Two videos I mentioned but forgot to post earlier: Hubble and the Great Debate video: ruclips.net/video/kcKOV7IwlNc/видео.html Universe temperature 12.8 billion years ago: ruclips.net/video/-uHez1q5oek/видео.html
You can disprove Big bang if you have proved it in the first place. No one observed Big bang and No observation has proven Big bang! So No body can disprove it! Big Bang is just a Metaphysical Research Program for naturalistic origin of universe. You aren't a honestly RUclipsr but Eric J. Lerner is.
No observation can disprove big bang. Because Big bang is not a THEORY. It's a Metaphysical research program for naturalistic origin of universe, Like evolution for species! You know better than us, The most observations are conflict with big bang, And more "unrealistic ad hoc hypotheses" are coming for solution!
Anton, you of all people should recognize power structures that refuse to admit truth. These power structures don't like to be embarrassed, don't like to be wrong. Powerful people control grants. They don't like to fund research that will embarrass them or prove that their own theories are in error. The USSR even went so far is to put people in mental hospitals when they disagreed with the establishment. The United States is not far off from that today.
There's been so many clickbait and completely false "articles" and "Webb discovery" videos since the launch of JWST... The only content creators I watch for real info are Anton and Dr. Becky... Edit: I never imagined that this post would get this many likes... 🤯
I hate how so many channels look like they are answering a question but then talk about irrelevant stuff and then never really answer their own question. Anton is the only one I watch now but ill look into Dr Becky
As an astronomer myself, I really appreciate the careful and nuanced discussion you bring. Helps to better inform the public when they see misleading (at best) headlines. Thanks, Anton.
As an astrophysicist I’m trying to figure out why you guys think that at NASA they’re not saying the same thing there’s something that would be seen by now that we can’t see our don’t see and the reason is because the theory doesn’t make sense anymore but hey you guys go off by the end of next year when they prove that the big bang theory didn’t happen and that there was a false vacuum will come back to his comments and rub it in your face lol cause bub 👨🏻🦳👨🏻🦳👨🏻🦳👨🏻🦳
@@Trve_Kvlt Well, Anton's headline simply asks a question. But many mainstream astrophysists etc were hoping Webb was going to see beyond the earliest galaxies into the opaque region that should be there according to Big Bang theory. But, once again, when we see farther we see only more galaxies. The question remains an open question, though many don't want to admit it.
Thanks so much, Anton! I haven't seen anyone talk about how the title of that paper on arXiv is actually a joke. It says "Panic! At the Disk", which is a reference to the band name "Panic! At the Disco". Just mentioning it.
The authors really ought to have called it '"Panic! At The Disks?" No!' then maybe (just maybe) a few more people would have got it and it would also be a better indication of the fact that the disks are nothing to panic about.
The scientific method required us the reject and not to tweak a theory when observations do not match predictions. It also applies to our (mine as well) favorite theory. If we give a popular theory a free pass with respect to need to produce correct predictions, then literally any other theory can claim the same privilege. JWST was not built fro free passes...
He failed to mention not a single accretion disc was seen. Do you understand the significance of this? No matter how he is trying to spin this, is a massive L for the big bang religion.
I hate to say it bcuz im no longer Christian, but Kent Hovind would have his way with Anton… thats for sure. Minus the age thing of 6kyo. Im a geologist, and Anton is exactly whats wrong with old arrogance in Univ that wont change the text books. Scared of looking bad insecure buffoons 🦧 They are too pridefilled and think they have it all figured out. .. we ARE ALWAYS LEARNING. 🔭
And even if someone is disappointed that current science theories are proved wrong. They shouldn't, this is how our science progress. Great video like always
@@jettmthebluedragon •When? The current theory set the Big Bang time 13.7 billions years ago. •Where ? Well ... big bang is the start of our universe so technically it happenned everywhere , at that time
@@jettmthebluedragon hmm i won't call it infinite. I would more qualify it as the expansion of the universe itself, so we don't know if its infinite, but we think that all our current universe if coming from the expansion of the Big Bang.
@@jettmthebluedragon a trillion years ago? Haha yeah that's a good question right ? We have no idea ! 😂 We have 0 clues on what happened before the Big Bang, only theories based on math right now. One of the theory call for a bounce. Like an universe before us crushed, and bounced back to what we would know as the Big Bang. But it's only theories ... we have no proof haha. Welcome to the world of physics !
Short answer: *Yes.* The slightly longer answer: The stereotypical theory that we all thought about with an exact approximate time? *Yes.* Completely false, without a question. However, that doesn’t mean that the universe didn’t begin in such a way in general though, we just simply now don’t know how old the universe actually is or how it even began in the first place. Measuring light to age isn’t exactly the best idea anyways since some results always came back with stuff as way younger or way older than possible, long before this telescope was a thing. It was always called the Big Bang *Theory* for a reason. I do still think that this theory is oddly specific and limited, so while exactly disproving nor proving it, it still has me reach the same conclusion that I always have, and it’s that it’s extremely flawed and bias.
The “Big Bang” theory says nothing about the moment t=0. The Big Bang deals with the observed expansion of the universe. To say “the big bang didnt happen” doesnt make sense. The big bang is not a singular event at a specific time - the big vang is still happening
Of course it makes sense to say "Big Bang" didn't happen. It just means the theory of an expanding universe from a very dense state is not correct. If observations continue to challenge this theory, at some point the theory must be discarded. However, it will be a hard pill to swallow for astronomy, because the ramifications to the field would be enormous. So as always, the more controversial/massive the implications, the more massive/solid must the proof be.
@@gooberclown The Big Bang is an unfortunate term to use to describe the expansion of the universe (I believe it was Fred Hoyle who coined the phrase when being interviewed on radio). The observed expansion of the Universe has been strongly supported by scientific observations and measurements. And that's a fact. The singularity is inferred if you run time backwards (ironically the singularity was first proposed by the Belgium Priest George LeMaitre). In fact Einstein's theory of General Relativity says nothing about black hole, yet it predicts their existence. GR actually fails at the point of a singularity - ie the curvature of space becomes infinite as does the density.
Actually Sir Arthur Eddington predicted the background radiation would be ~3K based on his measurements of starlight before Big Bang Theory. IIRC Gamow’s prediction was an order of magnitude greater. No BBT hasn’t been disproved, but it has quite a few problems and that seems like an excellent reason to do more research. Astronomy/cosmology has come a long way in my 71 years and I was particularly pleased when I received a Distinction for my term paper when studying cosmology in my 50s.
Huh, so it's never too late then, If the world doesn't end in the next few years I migth be able to do some sort of contribution to cosmology before I die some day.
How many accretion discs were in these pics? I'll give you a hint: less than 1. This is damage control and a huge hit to your religion. Sorry. 😢 Mathematical models do not always represent reality and can lead one to believe things that are simply wrong. Examples: infinite fractals, white holes, multi-verse and the list goes on and on.
I knew I could count on you, Anton. I've been scrolling through and watching a few of these videos with catchy titles using buzzwords like "shocking" and "horrifying" to describe the discoveries coming from the Webb telescope, and I've been trying to find a video that wasn't just sensationalizing the whole thing to get views. Its been a long while since I’ve watched one of your "What da math" vids, but when I saw your face on the thumbnail I knew I'd get the facts, the whole facts, and nothing but the facts. Thanks for keeping those of us who are out of the loop, in the loop on all things outer space. 👍
Yes absolutely fascinating material. Nothing else like it. I just wish that Anton would speak more clearly, ie he speaks softly and mumbles and it makes it hard to understand what he’s saying.
This video was dumb. He barely mentioned the topic of the articles. He agrees that the computer model of big bang was wrong. Then doubles down on the theory like some religious preacher. Dumb.
Clouds expand and contract... the entire weather of Earth is based on expansion and contraction of local areas. How do we know that the entire universe is not just like the weather? Why do they assume that the contraction goes down to a single little point? It seems more likely to me that our local area is expanding like a dissipating cloud... but it is going into another area that's contracting.
Yeah.... thanks Anton for the thorough scientific maybe's, could be's, we think's, we can't say for sure's but we will still make it look like it's all scientific fact, and thereby in the spirit of good science, continue to mis-lead people so you can look like you are an all knowledgeable clued up authority on the subject.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but, as noted previously, this was not sensationalism, but a pun gone awry. It was a play on the band Panic! At The Disco's name. The sensationalism came from the "journalists" (I use that term very loosely) who glommed onto a keyword they could use to push their view/comment counts. If you didn't mean to imply that the title was the trouble, I apologize in advance, and hope you agree with my take in a general sense.
Questioning the Big Bang is not sensationalism - it's common sense - Hubble himself insisted to the end of his life that the cause of the redshift remains to be determined, and there have always been physicists and astronomers who supported him, and still do.
I think it's best to just wait for more data. We've barely switched this telescope on and it's already shaking foundational theories. Let's just let it look around for a couple years and very quickly it will become clear what it has to teach us.
@@JasonP6339 Galaxy formation is a foundational theory. They have to review the entire process now. That just happened, those galaxies don't fit with current models of galaxy formation. They haven't even formally looked yet. That disruption came from a lens test. Let's just wait and see what it has to show us. There is no need to start defending theories, just let the data come in.
Thanks yet again Anton. I don't have the knowledge to critically analyse the clickbait articles, so I have seen them and wondered what the implications are. Keeping it real, thanks again.
The fact they made a panic at the disco reference made me feel like an old nerd. Crazy that some people saw the word 'panic!' And instantly went to questioning known reality.
Well, to be fair, not everyone would get the reference. And if you don't trig that it's a play on a song title, there's not many other ways you could interpret the words.
I don't know why so many people are so attached to big-bang theory. Scientists have themselves said its far from accurate and have larger acceptance only because it fits better than other available theories on universe. That's the beauty of science...it keeps refining itself, getting rid of older vestiges, exploring new avenues...unlike those cults which brazenly claim earth is flat..
Hannes Alfven and Halton Arp, two very well-respected astronomers, supported the idea that redshift is an indicator of age but not distance. A high-redshift quasar is like a fly on your windshield, where modern astronomers believe that fly is miles away and therefore huge. There are hundreds of examples of high-redshift quasars being connected by filaments to much lower redshift galaxies, falsifying the thought that high redshift objects must be billions of light years away in distance. For as many “confirmations” of Big Bang theory, there are equally powerful falsifications that have been observed but swept under the rug with untestable ad hoc hypotheses.
@@XraynPR The most obvious is dark energy. Due to the idea that redshift is caused solely by recessional velocity, observations are interpreted as galaxies accelerating away from us. The energy required to accelerate the expansion is needed to keep Big Bang afloat. This is entirely new physics which was not predicted by any scientific field and cannot be tested. The moment you strip away the doppler redshift idea, you no longer need dark energy and you no longer need an expanding universe. Perhaps galaxies or quasars with a high redshift show young stellar objects but not extremely distant objects. Those which were thought to be billions of light years away and massive are instead much closer and early in their development. The Big Bang dogma, in my opinion, is a fantastic display of confirmation bias gone rampant. Dark matter, neutron stars, black holes, etc. are all products of a preconceived notion, searching to confirm predictions before objectively collection observations.
Even Carl Sagan himself, spoke about the inconsistent red shift data. He also suggested the possibility of an exotic red shift mechanism to explain the discrepancy in observations. The Big Bang theory is just too facile in nature to be taken seriously.
Thanks! In regards to "the smartest person alive," I once commented on a you tube channel that the protagonist in the movie "Idiocracy" would essentially be in living hell and go insane, being the smartest person, by far, with no equals, in a scenario there was no escape from. (Seriously, think about that.) Someone responded, saying, "Your logic is flawed. Einstein was the smartest man of his time and he held it together." I responded that Einstein was constantly wrestling with the ideas of his fellow scientists and that, on a number of times, he was wrong. He, Einstein, was constantly interacting with his fellow thinkers. No man is an island. And Anton, keep up the great work. Love your videos.
"Something here doesn't match. Everything else matches exactly..." Unless I am mistaken (and please correct me if I'm wrong!), fully formed spiral galaxies with population two stars are being discovered 200 million light years from what the Big Bang cosmology terms the 'Dark Ages', where no galaxies are supposed to be. What I am having trouble with, is grasping the concept that galaxies this mature can form in a mere 200 million years after the Big Bang. Putting it in perspective, our galaxy rotates once in 200 million years. Another way to look at it is like driving a car towards a wall at 60 miles an hour: There comes a point that no matter how hard you step on the brakes, you're going to smash into it. That is the paradox that the Big Bang has to face. How, as you say, this is confirming that the Big Bang is correct? Can you help me sleep better at night?
I'm as perplexed. Was there a 2nd big bang? When electrons and neutrons emerged, did they dive back into the melting pot and overload. Something like black holes emerged ? 😉
@@KnightspaceORG 🤦 youre in the wrong place fool! that diversion is worthy of a russian troll in utter empty hypocrisy. you mean you dont even know to where this entire conversation began and you have nerve to post a complaint?
there are often other values used as well such as dispersion for example for distance measurements different wavelength get slowed down by passing through ionized gas differently so by seeing the difference in the arrival time of various signals it becomes possible to estimate distance, this paper goes through this in detail: arxiv.org/abs/1506.01704
The problem is that you first have to know the cause of the redshift. Hubble insisted to the end of his life that this still had not been determined. The Standard Theory people refuse to even think about it.
