The gravitational waves that have been detected are from two neutron stars merging. That's not what Steinhardt is talking about here. He's referring to primordial gravitational waves that originated during the inflation period.
And the LIGO results have been refuted. The data is indistinguishable from the background noise. See Andrew Jackson from the Niels Bohr institute about it. So Paul Steinhard does have a point.
Nonsense, "j.e.t. clem m."! Sheer balderdash. Get your "facts" straight. New LIGO detections have been approaching weekly occurrances since the *latest* round of improvements came 'on line'. BiCEP II (2012 announcement & follow up) is an entirely different thing.
I admire the creative people who are analyzing and sharing in absolute detail what they see from the data available at a given time frame. The human ego also gives them a hunch or feeling regarding the bigger picture that certain well known personalities push towards one agenda or another for many reasons, mostly Phd research papers and kudos for the history books. The problem is, the reality of the full picture that no one has the answer for yet is completely beyond human understanding. See what I did there.
One of the finest presentations I have seen on this topic. The Oscillating universe was something I took to favor decades ago and this was support for it from a different perspective with good insights. Paul shows a clarity of understanding exemplary which other authorities in AstroPhysics should emulate. Brilliant! I look forward to seeing more of his presentations.
Indeed. I only got to hear him recently and i am hooked! I ended up looking him up and read about his work. He is a great thinker, and a great communicator
*_...Prof. Steinhardt, I'd suggest that not, inflation, but renormalization, is, guaranteed in a big crunch preceding a big bounce preceding a big bang-as uniformly-sized neutrons are crushed to uniformly-sized quarks, then, uniformly-sized primordial energy (subphotons)-a hundred halvings, looking like exponential inflation, from the inside, out..._*
Often it is only a matter of filling in details. BECAUSE we demand proof, we do not often need to backtrack very far. There are MANY very stable and secure positions in science such as the shape of planets and evolution. I suspect the "big bang" may be more purely speculative and mathematical. We need not be scientists however to speak up for a scientific epistemology to always be respected else results cannot be relied upon ESPECIALLY when they come from thousands of years old tombs by unknown authors who state things we have already disproven.
Joe Caner i know where u're going with that. But that's not how science works. Established theories and experiments will NOT be proven wrong later on. They may become part of a bigger theory. For example, newton's law of gravity works wonders but einstein's theory of relativity later supercedes it. Einstein's theory, under certain conditions, simplifies down to become newton's law.
@@JinGwee Lol, you must not know what a theory is. Theories are proven incapable of coherently aligning to known laws all the time and we find that some theories only work in specific conditions. And some theories are exactly that, theories. But you are right in saying that *established* observational, experimental theories are generally consistent. But this is highly different than historical theories. There is foundational knowledge and there is coherent knowledge. The 'gap' is the disconnect between the two.
@@CGoldthorpe You think evolution is secure? A real scientist would first define his terms before saying that. Micro-evolution has been widely proven but macro-evolution...not even close.
@@mcw0261 No, you are wrong. "Theories are proven incapable of coherently aligning to known laws all the time". Really?? Why do you make things up?? "And some theories are exactly that, theories. " No. Scientists use the word "theory" differently.from how a layman uses it. A theory is well supported by evidence, has been extensively tested, and has predictive power. What you have in mind is a HYPOTHESIS. It's different from theory. Without the theory of electromagnetism we will not have x rays, infra red, radio waves etc. Without the germ theory, we will not have modern medicine. Without the theory of relativity,we will not have gps. Without quantum theory, we will not have electronics. Do u know that newton's law of gravity is a subset of einstein's relativity theory ?
Stop recording the public. You make everybody uncomfortable and it is extremly annoying for the one watching the video. C'mon guy's, can't believe this, especially from a professional place like this.
if you stack polarized tetrahedra into a particle in the e8 shape you would have a spherical particle with alternately charged facets. if these particles had no spin than I imagine that it would neither touch others like it nor push away but would seek a balance point(dark matter? graviton? electromagnetic field?). now if you crushed the particle all the others would try to fill the space(gravity). the wave-like movement by photons could be caused by the charge forcing them around these particles catching one side or the other. if you sectioned this particle then different pieces of it could make up the wide variety of subatomic particles? is this possible or is there something wrong with this way of thinking?
It will tell us nothing of how the universe started. It may tell us that it is bouncing. It will not tell us how the original univers; That is where did the first universe come from that expanded and contracted and then began to bounce.
Q: The larger the distance to a galaxy, the larger the redshift. And then there are several theories about what causes that redshift? And: If there would be a redshift because of the distance, then galaxies that are moving away seem to move away with increasing speed? Or not?
I'm just a knucklehead, so I could be wrong, but I think the redshift is from object moving away from us rather than the distance. Of course, something with a redshift is moving away from us very quickly, and therefore likely to also be far off.
He also added in things to make the math show a static universe and thanked the man that told him this for”bringing beauty back into the mathematics of his theory” that man was Edwin Hubble
9:17 This is all assuming that Time is a constant, if time grows weaker over distance then the universe would just appear to be expanding faster at a distance and there would actually be a reason for quantum expansion to be constrained in to an even event...
Almost three years have passed since this TED talk. I forgot to mind the gap. Anything happen like he said? Are we in an inflationary multiverse with gravity waves and most parts unknowable? Or a knowable bouncing universe? Do we know yet? It's keeping me awake at night. And if it's bouncy does that mean Frank Tipler may be right?
If the possibility of getting a smooth Universe is 1 in google plex with the Big Bang theory, what are the possibilities with the bounce theory? To be more specific...?
ok 1 in a googleplex ... out of how many possible outcomes? He never explained that. Is it 5 possible outcomes? Ours is one of them now our universe as an outcome is very low or is it a googleplex possible outcomes and ours is equally likely to any of the others?
When I hear about the bouncing universe hypothesis I always think about entropy where's the dampening of the bounces or falling from one dimension to another dimension down to another dimension down to another dimension....
According to the book of Job, when God created the universe, all the angels shouted for joy! This was, of course, before the fall of Lucifer and his angels, who are now causing problems (evils) on earth. According to the Apostle John, in the book of Revelation, there will be a second "Big Bang" with the creation of a new heavens and a new earth.
Correct, they're not related. The multiverse is a humongous megaverse with pockets of what we might call "normality" (individual "island universes") separated from each other by an ocean of inflationary energy. The universes of Many Worlds theory overlap each other (completely). They're more like radio waves of different frequencies all sharing the same air space, and more and more of them keep getting generated every second.
The thing is...we're only going to evolve and exist in THIS universe the way we are... so it matters not how many googleplex universes existed before this one, eventually this one came along
Maybe so. The 20th century may someday be seen as a halfway period where physicists had progressed beyond Newtonian physics but still believed in fairy tales like particles and relativity.
