Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
It's not considered an event still in progress because the Big Bang is a term in reference to
a time when the celestial particles that we know of were so close to each other
that they interacted in a way that our current knowledge of science cannot explain.
You are correct that these particles may have interacted in a way (prior to that time) which also simply expanded from a smaller point, but if that were the case, we just don't know how to make our current knowledge of science explain how scientifically.
@@bentonrp a time when the celestial particles that we know of were so close to each other
that they interacted in a way that our current knowledge of science cannot explain.
So, like a singularity..
@@derekflegg2510 I would be careful to agree with that. Singularity can be defined as the mass within a black hole. We know how a black hole operates. We're talking about something that we're unclear about the operation of. It could be similar, but it likely isn't.
As a casual, physics side-liner, Ive been waiting for this kind of explanation for a long time. This was so helpful for me. So Helpful.
ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Forces are responsible for effects.
Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force).
Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy.
Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality.
Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz.
Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual.
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.
Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
You waited 13.9 billion years.
So, if we could magically go in an instant to a galaxy on the edge of our vision and looked, we would still be in the middle ? Just like we seem to be here? Makes sense in a strange relativistic way.
That's what the currently most widely accepted model would predict, yes.
If The Universe is a Wave like the electron is then we just observe a small segment of its propagation.
The galaxy on the edge of our vision might not exist anymore at the present moment, unless you also go to the past. If you limit your travel velocity to the speed of light, you will never get there because space is expanding faster than speed of light.
@@SabineHossenfelder Would CMB look different at that location at the present moment?
If asked where the center of the Universe is located, logic dictates that it is always in the mind of each observer.
9:03 "Please choose a new password. It must have at least 10 digits, it cannot contain your first name, must have letters both capitals and not, at least one number, one special symbol, *and three golden hairs of a mammoth plugged 5 minutes after midnight when the moon is full.*" was probably the best and most hillarious description of password rules I ever heard. 😂
Asking “Where was the Big Bang?” is similar to asking “What happened before the Big Bang?” It’s something that’s difficult to visualize because we tend visualize everything in time and place. No-time and no-place are hard concepts.
If the big-bang were a white hole then time existed before the big bounce. And since the universe is infinite then there is no such thing as no-place.
The big bang is the where
Weak.
I don't know, whenever I hear the word infinity bandied around, I think maybe nobody really knows what's going on.
@John Barber Knocked. Not bandied.
I studied this for years and you just blew my mind, I understand the Maths but to actually be able to visualize it is utterly fantastic. The universe has always been infinite, the space between everything just grew really fast to the point where things were allowed to happen as they do now. The grapefruit visual helps in that I imagine that as the observable universe with effectively an infinite number of grapefruits next to each other. That was the environment of how the universe was. The environment changed because there was more space for things to move around in. Space lowers the temperature and allows for things we are familiar with to happen.
Oh my god. THANK YOU for explaining the co-moving frame. I thought I was going crazy trying to make peace with "physics looks the same for all inertial frames" and "things that are far away can retreat faster than light if the space between it and you expands quickly enough".
The center of the universe is outside of our small portion of the visible universe. If you extrapolate back from the vector of dark flow, it will intersect with the center of the universe. This point is equidistant from all points on the holographic surface of the universe.
I love the clear definitions. It makes it really understandable we do not know for sure a lot of things. We just use the best models we have.
Oh really? Can you imagine absolute Nothing Null Zero? They know nothing about begining or continuity of the Universe. These models are useless.
@@marianskodowski8337 You need to talk to George Lionon... George where are you?
Yes, this is what we call "German precision"
@@krakendragonslayer1909 I used the handle "BEOWULF" many years ago when I worked at a major refinery. COOL !
@@marianskodowski8337 no kurwa debil wierzący w duchy...
I want to say that I just found your channel and it's a breath of fresh air. You're videos are excellent
I'm 73% sure it was in West Croydon.
🤭
😂
Isn't West Croydon still about the size of a grapefruit?
I had previously learned about center of expansions as the center always being one dimension away.
For example, a circle is just a one dimensional line curved around so you can only go one way or another in that dimension and always end up where you started but the center of the circle is in a two dimensional plane. For a two dimensional surface that curves on itself, you can move in two dimensions and, again, always end up where you started but the center of the resulting sphere is in the unreachable third dimension. Which, of course, would mean that a three dimensional expanding volume that curves on itself would have its center in the unreachable fourth dimension.