I have a question, in several parts: Can anything travel faster than light? With this expansion (which I don't question) how fast are we travelling? I hear people talk of seeing into the big bang, but if we were all there at the same time, then all the light from it has already past us, or will never pass us so how can anyone see into the big bang?
Think of it more like (in a 2D way) dropping a rock into a still pond, the rock is the singularity. The ripples are the expansion of the known universe, and it’s really only the first wave and there is no friction. So what went away from us we cannot see, as it was expanding into the nothingness faster than light from our frame of reference. Just like two cars passing each other on the road each may only be going 70 but to each the other is moving away at twice the speed. What we can see now the furthest and red shifted away from us is the distance away that each part of the universe that we can see, since we are now looking in lower frequency and redshifted light we can see further back into time as we can see the light of those we can see since it’s been traveling through space for billions of years. A even lower frequency “light” will allow us to see further back into the beginning of the universe. But our telescopes can’t see that form of light in a meaningful way due to their optics. Go watch a UV camera, microwave detector, or infrared camera demonstration to understand how each is tuned to see specific photon wavelengths
@@ivaerz4977 Science doesn’t know, but they are working to find out, as it may unlock faster than light communication or travel, a deeper understanding of where we live and how better to use it. You can believe in a god and understand that god may have created our universe by the means of the Big Bang.
This has become my goto channel for space science. Not that you only know the contents of the articles. You also know the contexts I which those articles are created. You know a lot of the involved scientists and importantly are able to cross reference their works with previous related works. That's a skill only people can have that work for a long time in this field.
Every better telescope we make just sees more stars and galaxies than ever before imagined by many. What we have to see to validate something like the big bang (which is wildly changing, adding new dark stuff each few decades up to 96% unexplained) is the reionization boundary. We need to see back to a point where things become opaque, and not due to a time or space horizon. With mature structures, and excessively large superstructures at high redshifts, we need to study things more and continue to make better instrumentation to see even deeper. I don't see any improved evidence for a big bang in the new data, but I do see continued evidence of redshift with distance, and just more stars and galaxies. The current "big bang" model is called lambda-CDM, and it is wildly different than the original one, although still based on the Friedmann Equations. They keep adding more things like evanescence, inflation, dark energy, dark matter, to make it kind of work. But instead of correctly predicting anything (except perhaps observed Helium), more dark stuff is added each time we get a new telescope. Now, we're at 96% unexplained, which means we're hypothesizing, and testing some things based on only 4% observable, and only after the parameter changes and not before.
The "Big Bang" being assumed due to observed expansion in space has always been another way to sidestep infinity. Logicians and physicists hate infinity. The observed expansion can be explained as thus "The strength of the force of Gravity falls off in accordance to the inverse square law, meaning there is no area of space with a non zero value of energy. Due to this, the farther away an object is from you, the weaker its gravitational effect. If you place an object infinitely far away, it will have almost no effect on you, but it will still have an effect. So, its as simple as this. An infinite Universe has infinite material. This means that the farther away an object gets from you, the closer it gets to the infinite material pulling it away from you and it now travels faster away from you. Scientists right now describe what I am describing but call it "Dark Energy" Why don't you fly apart due to "infinite gravity" Well again, inverse square law. The stuff nearer you has a stronger gravitational effect. Exact same math we observe right now when wondering why Dark Energy doesn't make galaxies fly apart. Though they call it "Dark Matter". Gravity resists Dark Energy in galaxies enough to stay structurally sound against the expansion. Just replace the fudge factor this "Dark Matter" with Gravity.
Yes I agree that the necessary addition of ever-increasing unknow stuff with increasing observation depth to keep the cosmological models alive is starting to smell a little off.
To resume .. what’s the use for the common people or scientific living on earth ? The universe is made so or maybe otherwise that we can actually imagine , we live in and will disapper before we can discovery a small part of it ,as universe is not static .. so what will it change in our short daily life ? Nothing !
for the love of... "adding new dark stuff each few decades up to 96% unexplained" * sigh * A) Dark Energy is just what be label whatever is causing the accelerated expansion and B) Dark Matter has a lot of direct evidence, actually and C) you can have a universe that is expanding, started at some time in the past, and it infinite. maybe actually understand the stuff you feel so free to criticize because of your fee-fees
Lemaitre is one of the most important scientists of the last few centuries, needs more recognition. Thanks for your segment on him. Everyone knows Einstein and yes, Einstein was brilliant. But there are lesser known scientists that are/were amazing.
@@mikeharrison1868 Einstein got QM wrong -- although he helped invent it -- because DnD wasn't invented yet. IF he'd grown up playing a half-orc magic user he would have known that God plays dice.
Friendliest and calmest "this clickbait stuff is irritating nonsense" response one could ask for. Kudos, Anton, for staying informative and thoughtful and navigating this aspect of the internet so gracefully.
Your channel is absolutely wonderful.. you are so great at boiling these fascinating subjects down to be easily understood by the enthusiastic space nerd. Keep up the wonderful work sir.
I guess as I work to shift from an amateur astronomer/physicist I find questions to how we observe/measure some phenomenon. One of these is fundamental to astronomy: light (across all EM frequencies). It would seem there is potential for serious error due to a combination of factors: human sight/perception of time, our instrumentation and system of measuring 4 forces, EM emissions, and time. Example: IF 1) we say that Big Bang wasn't truly 1 infinitely small singularity w/ nothing existing outside of it: but instead all of the universe was condensed to a plank density, and thus (since we don't know the truth size of universe) the size of the 'singularity' is also unknowable. And that entropy/inflation is the distances between all points are getting larger.. Result: we say that some things don't remotely add up. 2) We accept the (currently in 2022) notion that initial cosmic inflation surpassed the current speed of light. IF the entire universe even for a moment accelerated at a speed beyond c, where did that go. Conservation Laws fail to consider this seemingly: even IF it wasn't > 1c and only 0.5c: where did that go. Remember it would in theory have been the ENTIRE universe: and thus explanations of where that momentum/energy went; Result: EVEN IF most mass is concentrated in SMBHs, it still fails to explain this. It also fails to explain (in theory) how macromolecules could have arisen if even the subatomic particles were temporarily moving > 1c for this moment let alone 1000s or millions of years. 3) Space-Time is single, and space/time aren't separate, yet light traveling to Earth and observed (mostly as redshifting). There are issues here. In the end we that the enormous loss in momentum/energy doesn't add up: This causes us to question Hubble's Law and others. To posit a Big Bang singularity ever existing with even briefly infinite density says that there was no 'space' IE vacuum. IF we want to argue cosmology and the topology of the universe: and like (most people) say that the laws of conservation hold true, then it should apply to vacuums as well. By definition a true vacuum couldn't be compressed cuz there isn't anything/zero mass/density. IF the Big Bang singularity existed even for smallest fraction of time at infinite density...where was all this vacuum (lack of mass/density)? Was it 'outside' this singularity (and thus briefly a true perfect vacuum?) IF so, why did Big Bang happen? These two would have been in equilibrium: a region of pure vacuum and a region of pure density. (*Its a separate argument about how either of these could have arisen, rather than both collapsing to a lower state in between), but this notion has to be remembered). Basically IF there was anything (even perfect vacuum) outside the Big Bang Singularity, then it makes current theories worse: because in theory because a brief shift from infinite density to 'explosive' inflation in all directions doesn't add up. Even if forces existed in this Dark Age and prior but then the forces were 'destroyed' somehow post-BB, it doesn't account for while this initial inflation wasn't at infinite velocity (because every particle would have inflated/expanded away from all others at same speed, with zero resistence: and to overcome any quasi-gravitational force holding this singularity together would require a minimum 'escape velocity', which would be infinite or nearly so. So this just makes the queston of where did this momentum go even worse. Main Point/Criticism: Hubble effects of far distant galaxies moving away faster the farther out both doesn't and does add up. It would seem to affirm the Law since it is progressive redshifting/rate the galaxies are moving away...but at the same time this implies at 'one time' they were closer...and this is where it gets tricky/confusing. We should basically be seeing very little of observable universe (we know see), like 0.0001% of 0.0001%, basically nothing outside our local group/supercluster (at most). OR we are currently seeing the ENTIRE UNIVERSE...and we haven't realized that fact. IF it is the prior it would be due to that temp. inflation rate at high % of c. Basically in a short span of time the universe should have exponentially increased in size so much that it'd be billions of billions of ly in radius...with very little baryonic matter detectable. This isn't the case: cuz we see a ton of galaxies/filaments. IF it was the latter...well this is the somewhat scary implication, and more possible. IF we look at EM emissions and say a given emission (from a ultraluminous object like pulsar or quasar) exists in Spacetime XYZ-T and it radiates outward, yes there is the calculated dropoff in strength proportional to proximity to the source...but if we can detect anything from CMB onward post-BB around us...There are two conclusions that arise potentially: 1) At the time (~370 kyr) the universe was ALREADY at minimum as wide as our current observable universe. Otherwise we'd see giant areas of nothingness on the outer edges of the CMB images (granted we do currently detect supervoids/walls/filaments)...and this could be confirmation of this, as it isn't an actual void because we're seeing composite data across both space AND time...so a void could indicate that in the 13.1 byr we see that basically nothing has EVER expanded into that area. (since the further away it is, the further back in time it was 'there', and yet that particular location in space was also itself closer to us at that time since 13.1byr ago the universe was still very young and much smaller)...This would seem to disprove both of these (while throwing more holes in all theories). 2) The CMB could in fact be a 'map' to something entirely different than what most think...It could be a map to the singularity itself. This would be due to the fact that there is a difference between possible 'live' emissions we capture (where we can point at a given object and over days or years we KNOW it is the same object and there), and non-live emissions that are from extra-galactic sources. Mainly due to Doppler-like possible phenomenon related to the given XYZ-T location/time of the original emission (and its distance D from us at the time T) and its current location XYZ-T(subt) and that distance to us (subD) now. In the past all these extragalactic objects should have been much closer when we start looking >1bilyr, but especially >10byr. When talking past/future horizons this means there are no past horizons, because of course there aren't when reverse-extrapolating for redshift/entropy/inflation. It does present a posibility though: a 'orphan-ghost horizon' where we already received the emissions, the object died (and emissions ended), and thus we stop receiving them. In such case, this orphan-ghost horizon would represent a significant % of all celestial objects, and so there is an information singularity that permeates the universe: and thus a % of objects within the more distant parts of our supercluster complex may not ever be detected. Example: In galaxy further away from us in Laniakea SCC a blue hypergiant comes into existence, lives 10myr ago, the last of its light has already past by Earth...and thus we'll never detect that it existed (because our current detections don't work that way...Even if the star was a sol G-type and was > 10byr away: we may never detect its existence unless it was in a galaxy at the correct distance. Since outside brown dwarfs/neutrons stars/red dwarfs (of those current star types that exist, not future types like irons/black dwarfs) are among the only types that should be living past 5-10byr...it should mean a large % of emissions from more distant galaxies is likely these, and not more massive/luminous stars: because the chance of getting them in our 'snapshot' is increasingly more slim the more distant. Ofc there are still questions I see: - Why didn't any time during Dark Age to Recombination large portions of the universe collapse into some 'ultramassive' Black Holes taking sizable % of the universe with it? The density should have been high enough in various regions that this should have in fact been commonplace. IE SLABs should dominate the occupied mass of universe - No White Hole has been observed, and yet everything points to a BB singularity being one...and yet we dont have any evidence currently that any SMBH (even the bigger SLABs) are losing detectable % of their mass (with it also disappearing from our universe (IE spilling into/creating another), and yet many current theories permit the evaporation of them, and also don't place an upper limit on size of Black Holes during the far far distant Black Hole Era of the universe.). - If the current vacuum state = false vacuum...What caused it to exist in a state other than its lowest: IE what is beyond Universe horizon that is in a lower state.
maybe beyond the horizon of the universe is possible a speed superior to light, or SMBHs generate void which force an increasing acceleration of the universe expansion speed
On your first #2, in the beginning, the expansion of space itself doesn’t involve any momentum as far as I’m aware. The “stuff” within the universe wasn’t moving through space faster than light, the space itself was expanding faster than light, and still is to this day at great enough distances.
As people, we all make mistakes in interpretations sometimes. Thank you, Anton, for sorting out the wheat from the chaff! No, I'm not saying the Big Bang was a gigantic harvester, I'm just saying that there are many proposed theories out there, and it is extremely difficult to properly sort out which ones have properly and well thought out reasons for why they believe in what they think they have found.
Photons get tired and redshift in time, radioactive materials decay because of this. This is what happens when observing galaxies. rays are redshifted as they travel billions of years in space, which causes the ray from the distant galaxy to become more redshifted. CMD radiation is also photons of galaxies coming from very far away. There is no real expansion. illusion of enlargement effect is formed.
Just proves to me the James Webb is creating a lot of questions about these theories of the Universe. It will be interesting to see what else is discovered.