People are conditioned to believe that a story has a beginning, middle and end, but reality is not a story and nothing "started" it. Stories are just the way we explain reality to ourselves, but reality does not coform to storytelling conventions.
@@mcw0261 Physical things only seem to have a beginning because they change form. The atoms in a rock or in your body already existed before they took those forms. The sub-atomic electrons and quarks already existed before they were forged into atoms by the gravitational pressures of stars. Forms don't appear by the work of a cosmic magician who makes them go "poof!" out of nothing, their basic, simple, underlying nature is beyond time. Time is just a human invention by which we assess the relationships between phase shifts, cycles and changes. Beginnings are illusions we create to demark the moment when things fisrt appear to us-- but they already existed in a different form before that. Reality transcends time and any sense of beginning or end.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 I agree with the idea about the conservation of energy. That is what you are kind of describing and it's well known. Ask any scientist where energy comes from and they will tell you IDK. And I agree that mass is simply a form or boundary that controlls and manipulates energy. But by your logic, since *your* reality does not transcend time, you cannot not know if you are real. You do know that you are real right? Reality does not transcend time. The ultimate reality does. But you do not have the ultimate reality. Space and time are connected. You are in space and in time. Your mindset right now is not a sufficient excuse to not be held morally accountable for your actions. But there is a way out of this conundrum you have built for yourself.
@@mcw0261 You can call the essential "stuff" of reality "God" if you want, but that term carries misleading connotations-- don't confuse it with notions of a father figure or lord or ruler or creator of the universe-- that is just anthropomorphism.
all these intellectual people here in the comments section;blowing their own trumpets about how clever they are and how their work is so important to the human race! PLUMBER any one?
I REALLY don't understand what cosmic gravity waves have to do with expansion. Wouldn't that type of force, if it existed be 1 OVER gravity? What am I missing here?
All of this is based on the premise that the speed of light is constant. I was recently pondering a piece on the existence of a 4th dimension that serves to modify space and time by warping and twisting all 3 dimensions in space. Think of the implications. It produces the possibility that what we observe is simultaneously both near and far or that what we are observing is merely a shadow or projection. It begs the question: Can something be close and far at the same time? The answer is yes, depending on the length of the stick you're using to measure it. So it follows that the speed of light is only constant relative to the size of the space you're trying to measure. This is interesting because it explores an idea not unlike quantum physics. Is the object you're looking at close or is it far? How do you measure it if the thing you're measuring it with (the speed of light) is itself in direct proportion to the size of the space you're measuring? This begs the question of whether space itself is fluid. Einstein showed that mass bends space. We know that energy can alter space as well. We could theorize all day but it's an interesting thought experiment.
The idea that we are just projections in the wrong self relation has been around for a long time. I don't think science will ever solve these questions because the underlying reality is made up of complex numbers. They would need a whole new mathematical system. The people who impress me the most in these talks are the ones who are trying to reverse engineer the universe using transcendental geometry. I think the universe is probably 1 dimensional.
What thought experiment? You didn't describe any experiment that can be performed at least in principle (if not in practice.) It's more like thought masturbation than experiment.
You might like my hypothesis recently posted here.... The speed of light varies absolutely but is always measured as C locally in a vacuum. It is quantum-relativistic... Liquid Crystal Universe... I'm still trying to adapt it to some kind of relativity as it started off as a basic fully discrete, quantised idea. I've stuck to mainstream ideas and added a few of my own.
@ Phil V... You plainly could never be bothered to learn the research context from which the idea of inflation emerged for Alan Guth. This information is freely available online and has been known among better informed people for more than three and a half decades now. This is not to say that professor Steinhardt does not have a strong point regarding the inflation model's lack of inherent constraints against being overly adaptable to accommodate new data as required to stay relevant; but that is a result of a lack of constraining empirical data and knowledge about the initial causal patch and the originating event for our own event horizon universe. That fact itself has nothing to do with anyone being slack and gravitating toward easy "answers" -- "BS", as you so simplistically and stupidly call it. All qualified theorists understand these things... even if you do not.
@John Sikes. Thanks. My teacher, long ago, opposed my thinking. He basically told me to shut up because he said I didn't know what I was talking about, and he did so when I made a point about "Motion", a point leading to a paradox. Long story, but my parents pulled me out of school before I had the chance to acquire any physics education. But in my spare time years later, I began analyzing motion once again to resolve the paradox, and did so by figuring out what the basic requirements were to make motion possible. I found the answer. Without knowing it at the time, I had also independently derived all of the Special Relativity(SR) mathematical equations, and I had also independently derived the Lorentz Transformation equations. However, the method in which I derived these equations, is a unique method that I have not seen in use nor have I seen it taught anywhere. Of course some folk thought that I was full of it, and so I put together some YT videos to expose my unique "How to" method, and thus prove them wrong.
Please just go away, with this political-religious trolling. You have nothing new or constructive to say here, right? Please just pollute your own muddy little pond. We don't don't need your Ill-motivated sweeping judgements sullying the manifestly cleaner, much more transparent, far more ethical realm of the natural sciences... and obstructing progress in many social & cultural categories *truly* intended for the betterment of all human kind.
Why does this statement appear to here where people are indeed learning things? It looks like a desperate attempt to chime in without revealing any ignorance.
My biggest doubt with all of this is the fact that no theory seems to define what gravity really is. It's just a force that exists from volume and density combined which we've called "mass" which is the integral component of what makes the mathematics of quantum physics work the way we want it to. What creates this force of two bodies of mass? Does gravity create mass or does mass create gravity? And if they are finitely related then my other questions are how? and why? Can anyone explain this to a simpleton (like me)? If we can answer this, then perhaps they'll no longer be the need to explain negative mass when the traditional formulae no longer seemed to hold up.
It has been a while since i studied it, so bare with me. Mass is determined not by gravity or volume, but an intrinsic feature of matter. How much energy is required to move something. They determine this by electron-volts. An electron-volt is the amount of energy required to move an electron across a field of potential difference of one volt.
With the prediction and then discovery of the higgs field, that is what gives matter(or energy) its mass. We still do not have a model that unites gravity with our sub atomic world. The affect of gravity at the sub atomic level is still not detectable.
@Matt Riccio Just your friendly neighbourhood “RUclips comment lobbyist” for encouraging people to embrace and educate themselves in STEM fields. PS. You are absolutely 100% correct about listening to and following the math.
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen 1 Timothy 6: 20--21
In few decades there might be new fresh ideas/hypothesis on this subject. It might be the case that human mind biologically is incapable ever understanding existence of universe. It is rather perplexing how can something just pop into existence out of nothing. Quantum physics suggest string theory and membrane interactions causing universes to simply appear. But then, how did these membranes come into existence in the first place. It all goes back to the same question; how can anything just pop into existence out of nothing. It simply makes not much sense, thus singularity. Simply no one knows the answer. Who knows, maybe our existence is just a grand illusion.