There are no "two dimensions" in space. If the third real spatial dimension is zero then the so-called 2 dimensions in the real space are also zero.
It is one thing to just imagine that something non-existent might exist, and a different thing of what exactly and real exists in the material reality of the real Universe.
Perhaps broken symmetry of a singularity comes as an expansion contraction leaving a shell circle event horizon. A drop in dimension, and again if time is used in small line segments, introducing linear motion as quantum fluctuations and breaking the circle. Oddly enough, the drop going from 1D to 2D and 3D, not the other way around. The singularity still there untouched.
@@mikel4879 Until you realize that we each live in an I -Magi -Nation in this UniverseCity.
This analogy only works if the expanding surface has positive curvature (it loops back around to meet itself - and hence is finite). A flat surface or one with negative curvature goes on forever. The analogy I like to use for a flat surface (which seems to be the case for the spacetime we live in) is to imagine a flat plane with grid lines drawn on it. The plane is, by definition, flat and goes on forever in all directions. There is no single point that is the center of the plane. Now, to visualize expansion on this plane, simply imagine the spacing between grid lines to double every second. If you look at the plane at different points, it will look exactly the same. The expansion will always look like it's happening from the center point - even if you move your view to a different center point. And, crucially, we can note that this central point is just the center of our viewing of the plane, and the point does not lie in a third dimension outside of the plane. In fact, there is no need for an extra dimension outside the plane in this analogy to view the expansion.
@@cefarix I think that our Universe is just so large that it looks flat up to the MWBR just like our Earth looks flat up to the Horizon because we are so small compared to the surface we are on. If the multiverse theory is correct you can have the multiverse be infinite but the individual universes in it have to be finite.
And, Yes, I know that Cantor proved that some infinities are contained within others but, to me, that's just math not physics.
Can't wait to see what we find out when we finally see beyond the CMB using the gravitional wave background!
Interesting idea. Would that even be possible tho?
Yo Sabine, you once again blew my mind with Big Bang = The moment when the density of matter in the Universe goes to infinity everywhere. Thank you thank you thank you
einsteins general relativity doesen't work in big bang moment my friend, that's why we need quantum gravity
In a black hole the matter falling toward the singularity doesnt actually arive at the singularity until all at once some time in the very very far future
The density of matter tends to infinity with the caveat there is only one place in the universe to be at that moment, so everywhere is a single location.
@Hisham Malik Every model has its limits. So far, no one has been able to devise a model that works beyond the limits of general relativity.
@@BlastinRope and then, boom! The great attractor is reached and it's another blasted big bang.
So do I get that right: in the standard theory the universe was still infinitely large when the Big Bang happened and only if we look at our observable (finite) part of the universe it was an infinitesimal tiny space-time-dot? I had no idea that the universe is assumed infinitely big in Einstein‘s theory since that causes some weird paradoxes (Olbers).
There is no answer, at least not in science. Whatever is outside of the skin of the grapefruit never entered in contact with what we can see and will never be, so there no way it affected our observable universe and no way to infer what is there, so we can do any assumption we want.
Even if what is outside affected some other point nearer than us to the border of the observable universe, this happened at a time that still makes impossible for us to observe it.
@@ilkov yes!
The universe isn't the stuff in it, it's the place the stuff happens in. The place was always there, expanding, and infinitely large, the stuff is being carried with it and used to be closer together to a degree we cannot model for reasons we do not know. If I understand it right.
What is infinitely large is the third dimension. This is why she mentioned that a one-dimensional line is made up of an infinite number of zero-dimensional points. Every dimension is infinite, even if from the "outside" it would appear to have a border, because it is always made up of an infinite number of points, lines and/or planes. Space can expand forever in an infinite dimension, even though it may occupy the entirety of the dimension. That seems to be a paradox, but, oddly enough, it is only a mental paradox, and not a physical one. The Universe has no edge, anymore than the Earth does, and everyone on Earth finds themselves at the center of this "plane".
The nature of theories is that they are always changing.
Hi Sabine. Could you please do a video explaining entropy? I really like how you explain stuff!
I see a lot of "common sense" in what you said, and less speculations that in other's presentations, and for that reason, I really enjoy your videos. Like!