Well what ever is out their all ready exists 😐it’s the fact we dont see it 😑mars Jupiter and the Andromeda galaxy were all ready present even during the time of the dinosaurs 😑it’s the fact we humans did Not see it 😑
When I say the Big Bang didn't happen it's to better explain the expansion as a process that follows the known rules of physics in the framework of a fractal cosmology in which all systems can be considered infinite sets that are birthed from larger sets. It's the linear conception of time that I take issue with, not the expansion aspect.
@@roystondaniel2849 reality is not subjective, it is an objective constant that exists with or without us being around to perceive its existence. Lmao that's all I can say
The more I look at the early universe, the more comfortable I am that the big bang did not happen. The big bang contradicts the supermassive black holes, pulsars, and spiral galaxies we see.
No it does not!!! WTF are you talking about. Read about the proven CMB and understand this and you will know the Big Bang did actually happen in some form.
The "Big Bang" being assumed due to observed expansion in space has always been another way to sidestep infinity. Logicians and physicists hate infinity. The observed expansion can be explained as thus "The strength of the force of Gravity falls off in accordance to the inverse square law, meaning there is no area of space with a non zero value of energy. Due to this, the farther away an object is from you, the weaker its gravitational effect. If you place an object infinitely far away, it will have almost no effect on you, but it will still have an effect. So, its as simple as this. An infinite Universe has infinite material. This means that the farther away an object gets from you, the closer it gets to the infinite material pulling it away from you and it now travels faster away from you. Scientists right now describe what I am describing but call it "Dark Energy" Why don't you fly apart due to "infinite gravity" Well again, inverse square law. The stuff nearer you has a stronger gravitational effect. Exact same math we observe right now when wondering why Dark Energy doesn't make galaxies fly apart. Though they call it "Dark Matter". Gravity resists Dark Energy in galaxies enough to stay structurally sound against the expansion. Just replace the fudge factor this "Dark Matter" with Gravity.
JWST doesn't prove Big Bang wrong; I agree with you about all the hype and wrong conclusion in some Twitter posts. but it does suggests that most got the early evolution of the Universe wrong. Some who suggested Black holes developed far earlier than previously thought now appear to have been correct. It's the only way to explain what JWST is discovering. But we don't know whether the idea of primordial black holes, very early fast developing black holes, or both is correct. But I guarantee that large black holes early in the Universe is a must.
I'd like to mention 2 things: 1- Regarding Hoyle: he was a brilliant scientist who was the first to propose that heavy atoms were all cooked inside supernovas, but he failed to explain how Hydrogen and Helium formed and were so prevalent in the universe since for that to happen, particles needed temperatures so hot that there is no place in universe which is hot enough to turn them into hydrogen, let alone helium. Gamow was able to explain that with the theory of a big bang. He proposed that nearly all Hydrogen and Helium atoms in the universe were formed during the first 8 minutes of the big bang. But Hoyle was an atheist and hated with all his might the idea of big bang because that implies the existence of a Creator. 2- Regarding the Webb telescope: It cannot see further in time till the moment of the big bang not by design but because the laws of physics do not allow it. See, after the big bang, the universe was so small, so hot, and so dense that all photons were trapped inside matter and could not escape, at least no before millions of years when the universe expanded enough. If no photons escaped, then there is no way any telescope could see them. We literally have no possibility to see the moments just after the big bang, let alone the big bang itself.
That is very insightful! Thank you! Also the scientist in the first point (Hoyle) is really arrogant to take and discard important information just like that, being a true scientist means that you consider every possible scenario to draw out the truth. Not very ethical in the case of that atheist scientist, would not believe him nor take his word as truth.
The article titled "Panic! At The Disks" is likely a reference to the band "Panic! At The Disco" -- wish they would be a bit less tongue in cheek with potentially confusing titles
It's such a scientist thing to do 😅 the number of cheek-in-tongue titles I come across as a biologist is huge, guessing it is the same for the astronomy field.
Yeah, but the data also casts doubt on the age of the universe as they have now found fully formed galaxies that simply should not exist given their age and what we know about star formation. Which means that there is something we do not understand about the early universe. Plus you know they are going to find galaxies that are much older than the ones that are causing problems now.
Or we could be missing something regarding how galaxies form or how long their formation takes. That’s the fun part of new discoveries; We don’t know what we don’t know
if it does reach that point where galaxies are seen forming in less than a million years , will it be viable then, honestly I highly drought that . some of galaxies are a 10 million light years long !
Every single time we have seen farther it was supposed to reveal an early 'proto' phase of the universe which would confirm BB core prediction that the universe has evolved drastically due to dropping density and incressing structure formation. And every time this has failed. And each time they just say that all the nessary evolution/formation processes must have just occoured in a more compressed period of time and the NEXT time we see deeper will be when the differences manifest. People are already bringing out the knee-jerk response and it's gotten to the point of absurdity and we need to admit it.
@@kennethferland5579 Uhhhh no this is just blatantly false my guy. We can see drastic changes in the universes evolution easily. Anton brings up the CMB all the time. I don't think you understand what Expansion is as a cosmological concept.
Yes, the age of the universe gets older year by year. Come back in 100 years and they'll be saying it's 33.7 billion years - in fact, it might be a trillion years. Why we can't admit that we're in no position to say how the universe exists and/or how long is beyond me.
Great explanation Anton. I'm a big fan of Fred Hoyle, and I think he got robbed of a Nobel Prize for his Nucleosynthesis work, but you are right here. People always try out their New and Improved Physics Models on me, and I always tell them, it's not enough to explain one thing, or explain away one thing, you have to explain everything better than the current models. Personally, i prefer a Steady State Model (just from an existential perspective), but I think Hubble Expansion and the CMB put that to rest.
Photons get tired and redshift in time, radioactive materials decay because of this. This is what happens when observing galaxies. rays are redshifted as they travel billions of years in space, which causes the ray from the distant galaxy to become more redshifted. CMD radiation is also photons of galaxies coming from very far away. There is no real expansion. illusion of enlargement effect is formed. this is what you want. explains lots of things
@@fikretonderbudakin2643 the lack of any model explaining "photons getting tired" or their involvelement in such a way with radioactive decay, obviously. Explain it: for example how does that not break comservation of energy, or relativistic reference frames at the speed of light, and what involvement with the weak force that gives radioactive decay
I really appreciate this. I was avoiding those click bait titles, now I'm glad I didn't fall for it. You are right about clickbait leading to misunderstanding over time. A sensible approach is more appreciated than words can say. 💖
I would not assume a “Big Bang” like the theory predicted happened while its supports are being shaken at their core. It was only a physics theory to explain what we see without a full understanding of the nature of the universe anyway. The theory is limited by design. Like “special relativity”, it may be close to the truth, but not the truth.
@@rfichokeofdestiny That’s the idea, but then explain transgender studies, or predictions of 200 ft of ocean rise globally. It appears as a whole we are getting stupider, further from the truth.
@@olasek7972 It is bad science. AND it is hurting people - a LOT of people. Suicide rates are an excellent indicator. I don’t think any of this is hidden. Not sure why it continues to grow.
Big Bang is a pretty wild idea. I'm curious about one idea: what if all observations are local? Like you said, universe is clearly not the same everywhere, but then what if this effect is local and the universe existed before and beyond local space where observed effects might not apply.
I don't understand why anyone would think that the universe is expanding. The scientific definition is simply objects moving. When you swirl a cup of water you don't say the entire cup is expanding. They move away, but other objects are moving towards us. Logically they would have to argue that contracton is expansion. Once all visible stars leave our view, they would be replaced by others that we couldn't see before. The size can't increase because space is infinite. And objects moving towards us are not slowing down.
@@jaxmc1912 What does that mean? Lol. What you said literally means that the observable univerise is increasing over time. (Not because of technology or science) Which means that we would be able to see farther and more stars over time. Also, you didn't clarify anything other than say that the scientists aren't smart enough to convey their thoughts coherently.
@@aliensarerealttsa6198 No, I mean that if you take all the points in space of the current universe we observe right now and go back a few billions year, they were all closer to each other, condensed into a smaller point. In that sense the observable universe has expanded.
@@jaxmc1912 ALL observations? Lol. No. The Andromeda galaxy would be farther away than it currently is. That galaxy is heading towards us which is the opposite of what you said. You: a billion years ago the andromeda galaxy was closer to us than it is now, then moved away, and now it's heading back to us... it's moving towards us even though "everything" is moving away from us. Nice logic. Thanks for trying to explain the psychosis of the best and brightests. Give me a Nobel.
@@stevedv629'We?" You must belong to some club. Most people could care less about the unverifiable thoughts you have in your head about what happened 13 billion years ago, when time and space began. One thing we know: you (singular or plural) were not there. Nobody was. Good luck.
@@stevedv629 my friend it is you who believe in things. I do not claim to know "when" time and space began. You and that mysterious "we" club you belong to, do.
@@patrickirwin3662 I don’t think you understand how science and critical thinking works… nothing is “believed”… we go and we observe using telescopes and radio telescopes and our best theories and we go wherever the evidence leads us… but even then the ideas always remain a theory… if new evidence arises that contradicts these ideas, then it is rethought and the theories are changed … there is no belief, this is just, at the moment, what all of the observations and current theories lead us… is it really true? Who knows, probably not… but it is the best theory that accounts for everything that we know and have seen thus far… we may see and learn new things in the future that change this …. If you truly doubt this big bang theory, which is perfectly fine, and you should…. You should go look at and try to understand all of the evidence that has lead people to develop the theory in the first place, so you can properly enter the conversation… the biggest piece of evidence was the microwave background radiation being exactly what the theory predicted
Another thing that troubles me in these discussions - it's not just an argument between one theory and another. When Fred Hoyle and company backed off from their steady state theory, that didn't mean they accepted the Big Bang. There is always the possibility that no theory is right, that we just don't know how or when the universe began. That, I think, is the most realistic position given the evidence.
A theory doesn't need to be right. It just needs to be the best explanation for the available data, making as few assumptions as possible. With the presentation of additional, higher quality data, the theory has to be revised to account for the new evidence or a new theory needs to be formulated.
Yup, sometimes the best answer is that we don't know. (Until gathered data proves otherwise. ) It doesn't take away from your worth anything nor intelligence, admiting that you don't know shows humblness and that you are also human with limited potential just like everyone else is. Some topics are too much for the human mind and can truly mess with the psyche or wellbeing of the brain, its important to still remember our flaws or else ego takes place and takes away your credibility, personally, any scientist who shows arrogance or is absolute that their work is the truth, i would not take them seriously nor take their word for it. Truly smart and intelligent people don't brag about their "smartness" for they know that no matter how much they learn there is still much that is unknown, our knowledge so far is just a droplet in a sea of unknown territory, that we might never exist long enough to fully discover.
@@russellmillar7132 One of the problems of the Standard Model, which includes the Big Bang, inflation, etc, is that it is riddled with assumptions that are not based on evidence.
@@russellmillar7132 The problem with the Standard Model that includes the Big Bang is that as new evidence comes in that conflicts with it they never admit that there is any problem with its foundational thinking - instead they just come up with ad hoc adjustments like inflation - bandaid science.
@@kennethenston9562 That all may be true. And, again, the LAMDA-CDM model is the best model; the one that explains the evidence better than any other, so far. When a new model, one that explains all the updated info from JWST, is proposed and tested, we may soon have a theory that will more than justify the 10 billion dollars and 20 years it took to deploy this masterpiece. But please, give me a few examples of assumptions that are not based on evidence. The whole formulation of the "BIG Bang" was predicated on observed evidence, and precise measurements. But if you have a hypothesis that you feel does better explain, or provide evidence for, the observations, which appear to confirm both the general theory of relativity, and a dense, hot, ancient beginning to our universe, I would like to hear about it.
This could put a lot more weight behind what happens when you go through a black hole. Maybe a black hole formed and is a gate from one of the multiverses. A white hole is the exit pushing all matter outward and constantly expanding.
In my opinion the big bang is a white hole, it's how new universes start. The ultimate end of our universe is that all black holes eventually swallow each other and combine, until all matter is sucked into one single black hole. And also, since black holes exist outside of time, from their perspective matter isn't going into it "over time" and instead is all at once. Thus, a white hole will inevitably spit out all matter of the previous universe at the exact same time in some sort of quantum soup, and a new universe with the same matter starts again somewhere else. Another layer. Maybe that's why it's theoretically possible for white holes to exist but they can't actually exist as physical Objects in our universe with our known laws of physics, and we can't see any, it's because white holes are the start of new universes not objects inside them. Just like how black holes technically are the end of our universe, as they will be the only thing left. Idk though I'm probably just high
Thankyou Anton.. great work. The world needs this stuff. Kudos. Watching you for many years become an effective communicator of science and cosmology has been a joy. Respect from Far North Queensland, Australia.
I have always wanted to visit your Great land down under...for some reason Darwin and the Northern territories fascinates me. Always has, and I have no idea why? lol
Yes, he is, but he is also biased in favor of the consensus instead of what the data actually shows. The data shows that they found galaxies that are fully formed that simply should not exist based on what we know about star formation and that is with the tiny amount of data they have acquired so far. The JWST will operate for another 5-10 years and who knows how old the oldest galaxies they have found will be by then. Like the archaeology branch of science they tend to hide any discoveries that do not support their accepted view of how the universe works and when it formed.