What's the chances that you will make your flight if you ask Google to guide you to MIA (Miami International Airport)? The answer is one in a Googleplex since they will take you to the American Airlines package terminal on the North edge of the airport, and by the time you get to the passenger terminal and through Airport Security, your flight will have already left, unless it has been delayed by 45 minutes or more, so I guess the odds are actually much better than 1 in a Googleplex, but I wanted to use that word to connect this to the lecture. Next time ask Google to take you to MIAD which stands for terminal D and is the street name of the departing flights road. In case you think Google will have fixed this by the time you need it, think again as it's been misleading people for at least 3 years and will also take you to the wrong place if you ask it to guide you to FLL (Fort Lauderdale International Airport). Also note, that if you use the desktop version of Google maps, it does not make these errors, only the mobile version, but who do you know hooks up their PC on the way to the airport?
10:40 We are here! "Gezz, my body fits this hole perfectly therefore I was made to fit in this hole", said the water puddle. Statistics has no meaning when the sample size is 1...
Amen! Regardless of the outlandish odds of an event, if that event actually happens, the chances become 100 percent. Arguing against something with only probability calculations is something I call the statistician's fallacy. Show whether or not the damn actually happened, then we'll talk about odds
Being an actual scientist I imagine he's now, in 2019, glad that important verifiable observation has provided evidence supporting The Standard Model but since he was personally in an opposing field to some degree, I'm also sure he is at least a little miffed at the results from LIGO. It is the lifeblood of science to hypothesize falsifications any way we can imagine. It is just as useful in many cases to gain knowledge of the wrong path to help define the right path, but ultimately we must bend to observation and it must hurt at least a little bit to find you spent years exploring a dead end..
My hypothesis that Dark Matter is not a weakly interactive massive particle (WIMP), but maybe is a deformation of space-time by which the curvature of space-time itself is the cause of the gravitational effect. Gravity is the consequence of the curvature of space-time when mass is present. It may be possible that the structure of space-time itself could be warped without the presence of mass. So, how did this warping occur? We believe this warping of space-time occurred during the extreme conditions present during inflation. Space-time has been shown to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating independent of mass. These properties have been proven with observations of gravitational lensing, frame dragging, and now gravitational waves. Fabrics can be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of deformation. Such extreme conditions were all present during inflation, so it is plausible that space-time’s elastic nature could have hit its yield point and permanently deformed. Therefore, if gravity is the consequence of the warping of space-time, and fabrics can be permanently deformed, then a deformation could create a gravitational effect independent of mass. Thus, the unidentified dark "matter" that seems to be so elusive to modern science may not be matter at all but merely warped deformities causing gravitational effects. We have a prediction using gravitational lens mapping to prove Dark Matter isn’t a weakly interacting massive particle, but instead is a floating fixed pocket of warped geodesics in space-time geometry causing gravity wells.
Interesting. Also check Out Electric Universe Theory, I don't buy all of their "historic guesses" but I think they are on to something, and I think sometimes they make bigger claims than are warranted... you'll see what I mean, you'll see where it has merit and where they are "reaching" - Check it out! :)
I think you are postulating that Einstein's field equation is incomplete. Good luck with that. The baked-in warping of spacetime that you take to be the explanation for so-called dark matter would presumably be detectable from its effects on the passage of starlight. Perhaps you can check if this would be possible to find experimentally.
+Mark Lane -- Also, if the space warping suggested by Jason G is actually present, it might warp both to positive and negative curvature, aka Regions of Permanent Attraction *and* Regions of Permanent Repulsion, yes?
Anyway, the spooky action at a distance, entanglement, is where I believe the answer lies. Einstein-Rosen bridges are intriguing and could explain a lot.
You are correct Edgar, everything you hear here was disproven the moment actual gravitational waves were announced eight days after this video was made, having been discovered the previous September. With all those degrees, one would assume he'd get a memo or something..
wouldn't the universe expand at the speed of light.With formation of matter following the light expansion.Also would it expand uniformly in a360 degree circle around the center.Intuitively speaking that makes sense.Possibly to simple but it's a start.
Observation and data have massively narrowed the fantastical excuses, leaps of faith, and pure guesswork in the standard model. The universe is electric. IT IS OK FOR EINSTEIN TO BE WRONG! Knowing so can't hurt anybody, and Einstein would probably be happy to know, were he still with us.
This is extremely deceptive language here. Einstein had a theory about gravitation, and his theory of gravitation lead him to an _opinion_ about how to best apply his theory to cosmology (it's common, even for equations that are completely valid, to admit "non-physical" solutions, and so judgement on this matter is fairly routine, but it's just opinion, until it runs up against an observations constraint _beyond_ what the equation originally solved). In the case of the big bounce, the force providing the bounce doesn't even need to be gravity. It could be some whole new force, leaving Einstein's theory of gravitation exactly right, and fully complete (as a theory of gravity). Cosmology, however, would need to add this new force as a new idea. But let's not make that Einstein's problem, because it isn't the problem he set out to solve.
For dolts, maybe. Better informed, better educated, and more engaged persons generally take a different view of such compelling scientific & philosophical pursuits.
@@CGoldthorpe Red and blue shift refer to the wavelength, not velocity, of light. Red-shifted means light is detected at longer wavelengths which is what happens when the thing emitting light is moving away from you, although there may be other causes in specific cases- eg if light is initially emitted at a longer wavelength in the first instance. However what Hubble observed was that light from all distant galaxies is red-shifted and is so in ratio to it's distance from us. This implies that we live in an expanding universe. Of course, far away also means long ago, so...
@@MrBarryBurke STILL consider WHY. I understand what you are saying but whether the source is going away, or toward you the speed of light is supposed to be constant,
Feynman said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics." As a language teacher, I recommend i plus one. Watch/study more and you'll understand more of what you "learned" or believed/disbelied earlier. I say that we're 3-5 Einsteins away from interstellar travel. You may be the one, or inspire the one.
My Baby Sister. It is either his explanation is poor or your understanding is poor. Science is supposed to be done with the mouth shut but modern science is very talkative; that is why we hardly understand. If you want to understand, you will have to do the research yourself and do the writing yourself. Be prepared to face opposition.
Uncalled for, sir or madam. She merely states she is confused - she didn't attack or deny the scientific method, or allude to any of the many insane consiracy theories so common these days. Cut her some slack and stop jumping to conclusions.
Sorry you were attacked by intolerant RUclips denzions - it happens even in the comments sections of Strictly Science, quite civilized videos such as this one. Please don't take it personally.