Maybe less speculations but massive ones. Because "no science ever defends it's first principles" everything is a speculation.
@@unclekerr4369 If you really dig in the science subject, you may find many inconsistencies.
Scientific and proved are other things that are not the same thing.
Math, one of the ... robust system we are aware of has also inconsistencies. Godel proved that (in a math way!) through those 2 incompleteness theorems...., which roughly says - any logical system (including math) is at least incomplete or at least wrong.... But, it might be both.
I remind you that for a thing to be scientific there must be fulfilled 3 conditions at once:
- to predict something
- to test it in at least 2 different ways, in a reasonable time
- repeating tests, yields the same results.
There are a lot of things presented to be scientific but they are not.
Note: for a thing to be true it's not necessary to be scientific.
I give you an e.g.:
My birth is a unique event, but it's not scientific because, it can't be repeated. Nevertheless it is a true event.
@@radupopescu9977 Science is becoming a fantasy.
@@unclekerr4369 It's case by case.
@@radupopescu9977 It must be but it seldom is which is why I say it's a religion.
Since I found your channel I have been enjoying your videos very much. Love your sense of humor. I have also recently caught myself noticing your wardrobe (very chic), and this morning I watched a video that is several years old. You appear to be ageless. Oh, also, I really like your music videos. I really wish I had a teacher as engaging as yourself when I was younger. I think I appreciate most that you make it clear that a lot of what we "know" based on the maths, we don't really know for sure because we lack direct observation. That admission soothes my nerves when it comes to understanding both the quantum and the cosmos.
Theoretical Physics is so interesting, part of me still wishes I would have gone that route, but then I wouldn't have had the very fun and challenging and rewarding career I did as an Engineer. It would be fun to be able to rewind the clock and see what I could have made of my life as a theoretical physicist, but until someone figures out how to deal with the pesky challenges of building a time machine, I guess that isn't in the cards. I am so happy to have found Ms. Hossenfelder's channel, a true treasure chest (a Ph.D. Aerospace/Computer Engineer who spent 36 years at a large American defense contractor.
Instead of the "Big Bang", we should call it the "Everywhere Stretch".
Reversing Einstein's equations back to singularity: The Gnab Gib
@@twigsagan3857 "The best explanation we have at the moment, not yet proven wrong."
The term "Big Bang" was originally meant as an insult. But for some reason, the term stuck.
@@twigsagan3857 we need a word that means "the best we have proven so far" so that is clear that we know no better now as proven, but it is not closed completely.
@@twigsagan3857 Karl Popper used the term conjecture. Anybody literate in science should understand that theory equals explanation. It’s technically incorrect to talk of scientific theories being proven; scientific theories can only be corroborated or falsified.
"A long time ago, actually never (and also now), nothing is nowhere. When? Never. Makes sense, right? Like I said, it didn't happen. Nothing was never anywhere. That's why it's been everywhere. It's been so everywhere, you don't even need a where. You don't even need a when. That's how *every* it gets." *edit* - Bill Wurtz, The History of the Entire World, I Guess.
😏
history of everything
I wonder if Sabine had seen it
@@SaeedNeamati Should've sourced it, like a good science doing person. First thing that came to mind. Thanks fam. Fixed in OP.
Welcome to the UniverseCity wher we become conscious of the I-Magi-Nation.
Question: If the milky way (includes us) is traveling at 630km/s relative to the CMB, how much slower is time for us than the CMB? (aka time stops at 299,792.458km/s)
>
Put another way, if our galaxy continues to accelerate, at what point does time slow so much (for us) that our movement through the universe will appear to be an infinite journey? (or is it like the photon and our journey is over (from our perspective) without even knowing we have moved such a long way through space?)
>
We can further reduce the speed of time if we include the net mass of the galaxy. Sorry if my question is not well put.
Sabine has undiscovered dramatic and cinematic talent.
I love her - in a totally sapiosexual way ;)
She's not a genius.
Never have so many of my preconceived notions of physics been destroyed in so few minutes...
To you with failing minds we throw, Sabine!
Honestly I've seen even physits doing this (IMO) error all the time saying "the universe" when they actually mean "the observable universe".