Thank you so much, Anton!! My goodness!! I love science and space yet I'm not very clever!! I truly enjoy how you're able to explain these things with simplicity so we can all understand what's going on!!! So, I thank you for bringing us real information, in a way all of us can understand!!!! It's a wonderful thing for people like me!!
@@tyetr9853 I will, Tye TR!! Science, especially space science and Oceanography, is my jam!!! Lol!! There are so many scientific terms which can be used and I'd be lost very quickly!! I do love how Anton articulates his information!!! I won't say he's "dumbing things down", but he makes outer space accessible to all of us!!! Remember, just because someone can type a sentence doesn't mean they don't have learning difficulties in many other aspects! I will say, though, you made me feel very good with your compliment!!! So, again, thank you for that!! You made me smile!!!
Anton - I’ve been a science nerd since I was a little kid; haven’t been able to tell the order of the planets and how they orbited back when I was about two or three years old. I have very much enjoyed gleaning the 5 to 50% of what you say that I can actually understand at times (… especially since my life and career of 60 years did not take me into the sciences…). That said, just the way you carry yourself describing an author of an article that you don’t necessarily agree with is refreshing I don’t know how much of American culture and politics you keep up with, but we have unfortunately entered an era where if you don’t agree almost wholeheartedly with someone’s point of view - politically, scientifically, socially - you ( not necessary your ideas) are insulted, branded as ignorant or evil, while some try to silence you. SO refreshing to hear someone express respect and professionalism towards a person with a different opinion or viewpoint. Thanks!
Odd that you accuse Eric of clickbait science when Anton did not address a single point Eric made in his article. Who's actually the one guilty of grifting and clickbait science here? I'd say it's Anton considering that he drew you in to this video as though he was going to debunk the article, and then all he did was just give a 10 minute speed course on modern Big Bang theory, without addressing a single point Eric made. Go read Eric's article and see if you think Anton debunked anything here.
As a scientist and engineer I’m actually happy we don’t know everything or life would be boring. New questions to answer is a good thing. Theories need to be tweaked that happens over and over and nothing to panic about lol!!!!!
Please tell me how would you tweak geocentric model after knowing that Earth is orbiting around the Sun and not the other way around? If the model makes no sense it must be replaced. And BB has problems at its roots and always had. New data just confirms the flaws in theory, again.
@@NameUserOf hmmm I’m missing something lol!! The amount we know about the universe is a drop of sand in the bucket compared to what we know about the earth-sun system. So throw out the theory and come up with a new one I won’t be offended!!!!!
Thanks Anton for another great video. I have a question for you about red shift, since it comes up so often in your videos and is widely accepted and undisputed in the physics community... The question: Is there anything else, other than the expansion of the universe, that could explain red shift? For example, could wavelengths simply lose energy over time, just by travelling so far or for such a long time? Are there examples of wavelengths that have travelled for billions of years that haven't red shifted? Or could there be some other explanation, like the substance space itself was different in the early universe and it affected wavelengths in a way that no longer happens today (so light emitted in the early universe looks red shifted because it passed through a slightly different type of matter). I have seen so many videos where physicists explain why red shift happens, but I haven't seen anything that explains why the other possibilities couldn't be the case. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks
According to current physics, anything at the speed of light does not experience time - from its perspective, creation and destruction are simultaneous. Observations are not consistent with light being absorbed and reradiated, so it can't be interactions with matter. Just about any other process would require light experience time, which would be a massive upheaval.
I think you're right Anton, the question is more "local" than the universal aspects of Cosmology. Thank you for continuously defending Science with openmindedness and sustained curiosity, child-like awe, a real Scientist in you!
The people questioning the Big Bang are not anti-science. Do a search on the 2014 letter to New Scientist magazine "33 Scientists against the Big Bang".
"There is no way to explain this without the big bang" ~ Yeah there is, what you are seeing it the EV of the Schwarzschild radius we currently live in. From our point of view it becomes a point in space, from an observer outside of the universe it is the shell of a blackhole at super high temperatures with us going towards the center singularity which is infinitely in the future. Due to spacetime inversion what they see as a point infinitely in space we would see as a future infinitely in time. Gamma radiation entering the radius would be red shifted overtime to the observed CMB. Penrose is currently attempting to work out the data in this which is a representation of the outside parent universe but he takes a different stance on what he is seeing in that its what remains of a previous iteration which technically correct leaves some important information out.
@@seditt5146 the universe and black holes are 2 different things 😑black holes are NOT the universe they are part of the universe 😑and 2 I think you have Ben misinformed about red shift 😑
@@jettmthebluedragon Idk where to start because idk where your knowledge level on any of this stuff is however there seems to be enough mass in a small enough area such that our universe could itself be a blackhole many believe it is a coincidence, I do not. Furthermore I am talking about converting to AdS coordinates at which point it all becomes totally different then not only what we currently believe but what we experience because we would be unable to tell if we were actually falling into a singularity as all scales stay the same. What we would experience however is what appears to be a universe inflating faster and faster. Time and space invert after crossing an Event Horizon btw and relativity would start to explain the red shifting. We would see an isotropic background radiation which got increasingly red shifted due to the photon ring. We could also view particles as standing waves formed from information on a 2D plane being projected into 4D spacetime. Idk man, its a theory that holds more weight that you seem capable of understanding and as time moves on more and more important values start appearing out of combinations the hypothetical blavkholes properties which create the constants that are currently very mysterious to us at the moment. PS: chill with the patronizing emoji crap. Ya wanna talk about it we can talk but while I am not sure if this hypothesis is correct I can assure you that your rigid mainstream understanding is wrong as it fails as understanding 95% of all matter and energy in the universe while mine can explain it with rather basic blackhole physics and angular momentum conservation. Do you even know how to calculate redshift?
@@seditt5146 the universe is NOT in a black hole 😑black holes are the natural cycle of a stars core collapsing on it’s self and 2 galaxies have a black hole in the center it’s a CD 😑in a way 😑so their are NOT multiple universes their is only 1 😑galaxy’s are only part of the 1 universe whatever if the universe is finite or not 😑what ever is out their all ready exists it’s the fact we don’t see it 😑that’s like saying a tree falls and their is no one to hear it does it make sound scenario and yes it DOES make sound Beacuse their is air for soundwaves to vibrate the air 😐however in space their is no sound Beacuse theirs no air in space 😑no air no sound scream all you want from a few feet away in space…..NO ONE WILL HEAR YOU 😑
You are very unbiased. You only bring the facts, and opinions are only conclusions brought on by facts, or evidence. Evidence is material proof . You hold no biases. You are trustworthy
I thought it would be hard to explain the cosmic microwave background without big bang even if we are wrong about the red shift...but I was curious if it could possibly be right.
It's just black body radiation, any object will emit that. Yes it is mysterious how uniform it is in the sky but if you don't assume a finite age for the universe their is plenty of time and distance of which to create it via normal processes.
@@dirremoire It's not conjecture when the theory matches the observations and alternative plausible explanations do not fit. Particularly when theory precedes the observations, and the observations are very good fits with the predictions.
I like Dr Becky's analysis of the big bang, essentially explosions throughout the proto universe, and no singularity or starting region. It conjures the idea of a zero kelvin universe that started with a spark, but then even singular photons could spark galaxies far distant.
Your zero kelvin universe starting with a spark is essentially a Big Bang is it Not!?! I understand it is difficult veering from that mentality, but maybe the amplituhedron diverges from that.
Zero degrees Kelvin is the point where all movement at the subatomic and atomic level stop. And when that happens it means there is zero energy. That would also mean there are zero photons because photons are created by nuclear reactions which can not happen at zero Kelvin. That means that on its own, there would be no spark.
@@richardtucker5686 And that is why I said that at Zero degrees Kelvin it would be impossible for that spark to happen. A spark requires energy. And if the universe is all that there is and the universe is at zero degrees Kelvin, then there is not any energy. And if there is not any energy, then there can be no spark.
If you change one parameter in the big bang theory and simply say that light gets redshifted naturally as you'd expect by all the gravity and energy in the universe instead of making the assumption that the redshift is caused by all the galaxies in the universe moving away from us you get a completely different picture of the universe that explains this but of course this requires all the scientists and theorists admit they were wrong!
I love this guy! He has the ability to direct his focal point! He's definitely a sharpshooter! I have to be honest, he has a pretty good bead on things!
Certainly seems like there was a big bang, but causation unclear. I find Penrose's idea of a conformal cyclic universe quite compelling where what seems like a big bang is a phase transition.
Exactly, new observations lead to modifications of the current successful model, not a complete replacement. No astrophysicist is panicking as far as I know.
You say that the Big Bang theory is the best we have, because the observations match the predictions the best. But did it ever occur to you that the observations might be skewed? The only observations we have were made from a single location in the galaxy; earth and we've only started making these observations for a few thousand years, which is a blink of an eye in cosmological terms. Also we are basing our observations on information that has traversed space for billions of years, before it reached our planet to be observed. What if some cosmic events that happened millions of years ago, changed that information in some way that we are unaware of? Or what if something else than traversing distance can cause red shift? What if we are located in a pocket of space that has a different set of cosmological constants? To think that we can explain the universe by looking at it for just a fraction of a second from our fixed location in space, is just an absurd notion to me. Personally, I find peace in the idea that the universe itself always was and always will be, without a begin or an end. It's the cycles within it, that have beginnings and endings. So until we are able to travel to other galaxies and start making observations from there, I will hold on to the idea that the Big Bang theory is a just political tool that combines religion with science.
That's why they don't pay you the big bucks (just kidding, theoretical physicists aren't paid the big bucks either.) You say the notion "that we can explain the universe by looking at it for just a reaction of a second from our fixed location is absurd" but then go on to propose a cyclic cosmic theory that you "choose to believe" (not necessarily incorrect) while presenting no evidence. Isn't it better to base your hypothesis on evidence, even if it is just based on what we see, rather than on our imagination? That's what science is all about: observation. If we all just based our beliefs on our imagination, we'd end up with a whole bunch of... religion.
@@JungleLibrary Well, first off, I didn't "propose" anything. I merely stated my personal beliefs, so there's really no need for me to "present you any evidence". I'm a proffesional software developer, so this subject is not in my field of expertise, but I do find it fascinating. Which means that I get my knowledge from others and that I base my opinion on the research and opinions of them. So I'm certainly not alone in this "cyclic cosmic theory" as you call it. And second, I think it's pretty funny that you completely ignore the points that I made and immeditaly jump to the insinuation that my level of understanding is comparable with that of a religious person. Which, if you knew me personally, is absolutely ridiculous. So instead of patronising me, why don't you adress the questions that I raised? But to answer your question; Isn't it better to base your hypothesis on evidence, even if it is just based on what we see, rather than on our imagination? I think it's always the best option to base your hypothesis on evidence, I'm not disputing that, at all. What I'm saying is that you have to be carefull with what you accept as evidence. Like I said, what if some cosmic events millions of years ago, altered the information while it was on it's way towards earth, to be observed by us? How could we possible know? We have to keep that in consideration. As for the importance of imagination, I suggest you google what one of the world's brightest minds, Albert Einstein, had to say about that.
think your underplaying the difference in expectations. It was not a "just a little bit different from what we expected" it was a factor of 10 different! An order of magnitude difference is not little here. James webb is showing us that our models of early galaxy evolution were basically totally off base.
Thank you for your voice of sanity on RUclips. I always learn something from your videos. As to Dr. Hubble, his observations confirming that galaxies were outside of the Milky Way were done using the 100" Hooker Telescope on Mt. Wilson near Pasadena, CA. Pasadena is, of course, also the home of Caltech and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
I love Anton but he didn't address many of the specific things the author of that article talked about. If you read the article he goes overs new JWST data coming in such as redshift numbers, luminosity of galaxies, number of galaxies, size of galaxies....etc. it wasn't all about the word PANIC in a headline. I've seen so many people defending the big bang by just reducing it down to the word PANIC and then explaining why people believe think the big bang happened. Personally I don't care if there was a big bang. I think what people should be questioning is the 13.8 billion year Age of the universe. JWST is showing galaxies that shouldn't yet exist in the 13.8 model. I think future humans will look at our current time and say that instead of reevaluating long held theories we just "tweaked" our models so that this new data would fit into those theories.
I've watched some of Eric Lehere's videos and I find it quite fascinating. I am disappointed Anton did not address any of the interesting points Eric has made in his videos. In fact, to me at least, Anton's video comes across more as propaganda to me. *sigh*
Your comment comes off as someone who does not understand how science works. When scientists work, they are usually looking for deviations from the current model and in this case, that's what they found. They have not found, even in that paper, anything to contradict the mountain of evidence for the big bang. There is a reason the big bang model is our current accepted model and that's because it explains a lot of our observations. We also know it is not complete or could be wrong because it does not yet explain certain specific observations. When we find evidence which contradicts our current model, we not throw the baby out with bath water. The first attempt is always made to see if our model can be adjusted to fit the data because the model already explains so many existing other observations. It does not mean people are not looking at non-big bang cosmology models at all. There are tons of groups including Nobel prize winning scientists who are working on other models.
@@rogertheprice Eric has some interesting ideas but he does not have a lot of evidence for his hypothesis yet. When he does, his ideas will be more than just hypotheses.