The more people think they know only proves how little they actually know. A chicken comes from an egg but you must have a chicken to get the egg. So goes the theory.
Anyone else notice how he conveniently failed to mention the cosmological constant, that was in Einsteins' equations? He never mentioned it. After that omissions, I was surprised he gave Hubble the credit for proving the universe is expanding. -- Anyone committing their lives to proving Einstein is ~all wrong? It will be a life-long endeavor? Guaranteed life-long pay check!
Wouldn't the gravitational field be strongest around the sun.Its the most massive structure on our galaxy.But then how does light dispersion occur given the mass.
Are you 11 or 12? The gravitational field around the sun is not all that strong but still enough to bend the path of a photon, it is nowhere near the most massive object in our galaxy and photons once emitted in a vacuum have only one speed.
I don't buy the "big bounce" any more. I used to like the symmetry of it, but the observations seem to point in the direction of the "big rip", and the heat death. Sorry.
Я ЗНАЮ, ВЫ откликнитесь - как вылечить рассеянный склероз - MS , пожалуйста напишите , заранее благодарен.... Читайте антропософию Р Штайнера.. Читайте антропософию Р Штайнера..
The bigger universe is a fractal. The odds may be rare but we repeat. As a chance to exist and yet different every time. Ripples in the ever expanding or contracting pattern no location is the same to any other and yet affected by every other. Fractal. What level or dimension this is occurring." I don't know." I just live here 🤗
@ John Morris... You are wise enough, unlike some others here, to understand the position and state of knowledge from which you speak, which was good enough for Socrates. Your opinion thus deserves anyone's respect. Keep respecting true expertise such as professor Steinhardt's. Cheers!
Listened to almost the end and had to check the date of the video lol bet he wishes he could go back and change his argument after Ligo detected the waves
When you tell me the chances of inflation are one in a googleplex without telling me how you arrive at that number, I don't put much stock in the argument against inflation. You go on to say the prediction that dark matter will decay is testable, and say the theory of the higgs point to the vacuum being stable, but don't reconcile wit the fact that the universe is accelerating. How lame!
He thought he was once, with the universal constant.....turned out that that was RIGHT! Seriously, though, he didn't accept quantum physics, which it turns out, was OBVIOUSLY an error, so of course he could be wrong, and was, many times. It's just he was so DAMNED right sometimes, like relativity. ;-)
We are 'Pure Consciousness' having a material experiences. We think of something and we make it. Not sure why peeps are not taught that, I guess it's because you have to bring G*D into the equation, right?
Roman's 1: 20-22. "Going to be" and "might be" require a certain faith. Sort of like the future "science of the gaps." ...i.e., "We don't know now, but we will in the future." There are certain things humanity was not meant to know. Probably for his own sake. Face it fellows, you're never gonna have a "theory of everything." Not in this lifetime.
What we are observing are images of things that probably have changed light years ago. It appears that our search for the Truth will never be reached. The Truth itself is constantly changing in the far off distance in the so called Space. The Creator must have foreseen our curiosity. He does not want us to know. The Answers are changing every second from the far off distance. Better use the funds to improve Humanity and Peace on Earth than trying to pock our nose in the Secrets of the God(s). Who can say today or tomorrow that we will know the true Truth ? My personal feeling.
Rethink, that capitalism is killing our planet earth, if we don't act fast and learn how to simply live with each other, your thoughts are pointless. I'm reminded that what's looking is what we should be truly looking for... it's time to look within to understand what's going to save life on our planet today.
Published on Feb 3, 2016. 8 days later, Ligo announced they observed Gravitational waves, in 2015.
this is the comment I was looking for , just to be sure I'm right, and this is outdated... tnx
The gravitational waves that have been detected are from two neutron stars merging. That's not what Steinhardt is talking about here. He's referring to primordial gravitational waves that originated during the inflation period.
And the LIGO results have been refuted. The data is indistinguishable from the background noise. See Andrew Jackson from the Niels Bohr institute about it. So Paul Steinhard does have a point.
Nonsense, "j.e.t. clem m."! Sheer balderdash. Get your "facts" straight. New LIGO detections have been approaching weekly occurrances since the *latest* round of improvements came 'on line'.
BiCEP II (2012 announcement & follow up) is an entirely different thing.
I admire the creative people who are analyzing and sharing in absolute detail what they see from the data available at a given time frame. The human ego also gives them a hunch or feeling regarding the bigger picture that certain well known personalities push towards one agenda or another for many reasons, mostly Phd research papers and kudos for the history books. The problem is, the reality of the full picture that no one has the answer for yet is completely beyond human understanding. See what I did there.
Want to try backing up that conclusion with even *one* solid bit of credible, paradigm rocking evidence?? .....Mmmm, didn't think so.
One of the finest presentations I have seen on this topic. The Oscillating universe was something I took to favor decades ago and this was support for it from a different perspective with good insights. Paul shows a clarity of understanding exemplary which other authorities in AstroPhysics should emulate. Brilliant! I look forward to seeing more of his presentations.
Indeed. I only got to hear him recently and i am hooked! I ended up looking him up and read about his work. He is a great thinker, and a great communicator
*_...Prof. Steinhardt, I'd suggest that not, inflation, but renormalization, is, guaranteed in a big crunch preceding a big bounce preceding a big bang-as uniformly-sized neutrons are crushed to uniformly-sized quarks, then, uniformly-sized primordial energy (subphotons)-a hundred halvings, looking like exponential inflation, from the inside, out..._*
Paul Steinhardt should be given the Nobel Prize 🏆💖👍🌹
I love it! *science* is never settled.
It's just accepted until further notice...
Often it is only a matter of filling in details. BECAUSE we demand proof, we do not often need to backtrack very far. There are MANY very stable and secure positions in science such as the shape of planets and evolution. I suspect the "big bang" may be more purely speculative and mathematical. We need not be scientists however to speak up for a scientific epistemology to always be respected else results cannot be relied upon ESPECIALLY when they come from thousands of years old tombs by unknown authors who state things we have already disproven.
Joe Caner
i know where u're going with that. But that's not how science works.
Established theories and experiments will NOT be proven wrong later on.
They may become part of a bigger theory.
For example, newton's law of gravity works wonders but einstein's theory of relativity later supercedes it. Einstein's theory, under certain conditions, simplifies down to become newton's law.
@@JinGwee Lol, you must not know what a theory is. Theories are proven incapable of coherently aligning to known laws all the time and we find that some theories only work in specific conditions. And some theories are exactly that, theories. But you are right in saying that *established* observational, experimental theories are generally consistent. But this is highly different than historical theories.
There is foundational knowledge and there is coherent knowledge. The 'gap' is the disconnect between the two.