@@georgelionon9050 George as smart as you appear to be, it seems English may not be your first language. Saw you spell a word docents for dozens ... and now Physits for Physicists... or is it just laziness or sloppiness? Or is it you simply do not spell very well. In either case, do not sweat it. Throughout history there have been very successful, wealthy , influential people who were poor spellers.
This channel and PBS Space Time are my two favourite physics youtube channels. I swear I love Sabine's sense of humour! Pure gold!
Really starting to enjoy a weekly sobering science session with Sabine, thank you for being part of the public discourse!
8:47 ".. that's about a million miles per hour" - it is nice how you look after your viewers in Liberia and Myanmar.
Edit: and the US
I wonder what that is in units the other 7.5 billion people use.
8:25 There's an absolute rest-frame and we can measure our speed relative to it! If you said such a thing on April 1st, I wouldn't have believed you. This is really engaging educational material. Thank you!
It isn't a "rest-frame", but it's funny that after all there is a reference frame.
@@georgelionon9050 George are you SABINE in disguise or just her sorta "Unofficial Lil' Helper! :-)
@@georgelionon9050 What's the difference between a rest frame and a reference frame? I thought they were synonyms for the "inertial reference frame" concept that special relativity textbooks frequently refer to.
@@AdrianColley I think he's just amused by the word "rest" describing an expanding universe, where everything has relative velocities...
Terence McKenna called it "The Great Attractor At The End of Time". which is very dramatic.
So the Great Attractor = the Restaurant? (at the end of the universe)
It's most likely just another large cluster of galaxies, and we can't see it due to the plain of the milky way getting in the way.
@@megelizabeth9492 plane.
ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Forces are responsible for effects.
Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force).
Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy.
Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality.
Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz.
Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual.
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.
Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
"Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest."
~ Terence McKenna
Can't wait to see some Webb Space Telescope results!
"All of modern science was created at the behest of an Angelic entity, the heads at MiT are not talking about that I can assure you." ~T
Interesting how Sabine reframes the sentence ' I don't know;' to 'nobody knows'. If all self declared experts would do this then we all know nothing. But then again, that may actually be the case and even the goal of academia, since we made no progress for 40 years...,
@@RWin-fp5jn She's in no position to claim "nobody knows", quite right.
Those who require a reason for everything subvert reason. 🤓
@@EnglishmanB3 When the Hubble telescope and other devices played their powers of magnification on the supposedly youngest of galaxies a mere 500 million years from the Red Shift limit, they found themselves looking at 2nd generation - carbon content stars - in these galaxies.
Well folks, that's a far cry from a realm that was predicted to merely consist of primordial beginning-of-the-Big-Bang subatomic primordial ooze.
When the Webb Telescope takes a gander with its magnification 20 times more powerful than the Hubble, there's going to be some serious reevaluation...Or will the Big Bangers merely move the goalposts further into the Red Limit?
@@StephenGoodfellow A native American tribesman while high on some hallucinogen mapped out a certain part of the galaxy before any telescope was able to stretch that far because "he'd been there"... 20 years later (ish) ... the telescope folk found it, precisely.
Thank you for demystifying all these topics on your channel. Things make a lot more sense the way you explain them.
Sound effects budget must have gone up.
Hey, Thanks for making these videos, Sabine. I'm a mathematician who left his phd because of health reasons, but I still do math. Videos like yours help me remind me how much I love science.
good point, you can still do math though your phd fell through the cracks
If you think it's possible to add infinite zeros and have a result that isn't zero you should perhaps not be practicing math without supervision. You cannot possibly have a PHD in math and actually believe you can do any math operation with infinity as a value. Perhaps with your expertise you might give us the answer to infinity multiplied by two? Should be simple for you.
@@vincemorgan9640 LOL.
Before you criticize basic ideas of analysis, learn what they are.
It is beyond my comprehension that people become so invested in the critique of ideas that they do not understand AT ALL
What if it is all a Big Heartbeat? Boum boum. Inspire. Expire. Contract. Relax. In. Out. In an endless spiral. My two cents. Have an amazing day everyone.
Narcissists will be reassured to know that from our own perspective, we are always the centre of the universe.
no surprise, when science is hijack by religious “scientists”, always find easy way to make conclusions. And the most celebrity scientists just regurgitate it in the media
Lots of lovely information, I'll have to watch this again!
We are moving towards the Great Attractor because we have to be going somewhere...
ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Forces are responsible for effects.
Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force).
Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy.
Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality.
Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz.
Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual.
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.
Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
Not as lost as I thought I was on relativity; with someone who can explain it so well it falls into place easier. And the great attractor gives me chills at every mention.
ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Forces are responsible for effects.
Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force).
Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy.
Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality.
Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz.
Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual.
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.
Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
A Great Attractor that we don't know what it is or why we're going there. A bit like life, really. : )
Also, Popular Scientific Confusions is the name of my electro-clash noise album.
ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Forces are responsible for effects.
Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force).
Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy.
Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality.
Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz.
Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual.
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.
Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
When we go back in time we are also going into a higher gravitational field since the density of matter is increasing. So why is gravitational time dilation never included in to the calculation of the age of the universe?
The page Nexus of Physics has now given the following two writings the thumbs up on their page. ALSO consider this: E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
THE UNIVERSAL AND MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY:
Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE SUN AND THE EARTH are described and represented by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational (IN BALANCE). Objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS the SPEED OF LIGHT is RELATIVELY CONSTANT AS WELL. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. In fact, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. So, THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are not "falling" in what is "curved SPACE" in RELATION to what is THE SUN. This is nonsense. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. This truly explains PERPETUAL MOTION. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
By Frank DiMeglio
EINSTEIN NEVER UNDERSTOOD PHILOSOPHY, MATHEMATICS, AND PHYSICS, AS HE HAS BEEN TOTALLY OUTSMARTED BY SIR FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO:
The balance of being AND EXPERIENCE is ESSENTIAL. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
THE SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. MOREOVER, the ability of THOUGHT to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE.
Dream experience is/involves true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. MOST IMPORTANTLY, in dreams, BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE is invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE. IMPORTANTLY, dream experience is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. THE EYE is ALSO the body. Dreams improve upon memory AND UNDERSTANDING. Indeed, there is no outsmarting the GENIUS of dreams.
OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/with what is THE EARTH. NOW, get a good LOOK at what is the translucent, SEMI-SPHERICAL, QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AND BLUE sky. Excellent. The DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. THE EARTH IS also BLUE (as water).
F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that, why, and how ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, and describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. SO, it is NECESSARILY a matter of precisely how these equations are understood in a BALANCED, EXTENSIVE, AND INTEGRATED fashion in RELATION to/with WHAT IS THOUGHT. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma.
Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Get a good LOOK at what is THE EYE. POINTS are points. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT.
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. OPEN your EYES. NOW, LOOK at what is the FLAT, SETTING, AND ORANGE SUN (with the SPACE around it THEN going invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE). This ORANGE SUN manifests or forms at what is EYE LEVEL/BODY HEIGHT as well. This ORANGE SUN is manifest ON BALANCE as what is NECESSARILY the BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE of THE EARTH/LAVA. The viscosity of LAVA IS BETWEEN what is manifest as WATER AND THE EARTH/GROUND. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. F=ma AND E=mc2 do provide absolute, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, and CLEAR proof that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THEREFORE, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent with/as what is F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is PERPETUAL MOTION; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are NOT "falling" in what is "curved SPACE". In fact, this is nonsense. It is PROVEN.
By Frank DiMeglio
That is like being in the center of the earth , their is no gravity.
@@frankdimeglio8216 no hobbies?
Age of the universe is estimated in several ways by direct observation of the universe and they have to be adjusting for Relativity but that getting into stupid hard math to explain to us lay people.
It seems like a reasonable question, really deserves an answer from sabine herself. The key is that there are no reference frames outside of the universe to compare with.
Sabine, I've heard and read a lot about the size of the universe but you are the first who mentioned that that refers only to a visible part. That explains a lot of interpretations of the calculations! Thank you! But come on, why such a small but valuable clarification does not exist in all the descriptions?)
I have the same question. I am not sure this is true though, otherwise how could no one else mention it but Sabine? Another posiibility is, as we've seen in last few decades, all initial simplisctic assumptions about the Bing Bang theiry seems to be fading away and it soem more scientists like Sabine speak their mind a little more freely, and I mean outside the box.. There are many more questiones begging answers than any one ever answred by this theory. One more fundamental questions I have always thought no one mentionening is how much can the universe possibly be squeezed?
Great explanation! That seems to be the upper limit of what our understanding of the universe can accomplish.