@@neurolancer81 I am actually a huge fan of the scientific method and how an hypothesis becomes a theory after building a mountain of evidence. What I am more concerned about, however, is the fracturing of knowledge and compartmentalization into specialized fields. As helpful as they may be, there seems to be a disconnect, at least to me. I wish I had someplace to talk about these things. I remember something Frank Zappa had said when listening to the news about being able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Or perhaps I could prattle on about Edward Bernese and Neom Chomsky but I do not believe this is the forum for it. Thank you for your response.
yes indeed indeed. anton explained nothing and he deliberately watered down the genuine cosmological panic. i have noticed the same pattern of deception with evolutionists claiming to debunk anti evolution evidence , or evidence for young earth! when i read the actual " debunking" all i found was cheap insults towards the source and religion with extremely scarce scientific merit, just like anton has done here. they basicaly just claim " false " as if thats enough! we really need to be careful with mainstream science views , there is evidence of "religious " fanaticism towards their atheist ideals . they will suppress science when it comes against them and scream ScieNCe when it favours them even minutely and most of the time evidence doesnt favour them even at all yet they go ahead to twist and claim it again just like the zealot anton has very falsely claimed that JWST images actualy support bigbang . unbelievable , right in the audience faces but his fellow fans of lies are chanting all over the comments about how thank ful they are about him telling the "truth" and " debunking" my point is that dont just ignore and forgive what anton has done here , his reasoning or lack of it has to be dissected
Kinda weird that you wouldnt go into the article if you think its wrong. Also, "the only possible explanation is the big bang" No it isnt. Also, someone saying the big bang didnt happen is not saying that the universe is not expanding. The article isnt stating this, youre misrepresenting the argument. Theyre talking about the idea that the universe derives in an absence of something that pre-exists. Another part of the argument is that the size of galaxies we see and their state of red shift would put their generation before the big bang, meaning the big bang theory is wrong, even if there was a big bang. Not everything in the studies confirms what we thought before either, you provide no actual support for this argument and then you contradict yourself right after. This is the reason for the word "panic" at the beginning of papers and astronomers questioning their lifes work. This is a big misstep for you.
This is a fascinating history of how The Big Bang Theory came about, as well as how JWST is helping to confirm as well as to initiate new questions to further solidify it.
Odd that the majority of this video was just that, a history of Big Bang theory, instead of a video that addressed the points being made in the article. Isn't that odd? He's asked to give his opinions on the article, and he chooses instead to rehash current Big Bang theory, instead of addressing the problems it faces.
@@steadybacon1606 You must have been out making popcorn when he talked about how recent data from JWST confirms predictin models made based on the understanding of The Big Bang Theory, and how the discoveries raise questions about the conditions of the early universe, but do not negate the model altogether. Isn't that odd?
I was expecting this video to also refer to the recent discovery of gravitational waves as another bit of evidence supporting the big bang theory. Cosmic background radiation is certainly a relevant evidence Anton talked about in the video.
The CMB does NOT mean Big Bang 😑the CMB just means microwaves the only difference is they just added the world COSMIC 😑but the truth is the CMB uses the same energy to power your food in well duh a microwave 😑
Thank you for being so generous towards those who lead with a sensational headline in order to attract attention and thank you for focussing on peer reviewed science, which I still have faith will save us. One thing flew out of todays video that posed a big question for me. The subject of the super hot condition of the early universe in which atoms could not exist as we know them. A few tiny, provocative words for a BIG subject. I am desperate to know about this period and what it tells us about matter and the relationship between matter and energy.
The first guy signing the paper is in Twitter congratulaing himself for what is now a supposseldy "comical" title... which nobody got cause everybody is dumb, except himself...
@@TheChzoronzon Don't be so quick to judge. No doubt the editors and peer-reviewers knew what was what, because it is extremely unlikely the paper would have been published if they didn't. The joke is really on science journalists!
@@Classical741 Errr... there's no editors in Arxiv, anybody can upload there... and the paper isn't reviewed yet... "Don't be so quick to judge."... but on that I can agree :D Sweet Jesus...
It’s a play off of Panic At The Disco. It’s literally titled Panic! At The Disk… how can people not realize it’s a joke and not a sensational, clickbait heading? And it’s on arxiv for crying out loud… I’d be patting myself on the back too because it’s sending people into a tizzy for no real reason when it’s literally just a play on words lol
6:05 Anton you just blew my mind when you told us that static on old TVs are caused by cosmic microwave background radiation. Thank you for being such a great teacher!
Partially caused, as he said. To get only the cosmic background radiation, you must clean out all man made radio signals and all naturally occurring radio signals from any natural phenomena that's not CBR. Fun fact, same old TV is better for observing the effects today than it was when it was made just because there is less man made radio transmissions to interfere with it this days.
The CMBR was supposed to be 50K according to BB theory but it was actually 3K which was the value the steady state advocates had calculated. So why did the 50K get massaged down to 3K and the Nobel Prize awarded to the BB advocates?
In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives.
I thought I’d seen - in one of your videos - that heavier elements had been found by JWST in these very early galaxies, before they were expected to have been created? And that they were looking more structured than expected at that time. And I still struggle with that expansion phase, which seems to contradict tracing back the expansion linearly to a single point. But hey, if you say it still fits, I believe you, I just don’t understand it. Maybe I never will!
Don’t beat yourself up, I doubt if anyone will ever truly understand what happened 13.8 billion years ago. It would require a staggering level of arrogance to claim that you do, such arrogance usually only exists in stupid people.
The observed ratio of H, He and Li versus prediction remains a thorny issue with BBT. And they are far from the only issues of observation versus theory. It’s far from right versus wrong though as Anton points out. It’s always a matter of watch this space… so to speak.
We are in the expansion phase now. I think you mean the ‘inflation’ phase the phase that happened milliseconds after the start and only took milli seconds. So with these two different rates you can’t straight line trace from now back to the Big Bang. Also about 5 billion years ago the expansion of the universe started to accelerate and dark matter and energy is attributed to this. So now we have 3 different rates of expansion. The first size change is called ‘ inflation’ and happened right right at the start of the entire Big Bang process we are still in now. The inflation turned energy into matter, you could say the energy solidified into matter, and was virtuously instantaneous. Inflation is often called a scale change rather than a size change because a single nano meter became hundreds of thousands of light years in a few instants. That’s the first ‘expansion’. Then the universe expanded at a steady rate for about 9 billion years, and is the second phase of expansion. Then dark matter and energy happened 4-5 billion years ago. Coincidentally about when our sun formed. This dark energy that somehow happened from somewhere that’s still unknown to science, but possibly a tentative idea is that it’s from the ‘surface tension of the void bubbles somehow’, started the acceleration of the universe expansion. This is the third stage if expansion. So having three very different rate of expansion! 1 instantaneous unbelievable scale change that created matter, 2 9 billion years of constant rate expansion, 3 4-5 billion years of accelerating expansion, you can’t just have a single number or rate of expansion so you can straight line trace the Big Bang backwards to a point. You need 3 lines, a curved line for the accelerating expansion, then a straight line back from that, and then a line straight down from there to ‘the point’ since that last bit was instantaneous.
Anton, could you please explain to me how we are able to see light from when the universe was about 50 million years old? At that time, in whatever early forming State the Milky Way galaxy was in, it's location was far closer to the center point of the Big Bang than it is now. Light emanating from that and other galaxies at the opposite end of the smaller universe would be traveling faster than our galaxy which is moving at very slow sublight speeds. Therefore if we have already been traveling for 13 billion years since the origin of the universe as we know it, views of the universe that were 12.9 billion years ago would have gone far beyond us by now moving in an outward sphere with a radius of..... I'm not sure what because I don't know how to do that math but I'm sure someone does. Considering that there is nothing to reflect that light back at us and the fact that that light is continuing to move out Into the Dark Void beyond probably the edge of the actual physical Universal barrier, how could we ever see that view of the 50 million yr old universe unless we traveled in a wormhole outward on that radius and popped out in just enough time to look back and see the view of the 50M yr old universe. When we look across the greatest length vector of our universe and view a Galaxy about 10 billion light years away, it makes sense to me that I'm looking back in time and actually seeing what that Galaxy looked like 10 billion years ago. Once again this creates a paradox for Imagining the universe to be 13 billion years old when I'm looking at a Galaxy that was only 3 billion years old. In any case it seems to me that the universe is much much older than we think it is, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see all of these incredible distant galaxies as they were so far in the past.
There is no center of the big bang. There may also be no edge to the universe; it could be infinite, so no "Dark Void" beyond. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is light from around 380,000 years after the big bang, so it was emitted over 13 billion years ago and is reaching us now. It doesn't come from any one direction, it comes from everywhere since the big bang happened everywhere. We can see light that has been traveling for almost 13 billion years since everything has been moving apart at a high speed. The thing that emitted the light would have been much closer when it was emitted. The light is just reaching us now. If it has been traveling for 13 billion years, then the object that emitted it is much farther away by now (around 70 km/s/Mpc expansion rate). That adds up over millions or billions of light years and exceeds the speed of light for very distant objects. That is why we talk about the observable universe. We will never be able to observe anything from beyond a certain distance since the light can never reach us as long as the universe continues to expand at the current rate or faster.
@@jamescox8429 James, awesome that you got back to me so fast. I really appreciate it. so at age 56 you are reshaping right now my traditional concept of the cosmos. If you could elaborate on a few of the things that you said in even more simple layman's terms that a country boy could understand, I would become even more enlightened. One point that seemed to be jumping out at me in your explanation, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that our galaxy jumped out of the Big Bang at a speed faster than the speed of light. This essentially is analogous to the Wormhole I was thinking about such that our current position is beyond the light emitting from the early universe therefore enabling us to see it as it approaches at 12.9 billion light years, understanding of course that those actual early galaxies are much further away from us than even 13 billion light years cuz they have been moving also at the expansion rate. Just a quick question on the expansion rate .. that is clearly sublight speed right.. I'm not familiar with how speeds measured in miliparsecs correspond to the speed of light or the constant known as C? I am a little bit taken back at your statement that the Big Bang happened everywhere since I thought that it was clearly established in modern cosmotology that the Galaxies have all been expanding away from a Common Center and that all the mass in the current known universe was at one point condensed into the single singularity from which the Big Bang came forth. If that is the case, wouldn't there have to be a finite spherical boundary of the universe, albeit and ever expanding boundary, moving outward at the same expansion speed that you referenced above? When I use the term boundary I don't mean like the Star Trek galactic energy boundary, I am simply referring to a spherical surface area measured as a radius between the distance of the farthest Galaxy and the conceptual center of the universe. If you are speaking about the Big Bang happening everywhere rhetorically as a result of the fact that all that is in the universe was in the same spot when the singularity that contained everything erupted into all of the hot gases that we know existed due to the residual background radiation. Bottom line if what you are trying to say is that our galaxy was formed in roughly the same area that we are currently moving away from, after ending up there as a result of the gases out of the Big Bang arriving in the area at a speed > c, then that will help eliminate the mental block that I had making me think there was a paradox. My apologies if this is all frustrating to you but you have been the one person who has taken the time to try to explain so I want to stay at it until I get it.
@@Teflon2017 The only thing I can tell you of your questions is that the expansion of the universe isn’t necessarily moving at any real speed, per se. The reason that we lose sight of galaxies beyond our particle horizon isn’t because it’s suddenly moving faster than light, it’s because as you increase the distance between us and said galaxy, the space between is constantly ballooning up. At a certain point, that ever increasing space becomes too much for the speed of light to overcome and therefore we either haven’t had enough time to see it, or we simply never will. It’s important to remember that space isn’t simply moving outward from the singularity, as science understands it, and therefore at the, “edges,” it is simply going faster than the inner portions. Rather space is constantly expanding at ALL points instead of from a single one. It’s like if you put a series of sticks starting from 1 foot away from you and continued placing them at 1 foot intervals. Then imagine that for every foot, you increase the distance between each stick by an additional foot so it’s 2 feet, then 3 feet, then 4 feet… so eventually there is 10 feet between each stick, then 20 feet, etc. this is the reason the farther galaxies haven’t had time or will never have time to reach us. It’s kinda difficult even for me to wrap my mind around, and I frankly think that space itself is infinite and even beyond our particle horizon there is more matter than we can see or will ever see. But that’s just my opinion. Or I suppose it’s possible that we are just the “center” of one observable universe and that there are many many more in bubbles throughout the infinite expanse of “empty” spacetime. I don’t really know! That’s what fascinates me so much about the universe… we know so much already, but there is always going to be questions that we will never be able to answer.
@@JanoyCresvaZero J, that was beautifully said! I agree with so much of what you said because it makes sense. You made me remember the computer pic of the vast amount of cosmic galaxy filaments, twirling and twisting because of the varied gravity everywhere. Although generally speaking galaxies are moving apart, they obviously are not doing so uniformily in a spherical shape. Its more like rivers finding their way down hill through various topographical formations. Given the universal law of conservation of mass and energy, I wonder if matter going into the core of a black hole doesn't come pop out as a white hole in one of those neighboring universes?..... Thankyou for taking the time and writing this thoughtful explanation.