@@CGoldthorpe You think evolution is secure? A real scientist would first define his terms before saying that. Micro-evolution has been widely proven but macro-evolution...not even close.
@@mcw0261
No, you are wrong.
"Theories are proven incapable of coherently aligning to known laws all the time".
Really?? Why do you make things up??
"And some theories are exactly that, theories. "
No. Scientists use the word "theory" differently.from how a layman uses it. A theory is well supported by evidence, has been extensively tested, and has predictive power.
What you have in mind is a HYPOTHESIS. It's different from theory.
Without the theory of electromagnetism we will not have x rays, infra red, radio waves etc.
Without the germ theory, we will not have modern medicine.
Without the theory of relativity,we will not have gps.
Without quantum theory, we will not have electronics.
Do u know that newton's law of gravity is a subset of einstein's relativity theory ?
Amazing mystery of universe will keep humans on their toes in search of truth forever.
The Gap? it is the distance between a the size of Planck Length and a the size of a "Point"
Lololol!!!!!
Stop recording the public. You make everybody uncomfortable and it is extremly annoying for the one watching the video. C'mon guy's, can't believe this, especially from a professional place like this.
if you stack polarized tetrahedra into a particle in the e8 shape you would have a spherical particle with alternately charged facets. if these particles had no spin than I imagine that it would neither touch others like it nor push away but would seek a balance point(dark matter? graviton? electromagnetic field?). now if you crushed the particle all the others would try to fill the space(gravity). the wave-like movement by photons could be caused by the charge forcing them around these particles catching one side or the other. if you sectioned this particle then different pieces of it could make up the wide variety of subatomic particles? is this possible or is there something wrong with this way of thinking?
*_...Prof. Steinhardt, regarding Inflation Theory-how does 'inflation' differ from 'critical expansion' r ~ t⁽²ᶴ³⁾ at t~0..._*
consult the bible?
It will tell us nothing of how the universe started. It may tell us that it is bouncing. It will not tell us how the original univers; That is where did the first universe come from that expanded and contracted and then began to bounce.
Apart from the intellectual brilliance of the speaker, it's also nice that he hardly "ermm"ed or "errr"ed etc.
Q: The larger the distance to a galaxy, the larger the redshift. And then there are several theories about what causes that redshift?
And: If there would be a redshift because of the distance, then galaxies that are moving away seem to move away with increasing speed?
Or not?
I'm just a knucklehead, so I could be wrong, but I think the redshift is from object moving away from us rather than the distance. Of course, something with a redshift is moving away from us very quickly, and therefore likely to also be far off.
He also added in things to make the math show a static universe and thanked the man that told him this for”bringing beauty back into the mathematics of his theory” that man was Edwin Hubble
Google what Nicola Teslas was saying about theoretical mathematics. If you want to loose contact with really, it's a good path.
9:17 This is all assuming that Time is a constant, if time grows weaker over distance then the universe would just appear to be expanding faster at a distance and there would actually be a reason for quantum expansion to be constrained in to an even event...
Time is a product of the human mind; therefore, time would remain constant to us.
Almost three years have passed since this TED talk. I forgot to mind the gap. Anything happen like he said? Are we in an inflationary multiverse with gravity waves and most parts unknowable? Or a knowable bouncing universe? Do we know yet? It's keeping me awake at night. And if it's bouncy does that mean Frank Tipler may be right?
try silent mind. solves it all in a blink.
If the possibility of getting a smooth Universe is 1 in google plex with the Big Bang theory, what are the possibilities with the bounce theory? To be more specific...?
16:25
ok 1 in a googleplex ... out of how many possible outcomes? He never explained that. Is it 5 possible outcomes? Ours is one of them now our universe as an outcome is very low or is it a googleplex possible outcomes and ours is equally likely to any of the others?
When I hear about the bouncing universe hypothesis I always think about entropy where's the dampening of the bounces or falling from one dimension to another dimension down to another dimension down to another dimension....
Rr Ii
@1:06 it's "Georges Lemaître" and not Lematire
an eternal bouncing universe? what started the first thing to bounce?
According to the book of Job, when God created the universe, all the angels shouted for joy! This was, of course, before the fall of Lucifer and his angels, who are now causing problems (evils) on earth. According to the Apostle John, in the book of Revelation, there will be a second "Big Bang" with the creation of a new heavens and a new earth.
So, this would not be the same Multiverse as the one in Sean Carroll's Many Worlds Theory, correct?
Correct, they're not related. The multiverse is a humongous megaverse with pockets of what we might call "normality" (individual "island universes") separated from each other by an ocean of inflationary energy. The universes of Many Worlds theory overlap each other (completely). They're more like radio waves of different frequencies all sharing the same air space, and more and more of them keep getting generated every second.
The thing is...we're only going to evolve and exist in THIS universe the way we are... so it matters not how many googleplex universes existed before this one, eventually this one came along
Will people hundreds of years from now look back at our conversations the same way we look at the theories from the middle ages?
Maybe so. The 20th century may someday be seen as a halfway period where physicists had progressed beyond Newtonian physics but still believed in fairy tales like particles and relativity.
Schroedinger and wave function. Where is my doppelganger?
if the bounce is correct, what started the bounce?
People are conditioned to believe that a story has a beginning, middle and end, but reality is not a story and nothing "started" it. Stories are just the way we explain reality to ourselves, but reality does not coform to storytelling conventions.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 Math and Logic says that physical things have a beginning. Not really about storytelling.
@@mcw0261 Physical things only seem to have a beginning because they change form. The atoms in a rock or in your body already existed before they took those forms. The sub-atomic electrons and quarks already existed before they were forged into atoms by the gravitational pressures of stars. Forms don't appear by the work of a cosmic magician who makes them go "poof!" out of nothing, their basic, simple, underlying nature is beyond time. Time is just a human invention by which we assess the relationships between phase shifts, cycles and changes. Beginnings are illusions we create to demark the moment when things fisrt appear to us-- but they already existed in a different form before that. Reality transcends time and any sense of beginning or end.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 I agree with the idea about the conservation of energy. That is what you are kind of describing and it's well known. Ask any scientist where energy comes from and they will tell you IDK. And I agree that mass is simply a form or boundary that controlls and manipulates energy. But by your logic, since *your* reality does not transcend time, you cannot not know if you are real. You do know that you are real right? Reality does not transcend time. The ultimate reality does. But you do not have the ultimate reality. Space and time are connected. You are in space and in time. Your mindset right now is not a sufficient excuse to not be held morally accountable for your actions. But there is a way out of this conundrum you have built for yourself.
@@mcw0261 You can call the essential "stuff" of reality "God" if you want, but that term carries misleading connotations-- don't confuse it with notions of a father figure or lord or ruler or creator of the universe-- that is just anthropomorphism.
all these intellectual people here in the comments section;blowing their own trumpets about how clever they are and how their work is so important to the human race! PLUMBER any one?