“It is infinitely large now and has always been infinitely large.” Biblical flashbacks
In the Biblical narrative the universe had a beginning, so it wasn't always large
I the biblical creation something was created “god” before creation. And somehow no one cares to postulate “god’s” creation except those who realize god was created by humans.
@@thomasreedy4751 "God" refers to the beings who run the Universe Simulation Software.
@Sandra G What?
“We do not even know if the universe had a beginning.”
Professor Brian Cox
Physicist
well, it had too, if Einstein's equations are right, then the CMB and the expansion of space-time
Impressed Sabine qualified the speculation of the "big bang" in that the math worked backwards results in a certain condition, that in all intents and purposes is just a guess with the math we have available do describe the observed conditions. Math works perfectly in certain areas within certain conditions. 10 cows minus 1 cow equals 9 cows. 10-1=9. This equations works everyday all day, every time all the time. It however tells us nothing about the cow, i.e., there is no such thing a a negative cow. The negative 1 we invented to describe this specific condition perfectly predicts what happens when a cow is sold, or dies or walks off, and expounding on that simple precept we have developed mathematics which describes and predict future or past conditions, but the cow doesn't care.
"We're moving towards the 'Great Attractor', and nobody has any idea what that is..."
I'm about to invent the best Your Mom joke known to humanity
ATTRACTION is dual to REPULSION, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
If you want attractive forces (gravity) then you are automatically assuming a dual concept.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Forces are responsible for effects.
Cause is dual to effect implies correlation of the two (a force).
Thesis (cause) is dual to anti-thesis (effect) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (forces) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
The force of gravity (cause) results in apples falling to the ground (effect) and duality is conserved in this process, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy.
Forces have there origin in the conservation of duality -- generalized duality.
Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz.
Monads are units of force which are dual -- monads are dual.
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi saying.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi saying.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.
Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
Listening to how we're hurtling through space at incredible velocity while I'm laying here on my couch kinda freaks me out.
Amazing video as always now am more curious about the great attractor
Space is expanding faster than we’re falling towards the attractor so we’ll never get there
Richard Feynman's lectures made me feel that I understand something. Sabine Hossenfelder makes me feel this way too.
Of course, it doesn't mean that I understand anything, but if I want to spend some time trying, here I have a good place to spend it :)
From what I understand so far the Great Attractor is a tabletop in the kitchen of "God", and we are creatures living on the spec of dust under his fingernail. It's reaching for a bread :p
I hear you.
It's not that difficult to visualize in a way that is more approximately correct than an explosion... just fade from white to fluffy gas clouds spreading out and then an expanding universe with coalescing stars and galaxies, rather than having a camera sit in space watching a point go boom. I think the most important part to drive home for the average viewer is that the Big Bang is the density of the universe abruptly dropping from (near?) infinity, not exploding outwards into somewhere that was already there.
Sabine got her hair done! Brilliant and beautiful as well.
Perfect timing before my walk!
What's this "walk" you speak of? 😲
Is that an "outside" thing? 😲
I don't do outside, too scary 😱
@@DoctaOsiris Do You know why that is so scary ??
@@firstnamesurname6550 I'm not sure but there's an awful great mess of it out there.
@@CAThompson the thing was ... that the first time that I went for a walk outside ... It was terrifying to watch 'my' body from 'out there ... and the face just makes me return inside-in as inside-in I could ... In the 'inside' place where I can not even watch my self again ... the only stuff that could scare me are the mirrors ... but at least, I will not see my face from all the possible 'out there to in there' perspectives ... Sometimes, just a single time out there is enough to never return to it ...
@@firstnamesurname6550 I'm sure your face isn't that scary, even though looking at all of 'out there to inside-in' does sound rather off-putting.
Please do a video on the topology of the universe. Specifically interested in the 3-torus, flat space universe model.
Seriously enjoying your videos Sabine :) Thanks for doing them.
What is crazier than trying to comprehend this video is this very smart person has but 365K subscribers and someone like a Kardashian has about 3 million followers on Instagram.
Humans, still so primitive.
And 100k people in concentration camps in bother Korea being tortured while we write and watch. That will help complete the picture of human civilisation as a whole on this planet.
@@patinho5589
100K?
"I am in everything and everything is in me" . This describes the big bang perfectly. This was how Lord Krishna described his true self, in Bhagavad Gita. It was written about 4-5K years back.