Thanks for chopping through the BS for us Anton!!🙏 Hopefuly 'news' outlets start hiring people like you to write their science articles, instead of...what they call journalists now..also I wish there were some standard 'seal of approval' for articles, you know, so real scientists can approve them as sufficiently correct or plain BS, because with all the noise and dirt thrown to the winds these days it gets really complicated to know what youre reading.
especially in places like YT, where every man and his dog have opinions that they believe so strongly that they think is fact, when in reality it's nothing of the sort.
@@whatdamath hi Anton Do you think we can see the start of everything or is it endless space. Maybe there is more space than what we can see but so far away that the light would never reach us. What is outside the universe?
@@whatdamath hi Anton Would we not be able to see a cosmos full of imploding suns in real time with James Web? After all these billions of years we should see stars dying and exploding? Sorry for the stupid questions but it just boggles me
I find it adorable how scientists can be arrogantly confident on "known" science then equally arrogantly dismissive when the data doesn't match their theories. Already starting with "you just didn't understand our theory", no "it" really means this. One thing is always certain, in almost every field, what is known today will be corrected tomorrow.
I sense a fundamental misunderstanding of science. But first, lets get something out of the way. The whole notion that the big bang was "disproved" is complete baseless bunk. This is pseudoscience that has spread from click bait articles and videos, and using the novelty of the James Webb Space Telescope to attempt to give their BS claims an air of credibility. Now, lets say that a piece of evidence came along that suggested that we need to revise how we think the universe originated. The whole point of science is to revise and/or update our understanding of reality with the evidence! This would not discount the previously gathered evidence that indicated the big bang, but such a situation would mean we need a better theory that is compatible with all of the data at the same time, not just one set of data or the other. This is the complete opposite method of religion. Religions assumes that either god/s or any other variety of supernatural answers as the cause for literally anything that cannot yet be reasonably answered due to their being insufficient evidence or data, and which demands that you filter all information and only cherry pick the data to serve that pre-held religious or supernatural conclusion. This is why Religion creates dark ages that slow progress and the accumulation of knowledge to a crawl and makes for extremely close-minded and backwards societies, whilst Science creates technological revolutions that tremendously advance humanity in a multitude of ways.
By the way, the reason i talked about religion in my comment, is that it's almost exclusively people with religious upbringings that have this extremely deep level of misunderstanding of science. It's very obvious how you were raised, and because you weren't taught correctly how science works, you have no frame of reference aside from how your religious parents and church claims how science works. They taught you wrong. You have a choice, either choose to become educated on how science works, or stick your head in the sand and cloud your mind with convenient religious answers without a shred of evidence to support any of it.
@@ufodeath you shouldn't assume things my guy. You can't talk big on science then make assumptions on what someone else's beliefs systems are and how that effects their perspective. Even if you are somewhat correct, making assumptions is not very scientific of you, especially without having any evidence lol. A singular "big bang" isn't very likely. Multiple however is much more likely. I do agree that these new "discoveries" have been minimal in being able to disprove the theory of the big bang but that theory in itself is flawed to an extent. It mentions nothing of where said bang may have originated from or the possibility of other planes/dimensions.
Just a question. A large pillar of the Big Bang Theory relies on the red shift of distant galaxies. This red shift is assumed because the are moving away from us and the Dopplereffect makes them appear more red. However, we rely on the Dopplereffect like we notice in every day life is different. Object moving towards us or moving away from us in a medium that is steady. The air is a steady medium when a sirene moves towards us or moves away from us. The Big Bang theory is different. The objects themselves don’t really move further away but the medium in which the galaxies are (space) is expanding. That is a difference. So how do we know the Dopplereffect also works in the case of distant galaxies and if that is the explanation of the red shift? Has it ever been tested? I don’t have the means but you could try by a pulsating floater in tank of water and by adding water to the tank while the walls of the tank move away so that the water level remains the same. Does the floater move? Does the wavelength of the water due to the pulsating of the floater change when water is added? Thanks!
Yes it works the way we think it does and we know that because we have tested and retested, and tested light over and over and over again. We have tested in enough different mediums that we know how to make it look like light has stopped moving completely because of the medium we use to trap it during those tests.
Air is very much not a "steady" medium. Doppler effect is a thing because of how waves behave, and light is nothing more than just an electromagnetic wave. By knowing that stars emit visible (among others) light, and that this light gets more and more redshifted, to the point of it being invisible to our naked eyes, we know that redshift occurs. And since majority of the objects appear redshifted, we can conclude that all of them move away from us. Keep in mind, that we also have blueshifted objects, like andromeda, moving towards us.
@@huib1965 Space isn't really a "medium" like the air is. It's just a set of dimensions. So when they say "space is expanding" that's kind of misleading. Everything is moving away from everything else. And so things that are far enough away are moving faster than the speed of light away from us.
"The objects themselves don’t really move further away but the medium in which the galaxies are (space) is expanding." That is not logically possible. If the medium in between two objects were in fact expanding, then the distances between the two objects must increase. That is a physical requirement of physical expansion. If that were not the case, you could say objects themselves are expanding while staying the same exact size. There is no such occurrence as non-physical expansion. The big bang theory is absolute nonsense as is practically all of its supporting logic. "That is a difference. So how do we know the Dopplereffect also works in the case of distant galaxies and if that is the explanation of the red shift? Has it ever been tested?" That was the entire premise of Christian Doppler's original paper on the Doppler Effect. He described how the Doppler Effect was, in fact, the same exact effect for both light and sound in the very first paper on this subject matter. The paper describes the Doppler Effect as being caused by the relative motion of the emitter with the medium and the relative motion of the observer with the medium, with the observed frequency change being varied by the relative motion between the observer and the emitter and vice versa. There is no mention of any expanding media in this paper whatsoever. This paper has never been refuted or falsified, either. That is how you know the modern theory is junk "science." "I don’t have the means but you could try by a pulsating floater in tank of water and by adding water to the tank while the walls of the tank move away so that the water level remains the same. Does the floater move?" That would be an interesting experiment, though I do not know how you could pull it off at a constant rate. Also, it seems to me that the vertical axis must expand as much as both of the horizontal axes in order for the expansion to replicate the hypothesis of the big bangers as they are postulating an expansion equally in all directions. The problem is, if expansion were occurring at a constant rate, the volume itself would not be expanding at a constant rate. This is easily shown with a simple 2 axis diagram. Start at a single point. Then move out one unit in all directions from the point, making a unit circle with radius of 1. The area is pie*r^2=pie=3.14 units. Now do the same process again from the second circle. Now the area is pie*2^2=pie*4=12.56. The next iteration would have an area of pie*3^2=pie*9=28.26. Basically, it is an exponential equation. Now, if you did that with 3 axes instead of 2, the numbers grow even larger even quicker, being a higher order exponential equation. The only way to keep the unit volume at a constant rate would be for the rate of expansion to decrease over time. They have never submitted a postulation for such a decrease in the rate of expansion, as far as I am aware, however it is rather nonsensical because there is nothing for the expansion to expand into. There is also a reciprocal way of describing this hypothesis. The space is remaining constant and the matter is shrinking, because the only two variables in this hypothesis is that of space and that of matter. Per this hypothesis, relative to matter, space must be expanding, but relative to space, matter must be shrinking. It is pretty absurd, when you think about it. There is a much more common sense explanation for the observed red shift. It is observed any time you drop a stone into a body of water. Notice how the rings expand outwards? As they do so, the waves become more shallow and have a longer wavelength. Now, if you were a bobber on top of the pond looking from a distance at the location where the stone was dropped, you would observe that the frequency of the wave has decreased from its original frequency. There is no magic expansion of the water itself. These "scientists" have not even figured that out yet.
i just saw Dr Becky’s video on this & i’m super disappointed she didn’t mention the tweet & shout out anton 😔 if anyone in this community deserves a shout 😪
Two videos I mentioned but forgot to post earlier:
Hubble and the Great Debate video: ruclips.net/video/kcKOV7IwlNc/видео.html
Universe temperature 12.8 billion years ago: ruclips.net/video/-uHez1q5oek/видео.html
You can disprove Big bang if you have proved it in the first place.
No one observed Big bang and No observation has proven Big bang! So No body can disprove it!
Big Bang is just a Metaphysical Research Program for naturalistic origin of universe.
You aren't a honestly RUclipsr but Eric J. Lerner is.
No observation can disprove big bang. Because Big bang is not a THEORY. It's a Metaphysical research program for naturalistic origin of universe, Like evolution for species!
You know better than us, The most observations are conflict with big bang, And more "unrealistic ad hoc hypotheses" are coming for solution!
If the universe would stop expanding right now how long would it take to collapse in on its self?
Hi Anton 👋 your such a gentle soul
Anton, you of all people should recognize power structures that refuse to admit truth. These power structures don't like to be embarrassed, don't like to be wrong. Powerful people control grants. They don't like to fund research that will embarrass them or prove that their own theories are in error.
The USSR even went so far is to put people in mental hospitals when they disagreed with the establishment.
The United States is not far off from that today.
There's been so many clickbait and completely false "articles" and "Webb discovery" videos since the launch of JWST... The only content creators I watch for real info are Anton and Dr. Becky...
Edit: I never imagined that this post would get this many likes... 🤯
I agree.
I hate how so many channels look like they are answering a question but then talk about irrelevant stuff and then never really answer their own question. Anton is the only one I watch now but ill look into Dr Becky
Seriously, it’s so damn annoying.
I’m enjoying all the head scratching 🤔
They immediately get the "don't recommend channel" treatment from me.
As an astronomer myself, I really appreciate the careful and nuanced discussion you bring. Helps to better inform the public when they see misleading (at best) headlines. Thanks, Anton.
Headlines are only misleading if they are wrong.
As an astrophysicist I’m trying to figure out why you guys think that at NASA they’re not saying the same thing there’s something that would be seen by now that we can’t see our don’t see and the reason is because the theory doesn’t make sense anymore but hey you guys go off by the end of next year when they prove that the big bang theory didn’t happen and that there was a false vacuum will come back to his comments and rub it in your face lol cause bub 👨🏻🦳👨🏻🦳👨🏻🦳👨🏻🦳
@@kennethenston9562 and these ones are wrong
@@kennethenston9562 Are you implying these headlines are right?
@@Trve_Kvlt Well, Anton's headline simply asks a question. But many mainstream astrophysists etc were hoping Webb was going to see beyond the earliest galaxies into the opaque region that should be there according to Big Bang theory. But, once again, when we see farther we see only more galaxies. The question remains an open question, though many don't want to admit it.
Thanks so much, Anton! I haven't seen anyone talk about how the title of that paper on arXiv is actually a joke. It says "Panic! At the Disk", which is a reference to the band name "Panic! At the Disco". Just mentioning it.
Yeah, how many of their colleagues are gonna get that one? Still, pretty funny.
The authors really ought to have called it '"Panic! At The Disks?" No!' then maybe (just maybe) a few more people would have got it and it would also be a better indication of the fact that the disks are nothing to panic about.
Im 56 and did not get that. Good catch.
Lol I thought it was from “The Smiths” 1987 song Panic at the disco.
A follow up paper should be titled "I don't know how, but they found proof of the Big Bang!"
Thank you for putting the new discoveries in context. This was really helpful to differentiate the new findings from the hype.
ironic
The scientific method required us the reject and not to tweak a theory when observations do not match predictions. It also applies to our (mine as well) favorite theory. If we give a popular theory a free pass with respect to need to produce correct predictions, then literally any other theory can claim the same privilege. JWST was not built fro free passes...
Click bait is such a cancer...thank you Anton for not being part of the problem.
He failed to mention not a single accretion disc was seen. Do you understand the significance of this? No matter how he is trying to spin this, is a massive L for the big bang religion.
I hate to say it bcuz im no longer Christian, but Kent Hovind would have his way with Anton… thats for sure. Minus the age thing of 6kyo. Im a geologist, and Anton is exactly whats wrong with old arrogance in Univ that wont change the text books. Scared of looking bad insecure buffoons 🦧 They are too pridefilled and think they have it all figured out. .. we ARE ALWAYS LEARNING. 🔭
And even if someone is disappointed that current science theories are proved wrong. They shouldn't, this is how our science progress.
Great video like always
Well here’s a problem all you say the Big Bang happend but ok then WARE did it happen and ware ? 😐
@@jettmthebluedragon
•When? The current theory set the Big Bang time 13.7 billions years ago.
•Where ? Well ... big bang is the start of our universe so technically it happenned everywhere , at that time
@@julesreppert2855 so…that means it’s infinite right ? 😐also what happend a trillion years ago ? 😐
@@jettmthebluedragon hmm i won't call it infinite. I would more qualify it as the expansion of the universe itself, so we don't know if its infinite, but we think that all our current universe if coming from the expansion of the Big Bang.
@@jettmthebluedragon a trillion years ago? Haha yeah that's a good question right ? We have no idea ! 😂 We have 0 clues on what happened before the Big Bang, only theories based on math right now.
One of the theory call for a bounce. Like an universe before us crushed, and bounced back to what we would know as the Big Bang. But it's only theories ... we have no proof haha. Welcome to the world of physics !
Anton - one of the best cosmology communicators in modern times.
Anton is your favorite cosmology youtuber's favorite cosmology youtuber
And his clickbaits...