Susskind was a plumber
@Ma Rk his father was too, he mentions this in a video here somewhere
I'm not going to be impressed with science until I can download a waffle.
Here it is 🧇
Exclusion zone or zones in space? like the water tests in space this expanding could be the same .
I REALLY don't understand what cosmic gravity waves have to do with expansion. Wouldn't that type of force, if it existed be 1 OVER gravity? What am I missing here?
Fantastic! TY!!
Mind the gap!
That was great. Thanks.
All of this is based on the premise that the speed of light is constant. I was recently pondering a piece on the existence of a 4th dimension that serves to modify space and time by warping and twisting all 3 dimensions in space. Think of the implications. It produces the possibility that what we observe is simultaneously both near and far or that what we are observing is merely a shadow or projection.
It begs the question: Can something be close and far at the same time?
The answer is yes, depending on the length of the stick you're using to measure it. So it follows that the speed of light is only constant relative to the size of the space you're trying to measure. This is interesting because it explores an idea not unlike quantum physics. Is the object you're looking at close or is it far? How do you measure it if the thing you're measuring it with (the speed of light) is itself in direct proportion to the size of the space you're measuring?
This begs the question of whether space itself is fluid. Einstein showed that mass bends space. We know that energy can alter space as well. We could theorize all day but it's an interesting thought experiment.
The idea that we are just projections in the wrong self relation has been around for a long time. I don't think science will ever solve these questions because the underlying reality is made up of complex numbers. They would need a whole new mathematical system. The people who impress me the most in these talks are the ones who are trying to reverse engineer the universe using transcendental geometry. I think the universe is probably 1 dimensional.
@@Graham-gt4gr Um, that implies the universe is a singularity. It certainly is not what we observe. Just so you know.
What thought experiment? You didn't describe any experiment that can be performed at least in principle (if not in practice.) It's more like thought masturbation than experiment.
You might like my hypothesis recently posted here.... The speed of light varies absolutely but is always measured as C locally in a vacuum. It is quantum-relativistic... Liquid Crystal Universe... I'm still trying to adapt it to some kind of relativity as it started off as a basic fully discrete, quantised idea. I've stuck to mainstream ideas and added a few of my own.
Particles can be in two places at once.
You misspelled Lemaitre rather badly
I've always suspected that inflation is BS because it's so Ad Hoc.
@ Phil V... You plainly could never be bothered to learn the research context from which the idea of inflation emerged for Alan Guth. This information is freely available online and has been known among better informed people for more than three and a half decades now.
This is not to say that professor Steinhardt does not have a strong point regarding the inflation model's lack of inherent constraints against being overly adaptable to accommodate new data as required to stay relevant; but that is a result of a lack of constraining empirical data and knowledge about the initial causal patch and the originating event for our own event horizon universe. That fact itself has nothing to do with anyone being slack and gravitating toward easy "answers" -- "BS", as you so simplistically and stupidly call it. All qualified theorists understand these things... even if you do not.
How do we know that instead of there being an expanding universe, that all matter is shrinking ?
Red Shift: If matter was shrinking light won't be red shifted. If your talking about space itself, we have no independent reference.
Decent question though, shows you're thinking, keep it up!
@John Sikes. Thanks. My teacher, long ago, opposed my thinking. He basically told me to shut up because he said I didn't know what I was talking about, and he did so when I made a point about "Motion", a point leading to a paradox. Long story, but my parents pulled me out of school before I had the chance to acquire any physics education. But in my spare time years later, I began analyzing motion once again to resolve the paradox, and did so by figuring out what the basic requirements were to make motion possible. I found the answer. Without knowing it at the time, I had also independently derived all of the Special Relativity(SR) mathematical equations, and I had also independently derived the Lorentz Transformation equations. However, the method in which I derived these equations, is a unique method that I have not seen in use nor have I seen it taught anywhere. Of course some folk thought that I was full of it, and so I put together some YT videos to expose my unique "How to" method, and thus prove them wrong.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"
Please just go away, with this political-religious trolling. You have nothing new or constructive to say here, right? Please just pollute your own muddy little pond. We don't don't need your Ill-motivated sweeping judgements sullying the manifestly cleaner, much more transparent, far more ethical realm of the natural sciences... and obstructing progress in many social & cultural categories *truly* intended for the betterment of all human kind.
I think I have got the hang of Tedx Talks: BS.
Jerald Mitchell
@ Naimul Haq... Well, we've certainly got the hang of you. Thanks for the pithy and succinct assist.
Why does this statement appear to here where people are indeed learning things? It looks like a desperate attempt to chime in without revealing any ignorance.
My biggest doubt with all of this is the fact that no theory seems to define what gravity really is. It's just a force that exists from volume and density combined which we've called "mass" which is the integral component of what makes the mathematics of quantum physics work the way we want it to. What creates this force of two bodies of mass? Does gravity create mass or does mass create gravity? And if they are finitely related then my other questions are how? and why? Can anyone explain this to a simpleton (like me)? If we can answer this, then perhaps they'll no longer be the need to explain negative mass when the traditional formulae no longer seemed to hold up.
It has been a while since i studied it, so bare with me. Mass is determined not by gravity or volume, but an intrinsic feature of matter. How much energy is required to move something. They determine this by electron-volts. An electron-volt is the amount of energy required to move an electron across a field of potential difference of one volt.
With the prediction and then discovery of the higgs field, that is what gives matter(or energy) its mass. We still do not have a model that unites gravity with our sub atomic world. The affect of gravity at the sub atomic level is still not detectable.
Einstein’s static GR taught physicists that we must listen to the maths how ever much discomfort this may give us this
I say we even though I am not yet a physicist
@Matt Riccio Sure you are. You're just not a well-known physicist … not yet. 😉
Lucas Thompson who are you?
@Matt Riccio Just your friendly neighbourhood “RUclips comment lobbyist” for encouraging people to embrace and educate themselves in STEM fields.
PS. You are absolutely 100% correct about listening to and following the math.
@Matt Riccio 🎵 Who who? Who who? 🎶
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen
1 Timothy 6: 20--21
In few decades there might be new fresh ideas/hypothesis on this subject. It might be the case that human mind biologically is incapable ever understanding existence of universe. It is rather perplexing how can something just pop into existence out of nothing. Quantum physics suggest string theory and membrane interactions causing universes to simply appear. But then, how did these membranes come into existence in the first place. It all goes back to the same question; how can anything just pop into existence out of nothing. It simply makes not much sense, thus singularity. Simply no one knows the answer. Who knows, maybe our existence is just a grand illusion.
is possible make physical theory right and still same time right theory is mathematically
wrong?