I actually know where “the Big Bang” happened, but as a gentleman, I can disclose neither a name nor an address. 😉 But seriously, very interesting video.
Sitting here just now, watching this… and I look up to contemplate infinity and see the biggest, brightest ‘shooting star’ of my life. 💫
A cake with raisins that is being baked is a good analogy for the expanding 3D space (better than the band with buttons).
Sabine rocking a stylish new hairdo!
13th 👍
Take that numerologist nutters 🤪
This is why you'll never find the center, because people refuse to think more deeply about things. How do you find the center of a sphere in motion? How do you find the center of an explosion in a jet stream? You find the speed of the wind, the direction of the wind, and the rate of the expansion of the explosion. All those things are quite possible with modern technology. If we did try to find a supposed center and it was severely off centered, we'd know a great deal more about just how big the universe actually is. Especially if the relative center is out of our cosmic horizon. Or imagine if we find some galaxies are centered around one core, and others around different cores. This would bring up the possibility of multiple big bangs that collide over cosmic distances.
Another reason this question is relative is that if you look at the CMB, there appears to be a cold and hot side. The hot side is simply us moving away from the center and the cold is us moving away from the other side of the sphere as it would be traveling longer distances to get to us.
Thank you for making several things clear to me for the first time. You usually go over my head very quickly, but I love trying to learn new concepts.
Current assumptions in Physics
1. The Universe began
2. Gravity is an attractive force
3. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant
4. The Universe has a measurable size
Admitting these are only assumptions what would we observe differently if we assume the following
1a. The Universe has always been there
2a.There is a force being constantly generated and absorbed pushing things together
3a. The speed of light varies as the strength of this force
4a. The Universe is in fact infinite.
perhaps the universe size is constant and everything inside it is getting smaller leading to the illusion that from the point of view of something inside the universe, that the universe is expanding. Max Plank has a ruler to measure the smallest possible distance but his ruler also gets smaller.
The Astronomy Professor at UIS (University of Illinois Springfield) had an interesting idea. He said if the Big Bang produced energy that create matter and a slightly less amount of antimatter and the matching quantities of matter and antimatter recycled back into energy, that would show up. So his idea was the Big Bang created Neutrons that mostly decayed into Protons and Electrons or paired up into H2 / H3 / He3 / He4. Of course if you were going to create Neutrons you would expect an equal number of Anti-Neutrons.
Of course, if you are going this route, just say once a black hole gets to a certain size, gravity goes away and the trapped neutron star explodes. This implies a universe with many creation points, which we haven't seen an impact on the Microwave Background.
I am the big attractor! ... also finished AES in Schwalbach and continued up to PhD investigating in the field of Langmuir Blodget Layers.
Actually, isn't the observable universe far larger than 13 billion light-years of radio? Because of the universe's expansion, places whose light took all this time to reach us are actually much further.
I’ve wondered for a while now if what is called ‘the big bang’ could be more accurately described as ‘the big shift in scale’. My conjecture is that the universe is more like a fractal where there is no scale ground zero.
It happened in my college rental house when my roommates and I piled too much dirty laundry in the closet.
The big bang was accompanied by a mushroom sprouting out of that pile.
When electrons began condensing we decided to move out.
Imagine after some billions of years:
"Dear passengers, we've arrived to the great attractor galaxyport. Please remain in your solar systems untill the galaxy comes to the complete stop. ... Parking position. ... Light speed limit disengaged. ... Business class passengers are invited to leave the galaxy first."
Her videos are incredibly informative and just perfectly done.
SABINE I like the way you talk about science and your HOHESTY . In reality we are starting learning about the universe. I like the way you approach every single subject.
A lot of Scientists try to state that they know everything and they know nothing. Another guy I like because his Honesty is Michio Kaku. He is a good one too.
Asking where the center of something is implies that you know the shape and boundaries of it. Because we don't know the shape of the unobservable universe, we simply don't know where the 'center' is.
Wow! I really thought the universe had size 0 at the big bang. This explains what was before the big bang and that the universe is itself eternal.
To quote Eric, thinking about of a speed of light voyage is really, really, really, really, really ... fun.
Seeing as the universe is still expanding and it's expanding faster and faster, I would say the big bang never really stopped.