100%. He's really amazing honestly
ok so the universe is still going to end and all life is doomed we just have more proof of it. whoop de doo
do you mean he sounds authoritative therefore you think he's good?
Short answer: *Yes.*
The slightly longer answer: The stereotypical theory that we all thought about with an exact approximate time? *Yes.* Completely false, without a question. However, that doesn’t mean that the universe didn’t begin in such a way in general though, we just simply now don’t know how old the universe actually is or how it even began in the first place. Measuring light to age isn’t exactly the best idea anyways since some results always came back with stuff as way younger or way older than possible, long before this telescope was a thing. It was always called the Big Bang *Theory* for a reason. I do still think that this theory is oddly specific and limited, so while exactly disproving nor proving it, it still has me reach the same conclusion that I always have, and it’s that it’s extremely flawed and bias.
The “Big Bang” theory says nothing about the moment t=0.
The Big Bang deals with the observed expansion of the universe.
To say “the big bang didnt happen” doesnt make sense.
The big bang is not a singular event at a specific time - the big vang is still happening
Great way to sum it up.
Of course it makes sense to say "Big Bang" didn't happen. It just means the theory of an expanding universe from a very dense state is not correct. If observations continue to challenge this theory, at some point the theory must be discarded.
However, it will be a hard pill to swallow for astronomy, because the ramifications to the field would be enormous. So as always, the more controversial/massive the implications, the more massive/solid must the proof be.
Your statement is a perfect example of circular reasoning. The Big Bang never happened. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
@@gooberclown don't think we should be so sure about what the universe does to call any statements "facts". It's just degrees of guesswork currently.
@@gooberclown The Big Bang is an unfortunate term to use to describe the expansion of the universe (I believe it was Fred Hoyle who coined the phrase when being interviewed on radio).
The observed expansion of the Universe has been strongly supported by scientific observations and measurements.
And that's a fact.
The singularity is inferred if you run time backwards (ironically the singularity was first proposed by the Belgium Priest George LeMaitre).
In fact Einstein's theory of General Relativity says nothing about black hole, yet it predicts their existence. GR actually fails at the point of a singularity - ie the curvature of space becomes infinite as does the density.
Actually Sir Arthur Eddington predicted the background radiation would be ~3K based on his measurements of starlight before Big Bang Theory. IIRC Gamow’s prediction was an order of magnitude greater. No BBT hasn’t been disproved, but it has quite a few problems and that seems like an excellent reason to do more research. Astronomy/cosmology has come a long way in my 71 years and I was particularly pleased when I received a Distinction for my term paper when studying cosmology in my 50s.
I love the fact you were studying cosmology in your 50's
Never to old to learn something new! Proven
like proofreading one's posts@@sirensaid243 🌴
🙂Anton you just got yourself another patron. Been meaning to for a while now :-)
Huh, so it's never too late then,
If the world doesn't end in the next few years I migth be able to do some sort of contribution to cosmology before I die some day.
@@electricboogaloo6917 absolutely, never to late
I wish you well
Thank you for addressing this. It was getting a bit frustrating seeing all the click bait RUclips videos misleading lay audiences about this.
My heart dropped when I saw Anton post it, I don't even bat an eye at the others. But, Anton scared me until I actually watched it.
If only there was a way to give those clickbait vids dislikes without giving it the dignity of a view.
@@alcor4670 I concur
@@alcor4670 can't you just report the videos without having to click on them? At least the ones you know for a fact are fakes?
How many accretion discs were in these pics? I'll give you a hint: less than 1. This is damage control and a huge hit to your religion. Sorry. 😢 Mathematical models do not always represent reality and can lead one to believe things that are simply wrong. Examples: infinite fractals, white holes, multi-verse and the list goes on and on.
I knew I could count on you, Anton.
I've been scrolling through and watching a few of these videos with catchy titles using buzzwords like "shocking" and "horrifying" to describe the discoveries coming from the Webb telescope, and I've been trying to find a video that wasn't just sensationalizing the whole thing to get views. Its been a long while since I’ve watched one of your "What da math" vids, but when I saw your face on the thumbnail I knew I'd get the facts, the whole facts, and nothing but the facts. Thanks for keeping those of us who are out of the loop, in the loop on all things outer space. 👍
@Random_Passerby 💯 that's how I ended up here, catching Future Unitys click bait
Thanks Anton for being a source for thorough & high quality scientific inquiry/analyisis.
Yes absolutely fascinating material. Nothing else like it. I just wish that Anton would speak more clearly, ie he speaks softly and mumbles and it makes it hard to understand what he’s saying.
This video was dumb.
He barely mentioned the topic of the articles.
He agrees that the computer model of big bang was wrong.
Then doubles down on the theory like some religious preacher.
Dumb.
Clouds expand and contract... the entire weather of Earth is based on expansion and contraction of local areas. How do we know that the entire universe is not just like the weather? Why do they assume that the contraction goes down to a single little point? It seems more likely to me that our local area is expanding like a dissipating cloud... but it is going into another area that's contracting.
Yeah.... thanks Anton for the thorough scientific maybe's, could be's, we think's, we can't say for sure's but we will still make it look like it's all scientific fact, and thereby in the spirit of good science, continue to mis-lead people so you can look like you are an all knowledgeable clued up authority on the subject.
ok so the universe is still going to end and all life is doomed we just have more proof of it. whoop de doo
Sensationalism in science is always bad. Thanks for clearing this up Anton, your lack of bias is always refreshing!
At least you are not a, "conceited, scruffy looking Nerfherder". 🤣🤣🤣
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but, as noted previously, this was not sensationalism, but a pun gone awry. It was a play on the band Panic! At The Disco's name. The sensationalism came from the "journalists" (I use that term very loosely) who glommed onto a keyword they could use to push their view/comment counts. If you didn't mean to imply that the title was the trouble, I apologize in advance, and hope you agree with my take in a general sense.
Questioning the Big Bang is not sensationalism - it's common sense - Hubble himself insisted to the end of his life that the cause of the redshift remains to be determined, and there have always been physicists and astronomers who supported him, and still do.
I think it's best to just wait for more data. We've barely switched this telescope on and it's already shaking foundational theories. Let's just let it look around for a couple years and very quickly it will become clear what it has to teach us.
But it isn't shaking foundational theories.......
@@JasonP6339 Galaxy formation is a foundational theory. They have to review the entire process now. That just happened, those galaxies don't fit with current models of galaxy formation. They haven't even formally looked yet. That disruption came from a lens test. Let's just wait and see what it has to show us. There is no need to start defending theories, just let the data come in.
I agree 100%...we humans tend to want quick, simple answers but those are rarely the best or most accurate answers..
I think a telescope like the james webb can only show you how much bigger the universe actually is than what we do not realize, thats it
@@JasonP6339 Have you even read the article that Anton is supposedly debunking here?
Thanks yet again Anton. I don't have the knowledge to critically analyse the clickbait articles, so I have seen them and wondered what the implications are. Keeping it real, thanks again.
The fact they made a panic at the disco reference made me feel like an old nerd.
Crazy that some people saw the word 'panic!' And instantly went to questioning known reality.
Well, to be fair, not everyone would get the reference. And if you don't trig that it's a play on a song title, there's not many other ways you could interpret the words.
@@davidbates3057 i don't think questioning that big bag is even in my top 100 things to do when i read 'panic'
'Panic! at the Discs'
is a pun of
'Panic! at the Disco'
Which is a music band
Surprised I've not seen anyone else mention this anywhere.
Dr. Becky mentioned it in her videos about the matter!
It was a song released by “The Smiths” in 1987. I suspect the band chose that song title as there band name.
High Voltage!
I am personally entertaining that the age of the universe is a bit more than we initially expected. Maybe closer to that 18 billion-year estimate.
I don't know why so many people are so attached to big-bang theory. Scientists have themselves said its far from accurate and have larger acceptance only because it fits better than other available theories on universe. That's the beauty of science...it keeps refining itself, getting rid of older vestiges, exploring new avenues...unlike those cults which brazenly claim earth is flat..
Panic! At the disks is probably just a play on Panic! at the disco, as in, the band
Hannes Alfven and Halton Arp, two very well-respected astronomers, supported the idea that redshift is an indicator of age but not distance.
A high-redshift quasar is like a fly on your windshield, where modern astronomers believe that fly is miles away and therefore huge. There are hundreds of examples of high-redshift quasars being connected by filaments to much lower redshift galaxies, falsifying the thought that high redshift objects must be billions of light years away in distance.
For as many “confirmations” of Big Bang theory, there are equally powerful falsifications that have been observed but swept under the rug with untestable ad hoc hypotheses.
Like what?
@@XraynPR The most obvious is dark energy. Due to the idea that redshift is caused solely by recessional velocity, observations are interpreted as galaxies accelerating away from us. The energy required to accelerate the expansion is needed to keep Big Bang afloat. This is entirely new physics which was not predicted by any scientific field and cannot be tested. The moment you strip away the doppler redshift idea, you no longer need dark energy and you no longer need an expanding universe.
Perhaps galaxies or quasars with a high redshift show young stellar objects but not extremely distant objects. Those which were thought to be billions of light years away and massive are instead much closer and early in their development.
The Big Bang dogma, in my opinion, is a fantastic display of confirmation bias gone rampant. Dark matter, neutron stars, black holes, etc. are all products of a preconceived notion, searching to confirm predictions before objectively collection observations.
Even Carl Sagan himself, spoke about the inconsistent red shift data. He also suggested the possibility of an exotic red shift mechanism to explain the discrepancy in observations. The Big Bang theory is just too facile in nature to be taken seriously.
@@rossmikovich8429 we have observed black holes and neutron stars
@@gooberclown why? What is your better model?
Thank you for always clarifying the hype with facts and history.
Unlike *cough*future unity *cough*..
You mean confirming your biases?
@@ByGraceThroughFaith777 you mean not being a liar clickbait unscientific garbage channel?
Anton Petrov DESTROYS pop-science media with FACTS and HISTORY
@@JamesTaylor-on9nz I think he is just defending his faith in the big bang.
Thanks! In regards to "the smartest person alive," I once commented on a you tube channel that the protagonist in the movie "Idiocracy" would essentially be in living hell and go insane, being the smartest person, by far, with no equals, in a scenario there was no escape from.
(Seriously, think about that.)
Someone responded, saying, "Your logic is flawed. Einstein was the smartest man of his time and he held it together."
I responded that Einstein was constantly wrestling with the ideas of his fellow scientists and that, on a number of times, he was wrong. He, Einstein, was constantly interacting with his fellow thinkers.
No man is an island.
And Anton, keep up the great work. Love your videos.
Thank you . Great point
"Something here doesn't match. Everything else matches exactly..."
Unless I am mistaken (and please correct me if I'm wrong!), fully formed spiral galaxies with population two stars are being discovered 200 million light years from what the Big Bang cosmology terms the 'Dark Ages', where no galaxies are supposed to be.
What I am having trouble with, is grasping the concept that galaxies this mature can form in a mere 200 million years after the Big Bang.
Putting it in perspective, our galaxy rotates once in 200 million years. Another way to look at it is like driving a car towards a wall at 60 miles an hour: There comes a point that no matter how hard you step on the brakes, you're going to smash into it. That is the paradox that the Big Bang has to face.
How, as you say, this is confirming that the Big Bang is correct?
Can you help me sleep better at night?
Which galaxies? How do you know they are "fully formed"
I'm as perplexed. Was there a 2nd big bang? When electrons and neutrons emerged, did they dive back into the melting pot and overload. Something like black holes emerged ?
😉
@@KnightspaceORG 🤦 youre in the wrong place fool!
that diversion is worthy of a russian troll in utter empty hypocrisy.
you mean you dont even know to where this entire conversation began and you have nerve to post a complaint?
@@cedriceric9730 I'm not even going to pretend that a human would understand the utter nonsense you just wrote.
@@KnightspaceORG They are spiral and contain 2nd generation stars.
I once tried to explain how redshift works, but it devolved into "how can you tell if the cow is really small or just far away?"
there are often other values used as well such as dispersion for example for distance measurements
different wavelength get slowed down by passing through ionized gas differently so by seeing the difference in the arrival time of various signals it becomes possible to estimate distance, this paper goes through this in detail: arxiv.org/abs/1506.01704
The problem is that you first have to know the cause of the redshift. Hubble insisted to the end of his life that this still had not been determined. The Standard Theory people refuse to even think about it.
I have a question, in several parts:
Can anything travel faster than light?
With this expansion (which I don't question) how fast are we travelling?
I hear people talk of seeing into the big bang, but if we were all there at the same time, then all the light from it has already past us, or will never pass us so how can anyone see into the big bang?
The only thing faster than light is the expansion of the universe
Think of it more like (in a 2D way) dropping a rock into a still pond, the rock is the singularity. The ripples are the expansion of the known universe, and it’s really only the first wave and there is no friction. So what went away from us we cannot see, as it was expanding into the nothingness faster than light from our frame of reference. Just like two cars passing each other on the road each may only be going 70 but to each the other is moving away at twice the speed.