As mathematics is tool of physics, does mathematics always give correct calculations to our physical observations?
What's the chances that you will make your flight if you ask Google to guide you to MIA (Miami International Airport)? The answer is one in a Googleplex since they will take you to the American Airlines package terminal on the North edge of the airport, and by the time you get to the passenger terminal and through Airport Security, your flight will have already left, unless it has been delayed by 45 minutes or more, so I guess the odds are actually much better than 1 in a Googleplex, but I wanted to use that word to connect this to the lecture. Next time ask Google to take you to MIAD which stands for terminal D and is the street name of the departing flights road. In case you think Google will have fixed this by the time you need it, think again as it's been misleading people for at least 3 years and will also take you to the wrong place if you ask it to guide you to FLL (Fort Lauderdale International Airport). Also note, that if you use the desktop version of Google maps, it does not make these errors, only the mobile version, but who do you know hooks up their PC on the way to the airport?
Einstein was working from the wrong paradigm. Even so, research that comes to the wrong conclusions is still not useless. Funny that.
10:40 We are here! "Gezz, my body fits this hole perfectly therefore I was made to fit in this hole", said the water puddle. Statistics has no meaning when the sample size is 1...
Amen! Regardless of the outlandish odds of an event, if that event actually happens, the chances become 100 percent. Arguing against something with only probability calculations is something I call the statistician's fallacy. Show whether or not the damn actually happened, then we'll talk about odds
Being an actual scientist I imagine he's now, in 2019, glad that important verifiable observation has provided evidence supporting The Standard Model but since he was personally in an opposing field to some degree, I'm also sure he is at least a little miffed at the results from LIGO. It is the lifeblood of science to hypothesize falsifications any way we can imagine. It is just as useful in many cases to gain knowledge of the wrong path to help define the right path, but ultimately we must bend to observation and it must hurt at least a little bit to find you spent years exploring a dead end..
airplanes are just very loud birds, right?
Unconvincing argument is unconvincing
And your rebuttal is...? And your qualifications to challenge this model are...?
The word 'Quantum' always has to make an appearance, as if it were gospel.
Nebulous with Stars Galaxy's & Multiple Big Bangs in it.
My hypothesis that Dark Matter is not a weakly interactive massive particle (WIMP), but maybe is a deformation of space-time by which the curvature of space-time itself is the cause of the gravitational effect. Gravity is the consequence of the curvature of space-time when mass is present. It may be possible that the structure of space-time itself could be warped without the presence of mass. So, how did this warping occur? We believe this warping of space-time occurred during the extreme conditions present during inflation. Space-time has been shown to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating independent of mass. These properties have been proven with observations of gravitational lensing, frame dragging, and now gravitational waves. Fabrics can be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of deformation. Such extreme conditions were all present during inflation, so it is plausible that space-time’s elastic nature could have hit its yield point and permanently deformed. Therefore, if gravity is the consequence of the warping of space-time, and fabrics can be permanently deformed, then a deformation could create a gravitational effect independent of mass. Thus, the unidentified dark "matter" that seems to be so elusive to modern science may not be matter at all but merely warped deformities causing gravitational effects. We have a prediction using gravitational lens mapping to prove Dark Matter isn’t a weakly interacting massive particle, but instead is a floating fixed pocket of warped geodesics in space-time geometry causing gravity wells.
Interesting. Also check Out Electric Universe Theory, I don't buy all of their "historic guesses" but I think they are on to something, and I think sometimes they make bigger claims than are warranted... you'll see what I mean, you'll see where it has merit and where they are "reaching" - Check it out! :)
I think you are postulating that Einstein's field equation is incomplete. Good luck with that. The baked-in warping of spacetime that you take to be the explanation for so-called dark matter would presumably be detectable from its effects on the passage of starlight. Perhaps you can check if this would be possible to find experimentally.
+Mark Lane -- Also, if the space warping suggested by Jason G is actually present, it might warp both to positive and negative curvature, aka Regions of Permanent Attraction *and* Regions of Permanent Repulsion, yes?
You just described string theory.
Anyway, the spooky action at a distance, entanglement, is where I believe the answer lies. Einstein-Rosen bridges are intriguing and could explain a lot.
I am under the impression that it had been discovered that the expansion is accelerating and our universe will disperse...?
You are correct Edgar, everything you hear here was disproven the moment actual gravitational waves were announced eight days after this video was made, having been discovered the previous September. With all those degrees, one would assume he'd get a memo or something..
wouldn't the universe expand at the speed of light.With formation of matter following the light expansion.Also would it expand uniformly in a360 degree circle around the center.Intuitively speaking that makes sense.Possibly to simple but it's a start.
Rick and Morty makes me think this is how it works.
ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (IN BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
Observation and data have massively narrowed the fantastical excuses, leaps of faith, and pure guesswork in the standard model. The universe is electric. IT IS OK FOR EINSTEIN TO BE WRONG! Knowing so can't hurt anybody, and Einstein would probably be happy to know, were he still with us.
Yet there is no peer reviewed science supporting that hypothesis.
Excellent and powerful, ecxept you misspelled Lemaitre, as I did except.
expect?
This is extremely deceptive language here. Einstein had a theory about gravitation, and his theory of gravitation lead him to an _opinion_ about how to best apply his theory to cosmology (it's common, even for equations that are completely valid, to admit "non-physical" solutions, and so judgement on this matter is fairly routine, but it's just opinion, until it runs up against an observations constraint _beyond_ what the equation originally solved). In the case of the big bounce, the force providing the bounce doesn't even need to be gravity. It could be some whole new force, leaving Einstein's theory of gravitation exactly right, and fully complete (as a theory of gravity). Cosmology, however, would need to add this new force as a new idea. But let's not make that Einstein's problem, because it isn't the problem he set out to solve.
Is the universe expanding and contracting or is it SPACE that is doing so?
❤ Very good 👍🏼
This talk can be summed up in one word: "Whatever"
For dolts, maybe. Better informed, better educated, and more engaged persons generally take a different view of such compelling scientific & philosophical pursuits.
Was the subject matter different than expected?
You know the equation of maxwell are not empiric cause every photon is particular ......
Hubble found the red shift and drew the wrong conclusion
Halton Arp.
As if *you* would know.
Why should there be any shift if the speed of light is constant?
@@CGoldthorpe Red and blue shift refer to the wavelength, not velocity, of light. Red-shifted means light is detected at longer wavelengths which is what happens when the thing emitting light is moving away from you, although there may be other causes in specific cases- eg if light is initially emitted at a longer wavelength in the first instance. However what Hubble observed was that light from all distant galaxies is red-shifted and is so in ratio to it's distance from us. This implies that we live in an expanding universe. Of course, far away also means long ago, so...
