Public lecture from the mini-series "Cosmology and the Constants of Nature" from the "Philosophy of Cosmology" project. A University of Oxford and Cambridge Collaboration.
Besides delivering a lectures of extremely interesting topics...did anyone notice that unlike so many other lectures..no body has gotten up and walked around disturbing others or making those insane noises to disrupt the speaker..I suspect it is because he so clearly clarifies his lecture material...or else...because the lights are kept on and the disrupter would be more readily identified..either way...I find this video and other of his wonderful.
The most of my life cosmologists were extremely reluctant to discuss the implications of a potentially infinite universe. This is no longer the case, as the best science is beginning to support an actual or potential infinite scope to the universe's size (but fascinatingly, not an infinite past history - it appears there was a beginning, whatever that means). Wonderful stuff.
Some would say that Galileo, not Newton, was the 1st scientific unifier. Because he used his improved telescope to see that our moon and other planets (some with there own moons) seemed to be roughly spherical bodies like the planet Earth. And that other moons were circling other planets, not the planet Earth.
Good standard dogma presentation. I would expect to learn that the context of this information will be replaced as science progresses, e.g. this presentation deals with energy and matter but there's little or no treatment of information, until the end where Rees alludes to complexity. Also what does it mean to say the universe was the size of a tennis ball? compared to what? it was always the size of the entire universe and it still is and always will be, according to this model. And what's between the domains? There must be a meta universe of greater dimensionality.
'lso what does it mean to say the universe was the size of a tennis ball? compared to what? it was always the size of the entire universe and it still is and always will be, according to this model.' By that logic, the universe is not expanding. By tennis ball, he means relative to the size of a tennis ball we know.
vicachcoup So how big was a tennis ball when the universe was the size of a tennis ball? How close can protons, or quarks be to one another before they violate the Pauli exclusion principal. You have to start out with an impossible scenario.
SeanMauer The universe is estimate to be 92 billion light years across. It is expanding. We could say that 6 billion years ago or so it was 50 bly across. and if we extrapolate back we get a smaller and smaller universe relative to a light year. The universe began at a point singularity, so we have a progression from a zero light years across universe to one that is 92 bly across. Along that expansion there must be a point when it is the size of a tennis ball relative to an independent unit of length for which we could choose a light year.
vicachcoup Isn't it an assumption that the retro-extrapolation goes back to a singularity? If the universe is expanding it could have started any size smaller than it is now going back to the beginning of recorded history.
Projecting our ignorance does not justify the philosophy of cosmology-cosmology needs best of brains trust to define and understand cosmic Function of the Universe. origins -cosmology Vedas Interlinks prime concepts and Knowledge Base
some simian like Newton, yeesh; there can't be an anything, just constants, be it recurring matter structure or cubic area. "our universe", what a loveable old simp.
Thanks for this marvelous presentation.
Thank you for the upload. Brilliant presentation by a brilliant Cosmologist!
You so beautiful
Makes you want to live for ever, or close, to learn what's to be learned.
Shirley Mason Nothing is for ever. 2nd law of thermodynamics!
Shirley Mason cla
Sir Reese your insights into the universe which we live are rewardingly insightful
If we found an intelligent alien civilisation, this guy would be near top of the list to meet them.
...and risk, that he maybe get killed?
He makes complex concepts easier to understand
what a brilliant guy , thanks for posting this
Noble in mind and soul. Thank you!
Good speaker and good talk
HE MAKES IT EASY TO UNDERSTAND
Wonderful thankyou very much for this.
Besides delivering a lectures of extremely interesting topics...did anyone notice that unlike so many other lectures..no body has gotten up and walked around disturbing others or making those insane noises to disrupt the speaker..I suspect it is because he so clearly clarifies his lecture material...or else...because the lights are kept on and the disrupter would be more readily identified..either way...I find this video and other of his wonderful.
The most of my life cosmologists were extremely reluctant to discuss the implications of a potentially infinite universe. This is no longer the case, as the best science is beginning to support an actual or potential infinite scope to the universe's size (but fascinatingly, not an infinite past history - it appears there was a beginning, whatever that means). Wonderful stuff.
Great lecture. Thanks
He explains so most us can understand.
Some would say that Galileo, not Newton, was the 1st scientific unifier. Because he used his improved telescope to see that our moon and other planets (some with there own moons) seemed to be roughly spherical bodies like the planet Earth. And that other moons were circling other planets, not the planet Earth.
This was great. Thanks.
I enjoyed this very much.
Martin Rees is a bad ass.
+xq10xa fuicking NINJA OFSCIENCE
I downloaded this thank you
Martin Short does a really funny Martin Rees :)
Such a wonderful uniformity in the planetary system must be allowed the effect of choice... I don't understand what Newton was alluding to.
Real G
We need to clone Newton and then teach him Quantum Mechanics....
Good standard dogma presentation. I would expect to learn that the context of this information will be replaced as science progresses, e.g. this presentation deals with energy and matter but there's little or no treatment of information, until the end where Rees alludes to complexity. Also what does it mean to say the universe was the size of a tennis ball? compared to what? it was always the size of the entire universe and it still is and always will be, according to this model. And what's between the domains? There must be a meta universe of greater dimensionality.
'lso what does it mean to say the universe was the size of a tennis ball? compared to what? it was always the size of the entire universe and it still is and always will be, according to this model.'
By that logic, the universe is not expanding.
By tennis ball, he means relative to the size of a tennis ball we know.
vicachcoup
So how big was a tennis ball when the universe was the size of a tennis ball? How close can protons, or quarks be to one another before they violate the Pauli exclusion principal. You have to start out with an impossible scenario.
SeanMauer
The universe is estimate to be 92 billion light years across.
It is expanding.
We could say that 6 billion years ago or so it was 50 bly across.
and if we extrapolate back we get a smaller and smaller universe relative to a light year.
The universe began at a point singularity, so we have a progression from a zero light years across universe to one that is 92 bly across.
Along that expansion there must be a point when it is the size of a tennis ball relative to an independent unit of length for which we could choose a light year.
vicachcoup
Isn't it an assumption that the retro-extrapolation goes back to a singularity? If the universe is expanding it could have started any size smaller than it is now going back to the beginning of recorded history.
SeanMauer it's based on GR, which so far has made very good testable predictions that match our observations.
Projecting our ignorance does not justify the philosophy of cosmology-cosmology needs best of brains trust to define and understand cosmic Function of the Universe. origins -cosmology Vedas Interlinks prime concepts and Knowledge Base
O.K., got it, swami.
2 dislikes lol
some simian like Newton, yeesh; there can't be an anything, just constants, be it recurring matter structure or cubic area.
"our universe", what a loveable old simp.