Awesome job putting it into terms us peasants can understand! Everytime I find myself stuck in traffic and I see the traffic light turn green 8 or 10 vehicles ahead of me. I then find myself anxiously anticipating my turn to start moving. Then I wonder where is Earth and/or our galaxy in this similar pathway/line of traffic except in all dimensions...traffic in front is moving but I'm still standing still.
A cyclic universe of Big Bangs and Big Crunches is the most logical form for an infinite universe to take, but if the universe doesn't collape toward its centre it must collapse toward its point of origin. Why couldn't that be regarded as its centre? There couldn't be an infinitely long time or time of any sort without the presence of matter, and to have a universe with no predecessor spring suddenly out of the void for no reason is contrary to the principle of cause and effect. It also violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which says that matter and energy can neiither be created nor destroyed. If the new universe is simply the old universe recycled, these problems are avoided.
The universe being infinitely large even at the time of the Big Bang changed my way of looking at the Big Bang. Thank you!
As I see things it makes much more sense to think of the "big bang" as an event that took place at the periphery of the universe rather than its "center" -- especially since, as Bee explains, there actually is no center. This notion is consistent with the fact that the farther out our telescopes take us -- in any direction -- the closer we come to the origin. What I'm suggesting, in other words, is the possibility that the universe actually IMpanded rather than EXpanded. And I'm wondering whether there is anything in the evidence that contradicts such a hypothesis.
Its metaphysics with physics language and equations that leads to more questions than answers. Using physics language and equations to develop theories that expand the language and equations more as field of study that perhaps gets us closer to solving the mystery of the Universe and us.
I like how whenever people ask fun questions about traveling the speed of light, they're often responded with the stone wall reply "it's impossible to travel the speed of light".
And then you get, the Milky Way is travelling 1 million mph.
We know we can't travel faster then light through normal means. But space time expansion does allow it. If the Milky Way is travelling 1 million mph in relation to a fixed point, then we're moving faster than light right now.
"Naive Extrapolation". There is a gem in every Sabine video, love it.
I already know that the answer to "what happened before the bang" is "time and its arrow arose with the bang itself, so there was no context of time outside of it, no "before" existed.
The space between the galaxies still bothers me, especially since, apparently like Sabine, I guess I subscribe to the quantum gravity people telling me that space is quantized. That means, grainy, right? That means tiny tiny particles, right? So, what is stretching? Do there need to be new particles? New Spaceons? I believe I am falling into a trap like "before the big bang" Sabine probably has a video on this, I will look for it.
“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”
― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time
That's a fascinating aspect I never heard of before... Our motion through the 'rest frame' of the Universe.. and 630 km/s.
If I understood correctly, prior to the big bang, the size of the universe was around a grapefruit? Does that mean that all the matter in the universe, without empty space, is the same as the original grapefruit? I would appreciate it if someone could clarify this for me, as I will never look at a grapefruit in the same way again. Thank you in advance!
Nobody says seriously it was the size of a grapefruit. All what is known, the universe was extremely dense and extremely hot (so it was a quark matter or something like that). As to its extent, it might have been finite or infinite. If it was finite, I think, it is unlikely that would be the size of grapefruit. It was something far larger than that. Since the current physics breaks down on singularities, there might be the minimal volume of space that makes sense to speak about. The space may be actually granular, and what we call a point-like elementary particle (like electron) may occupy exactly a single unit of space (or just a few of them). If that's true, that may give the minimal possible extent of the universe after Big Bang, implied from its total energy we currently can observe. But if the universe is infinite now, so it was from the very start. We also currently have very vague ideas about the true nature of time. But I think, it must play the crucial role in any interpretations of the origin of Big Bang. And since we currently lack any ideas what time actually is, all talks about the origin of Big Bang are essentially senseless.
I mean, if the grapefruit theory is correct, after the (supposed) big bang we would search for a CJB (Cosmic Juice Background) and the Great Attractor perchance could be a GDS (Great Drinking Straw)
Why does there need to be a "great attractor"? Can't we just be moving in that direction simply due to inertia we got during the chaos of the Big Bang, unless we're accelerating?
It seems many galaxies nearby are heading in a specific direction that differs from simple expansion.
I like Sir Peneose's idea that the initial thermal equilibrium state is the bigbang that leads to an expansion, that leads to another thermal equilibrium (Hawkins' heat death), and so on.