@@MrBarryBurke STILL consider WHY. I understand what you are saying but whether the source is going away, or toward you the speed of light is supposed to be constant,
I don’t know how I ended up here but I was following all of it up until this video (probably 5th video I’ve watched) and now I am so confused
Feynman said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics." As a language teacher, I recommend i plus one. Watch/study more and you'll understand more of what you "learned" or believed/disbelied earlier. I say that we're 3-5 Einsteins away from interstellar travel. You may be the one, or inspire the one.
My Baby Sister. It is either his explanation is poor or your understanding is poor. Science is supposed to be done with the mouth shut but modern science is very talkative; that is why we hardly understand. If you want to understand, you will have to do the research yourself and do the writing yourself. Be prepared to face opposition.
Uncalled for, sir or madam. She merely states she is confused - she didn't attack or deny the scientific method, or allude to any of the many insane consiracy theories so common these days. Cut her some slack and stop jumping to conclusions.
Sorry you were attacked by intolerant RUclips denzions - it happens even in the comments sections of Strictly Science, quite civilized videos such as this one. Please don't take it personally.
@Megan Mackey. UR cutesome
.Big gap? Maybe Einstein's theory is faulty.
The more people think they know only proves how little they actually know. A chicken comes from an egg but you must have a chicken to get the egg. So goes the theory.
you know what the equation of Einstein are a good approximation arround the Earth is because the equation of maxwell dont variate a lot ....
Bounce. try bouncing a ball and you may recognize that there is another gap. Can you tell me what it is?
Anyone else notice how he conveniently failed to mention the cosmological constant, that was in Einsteins' equations? He never mentioned it. After that omissions, I was surprised he gave Hubble the credit for proving the universe is expanding.
--
Anyone committing their lives to proving Einstein is ~all wrong? It will be a life-long endeavor? Guaranteed life-long pay check!
Wouldn't the gravitational field be strongest around the sun.Its the most massive structure on our galaxy.But then how does light dispersion occur given the mass.
Are you 11 or 12? The gravitational field around the sun is not all that strong but still enough to bend the path of a photon, it is nowhere near the most massive object in our galaxy and photons once emitted in a vacuum have only one speed.
boyz toyz experiments used as pretext to build undeground military bases in Antartica - mind the energy :)
Friedman's idea is the only reasonably idea. And we don't need to pass through the ZERO volume.
How does this address the apparent fine-tuning we see?
Time dilation ALSO proves that GRAVITY IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.
By Frank DiMeglio
Oops, someone's sent a bulletin from the Thornhill loony bin again!
Yeah keep talking nonsense +Frank DiMeglio
I don't buy the "big bounce" any more. I used to like the symmetry of it, but the observations seem to point in the direction of the "big rip", and the heat death. Sorry.
We're just a qualia of photons gathering in the darkness searching for the (combination) flashlight/radio.
Я ЗНАЮ, ВЫ откликнитесь - как вылечить рассеянный склероз - MS , пожалуйста напишите , заранее благодарен....
Читайте антропософию Р Штайнера..
Читайте антропософию Р Штайнера..
There is currently no cure for MS.
The bigger universe is a fractal. The odds may be rare but we repeat. As a chance to exist and yet different every time. Ripples in the ever expanding or contracting pattern no location is the same to any other and yet affected by every other. Fractal. What level or dimension this is occurring." I don't know." I just live here 🤗
I think they were more understanding of the brain rather than the universe. They might have made better brain surgeons.
Inflation explains so many things that I think it's probably true ...me and my unqualified opinion kol
@ John Morris... You are wise enough, unlike some others here, to understand the position and state of knowledge from which you speak, which was good enough for Socrates. Your opinion thus deserves anyone's respect. Keep respecting true expertise such as professor Steinhardt's. Cheers!
@@frederickj.7136 aww, thanks! I'm smart enough to know that I have a lot to learn about everything LOL
Wish I wasn’t so tired
What if Universe dissolves in fourth spiritual dimension and then appears as new vibrations of creation energy ...
the s in Einstein is sharp
Listened to almost the end and had to check the date of the video lol bet he wishes he could go back and change his argument after Ligo detected the waves
And many say my faith in Jesus is nuts?
@Jan Berrios Ah ha..now you get prayed for Jan. Expect wierd things to happen. Thanks for reply!!
When you tell me the chances of inflation are one in a googleplex without telling me how you arrive at that number, I don't put much stock in the argument against inflation. You go on to say the prediction that dark matter will decay is testable, and say the theory of the higgs point to the vacuum being stable, but don't reconcile wit the fact that the universe is accelerating. How lame!
Six minutes of the elementary school review. Does it get better?
didn't knew even Einstein could be wrong
Even Einstein himself admitted to it ... .
He thought he was once, with the universal constant.....turned out that that was RIGHT! Seriously, though, he didn't accept quantum physics, which it turns out, was OBVIOUSLY an error, so of course he could be wrong, and was, many times. It's just he was so DAMNED right sometimes, like relativity. ;-)
We are 'Pure Consciousness' having a material experiences. We think of something and we make it. Not sure why peeps are not taught that, I guess it's because you have to bring G*D into the equation, right?
Roman's 1: 20-22. "Going to be" and "might be" require a certain faith. Sort of like the future "science of the gaps." ...i.e., "We don't know now, but we will in the future." There are certain things humanity was not meant to know. Probably for his own sake. Face it fellows, you're never gonna have a "theory of everything." Not in this lifetime.
What we are observing are images of things that probably have changed light years ago. It appears that our search for the Truth will never be reached. The Truth itself is constantly changing in the far off distance in the so called Space. The Creator must have foreseen our curiosity. He does not want us to know. The Answers are changing every second from the far off distance. Better use the funds to improve Humanity and Peace on Earth than trying to pock our nose in the Secrets of the God(s). Who can say today or tomorrow that we will know the true Truth ? My personal feeling.
Why do you speak of the Creator as male?
Debunked
THEY GOT NO ANSWERS = ITS ALL GUESS WORK AND HOT AIR ??????
Rethink, that capitalism is killing our planet earth, if we don't act fast and learn how to simply live with each other, your thoughts are pointless. I'm reminded that what's looking is what we should be truly looking for... it's time to look within to understand what's going to save life on our planet today.
A typical lecture by a person, whose brain-mind complex has been conditioned by "Time", "Money" and "Mathematics".
This tale wags the dog.
eventually humans will get there the simplist answer is the right one
Is he talking about the same gravitational waves that were proven to exist recently? Is this talk outdated?
Yes, the discovery of gravitational waves was announced 8 days after this video was put up.
What if one day we get a picture of the Universe and find out that it looks exactly like the map of the earth ? ;P ?
But einstein died befor hubble was online
Hubble died before Einstein