What we can see now the furthest and red shifted away from us is the distance away that each part of the universe that we can see, since we are now looking in lower frequency and redshifted light we can see further back into time as we can see the light of those we can see since it’s been traveling through space for billions of years. A even lower frequency “light” will allow us to see further back into the beginning of the universe. But our telescopes can’t see that form of light in a meaningful way due to their optics. Go watch a UV camera, microwave detector, or infrared camera demonstration to understand how each is tuned to see specific photon wavelengths
@@Steevo69 so what is pond than in which Rock fell and started all this where pond come from.
@@ivaerz4977 Science doesn’t know, but they are working to find out, as it may unlock faster than light communication or travel, a deeper understanding of where we live and how better to use it.
You can believe in a god and understand that god may have created our universe by the means of the Big Bang.
Exactly Emma. I don’t understand how people don’t see how illogical BBT is. Makes no sense unless you completely bend the laws of physics.
This has become my goto channel for space science. Not that you only know the contents of the articles. You also know the contexts I which those articles are created. You know a lot of the involved scientists and importantly are able to cross reference their works with previous related works. That's a skill only people can have that work for a long time in this field.
Every better telescope we make just sees more stars and galaxies than ever before imagined by many. What we have to see to validate something like the big bang (which is wildly changing, adding new dark stuff each few decades up to 96% unexplained) is the reionization boundary. We need to see back to a point where things become opaque, and not due to a time or space horizon. With mature structures, and excessively large superstructures at high redshifts, we need to study things more and continue to make better instrumentation to see even deeper. I don't see any improved evidence for a big bang in the new data, but I do see continued evidence of redshift with distance, and just more stars and galaxies. The current "big bang" model is called lambda-CDM, and it is wildly different than the original one, although still based on the Friedmann Equations. They keep adding more things like evanescence, inflation, dark energy, dark matter, to make it kind of work. But instead of correctly predicting anything (except perhaps observed Helium), more dark stuff is added each time we get a new telescope. Now, we're at 96% unexplained, which means we're hypothesizing, and testing some things based on only 4% observable, and only after the parameter changes and not before.
I agree that the big bang theory is starting to looked stressed.
The "Big Bang" being assumed due to observed expansion in space has always been another way to sidestep infinity. Logicians and physicists hate infinity.
The observed expansion can be explained as thus "The strength of the force of Gravity falls off in accordance to the inverse square law, meaning there is no area of space with a non zero value of energy. Due to this, the farther away an object is from you, the weaker its gravitational effect. If you place an object infinitely far away, it will have almost no effect on you, but it will still have an effect. So, its as simple as this. An infinite Universe has infinite material. This means that the farther away an object gets from you, the closer it gets to the infinite material pulling it away from you and it now travels faster away from you. Scientists right now describe what I am describing but call it "Dark Energy"
Why don't you fly apart due to "infinite gravity" Well again, inverse square law. The stuff nearer you has a stronger gravitational effect. Exact same math we observe right now when wondering why Dark Energy doesn't make galaxies fly apart. Though they call it "Dark Matter". Gravity resists Dark Energy in galaxies enough to stay structurally sound against the expansion. Just replace the fudge factor this "Dark Matter" with Gravity.
Yes I agree that the necessary addition of ever-increasing unknow stuff with increasing observation depth to keep the cosmological models alive is starting to smell a little off.
To resume .. what’s the use for the common people or scientific living on earth ?
The universe is made so or maybe otherwise that we can actually imagine , we live in and will disapper before we can discovery a small part of it ,as universe is not static .. so what will it change in our short daily life ?
Nothing !
for the love of... "adding new dark stuff each few decades up to 96% unexplained" * sigh * A) Dark Energy is just what be label whatever is causing the accelerated expansion and B) Dark Matter has a lot of direct evidence, actually and C) you can have a universe that is expanding, started at some time in the past, and it infinite.
maybe actually understand the stuff you feel so free to criticize because of your fee-fees
Lemaitre is one of the most important scientists of the last few centuries, needs more recognition. Thanks for your segment on him. Everyone knows Einstein and yes, Einstein was brilliant. But there are lesser known scientists that are/were amazing.
Yeah. Einstein was wonderful. But he also got quantum mechanics wrong. Good thing was, he acknowledged his mistakes...
@@mikeharrison1868 Einstein got QM wrong -- although he helped invent it -- because DnD wasn't invented yet. IF he'd grown up playing a half-orc magic user he would have known that God plays dice.
@@nmarbletoe8210 ;o) For a second I was trying to figure out what variety of QED or QCD DnD might be!
Friendliest and calmest "this clickbait stuff is irritating nonsense" response one could ask for. Kudos, Anton, for staying informative and thoughtful and navigating this aspect of the internet so gracefully.
So in hindsight.. some humans cannot use literacy properly😂. Anton’s the man to straighten it up for us 👌. Love big man 🤜🏻
the paper title is a pun on the band Panic! At The Disco.
I thought as much.
Your channel is absolutely wonderful.. you are so great at boiling these fascinating subjects down to be easily understood by the enthusiastic space nerd. Keep up the wonderful work sir.
So sorry to hear about your loss - thinking of you and your family.
The last few weeks of videos have been full of exciting new announcements. Loving how our knowledge keeps changing.
I guess as I work to shift from an amateur astronomer/physicist I find questions to how we observe/measure some phenomenon.
One of these is fundamental to astronomy: light (across all EM frequencies). It would seem there is potential for serious error due to a combination of factors: human sight/perception of time, our instrumentation and system of measuring 4 forces, EM emissions, and time.
Example:
IF
1) we say that Big Bang wasn't truly 1 infinitely small singularity w/ nothing existing outside of it: but instead all of the universe was condensed to a plank density, and thus (since we don't know the truth size of universe) the size of the 'singularity' is also unknowable. And that entropy/inflation is the distances between all points are getting larger.. Result: we say that some things don't remotely add up.
2) We accept the (currently in 2022) notion that initial cosmic inflation surpassed the current speed of light. IF the entire universe even for a moment accelerated at a speed beyond c, where did that go. Conservation Laws fail to consider this seemingly: even IF it wasn't > 1c and only 0.5c: where did that go. Remember it would in theory have been the ENTIRE universe: and thus explanations of where that momentum/energy went; Result: EVEN IF most mass is concentrated in SMBHs, it still fails to explain this. It also fails to explain (in theory) how macromolecules could have arisen if even the subatomic particles were temporarily moving > 1c for this moment let alone 1000s or millions of years.
3) Space-Time is single, and space/time aren't separate, yet light traveling to Earth and observed (mostly as redshifting). There are issues here.
In the end we that the enormous loss in momentum/energy doesn't add up: This causes us to question Hubble's Law and others. To posit a Big Bang singularity ever existing with even briefly infinite density says that there was no 'space' IE vacuum.
IF we want to argue cosmology and the topology of the universe: and like (most people) say that the laws of conservation hold true, then it should apply to vacuums as well. By definition a true vacuum couldn't be compressed cuz there isn't anything/zero mass/density. IF the Big Bang singularity existed even for smallest fraction of time at infinite density...where was all this vacuum (lack of mass/density)? Was it 'outside' this singularity (and thus briefly a true perfect vacuum?) IF so, why did Big Bang happen? These two would have been in equilibrium: a region of pure vacuum and a region of pure density.
(*Its a separate argument about how either of these could have arisen, rather than both collapsing to a lower state in between), but this notion has to be remembered).
Basically IF there was anything (even perfect vacuum) outside the Big Bang Singularity, then it makes current theories worse: because in theory because a brief shift from infinite density to 'explosive' inflation in all directions doesn't add up. Even if forces existed in this Dark Age and prior but then the forces were 'destroyed' somehow post-BB, it doesn't account for while this initial inflation wasn't at infinite velocity (because every particle would have inflated/expanded away from all others at same speed, with zero resistence: and to overcome any quasi-gravitational force holding this singularity together would require a minimum 'escape velocity', which would be infinite or nearly so. So this just makes the queston of where did this momentum go even worse.
Main Point/Criticism:
Hubble effects of far distant galaxies moving away faster the farther out both doesn't and does add up. It would seem to affirm the Law since it is progressive redshifting/rate the galaxies are moving away...but at the same time this implies at 'one time' they were closer...and this is where it gets tricky/confusing.
We should basically be seeing very little of observable universe (we know see), like 0.0001% of 0.0001%, basically nothing outside our local group/supercluster (at most). OR we are currently seeing the ENTIRE UNIVERSE...and we haven't realized that fact.
IF it is the prior it would be due to that temp. inflation rate at high % of c. Basically in a short span of time the universe should have exponentially increased in size so much that it'd be billions of billions of ly in radius...with very little baryonic matter detectable. This isn't the case: cuz we see a ton of galaxies/filaments.
IF it was the latter...well this is the somewhat scary implication, and more possible. IF we look at EM emissions and say a given emission (from a ultraluminous object like pulsar or quasar) exists in Spacetime XYZ-T and it radiates outward, yes there is the calculated dropoff in strength proportional to proximity to the source...but if we can detect anything from CMB onward post-BB around us...There are two conclusions that arise potentially:
1) At the time (~370 kyr) the universe was ALREADY at minimum as wide as our current observable universe. Otherwise we'd see giant areas of nothingness on the outer edges of the CMB images (granted we do currently detect supervoids/walls/filaments)...and this could be confirmation of this, as it isn't an actual void because we're seeing composite data across both space AND time...so a void could indicate that in the 13.1 byr we see that basically nothing has EVER expanded into that area. (since the further away it is, the further back in time it was 'there', and yet that particular location in space was also itself closer to us at that time since 13.1byr ago the universe was still very young and much smaller)...This would seem to disprove both of these (while throwing more holes in all theories).
2) The CMB could in fact be a 'map' to something entirely different than what most think...It could be a map to the singularity itself. This would be due to the fact that there is a difference between possible 'live' emissions we capture (where we can point at a given object and over days or years we KNOW it is the same object and there), and non-live emissions that are from extra-galactic sources. Mainly due to Doppler-like possible phenomenon related to the given XYZ-T location/time of the original emission (and its distance D from us at the time T) and its current location XYZ-T(subt) and that distance to us (subD) now. In the past all these extragalactic objects should have been much closer when we start looking >1bilyr, but especially >10byr.
When talking past/future horizons this means there are no past horizons, because of course there aren't when reverse-extrapolating for redshift/entropy/inflation.
It does present a posibility though: a 'orphan-ghost horizon' where we already received the emissions, the object died (and emissions ended), and thus we stop receiving them. In such case, this orphan-ghost horizon would represent a significant % of all celestial objects, and so there is an information singularity that permeates the universe: and thus a % of objects within the more distant parts of our supercluster complex may not ever be detected.
Example: In galaxy further away from us in Laniakea SCC a blue hypergiant comes into existence, lives 10myr ago, the last of its light has already past by Earth...and thus we'll never detect that it existed (because our current detections don't work that way...Even if the star was a sol G-type and was > 10byr away: we may never detect its existence unless it was in a galaxy at the correct distance.
Since outside brown dwarfs/neutrons stars/red dwarfs (of those current star types that exist, not future types like irons/black dwarfs) are among the only types that should be living past 5-10byr...it should mean a large % of emissions from more distant galaxies is likely these, and not more massive/luminous stars: because the chance of getting them in our 'snapshot' is increasingly more slim the more distant.
Ofc there are still questions I see:
- Why didn't any time during Dark Age to Recombination large portions of the universe collapse into some 'ultramassive' Black Holes taking sizable % of the universe with it? The density should have been high enough in various regions that this should have in fact been commonplace. IE SLABs should dominate the occupied mass of universe
- No White Hole has been observed, and yet everything points to a BB singularity being one...and yet we dont have any evidence currently that any SMBH (even the bigger SLABs) are losing detectable % of their mass (with it also disappearing from our universe (IE spilling into/creating another), and yet many current theories permit the evaporation of them, and also don't place an upper limit on size of Black Holes during the far far distant Black Hole Era of the universe.).
- If the current vacuum state = false vacuum...What caused it to exist in a state other than its lowest: IE what is beyond Universe horizon that is in a lower state.
A bit long, but interesting to read. Thanks..
maybe beyond the horizon of the universe is possible a speed superior to light, or SMBHs generate void which force an increasing acceleration of the universe expansion speed
You should keep working on these questions and start to write a paper.
Holy hell. Very in depth
On your first #2, in the beginning, the expansion of space itself doesn’t involve any momentum as far as I’m aware. The “stuff” within the universe wasn’t moving through space faster than light, the space itself was expanding faster than light, and still is to this day at great enough distances.
As people, we all make mistakes in interpretations sometimes. Thank you, Anton, for sorting out the wheat from the chaff! No, I'm not saying the Big Bang was a gigantic harvester, I'm just saying that there are many proposed theories out there, and it is extremely difficult to properly sort out which ones have properly and well thought out reasons for why they believe in what they think they have found.
gravity is a theory, people arent able to think outside of what other people tell them
@@Chordiacal uff only flat Esther that don't know what a sientific theory is thay that.
It's not hart to dismiss people that say that bigbang is not real. Extraordinary things need extraordinary professional qnd explanations.
It´s not that difficult at all. For a starter you can take the apparently needed "dark energy" as a genuine differentiating method.
Photons get tired and redshift in time, radioactive materials decay because of this. This is what happens when observing galaxies. rays are redshifted as they travel billions of years in space, which causes the ray from the distant galaxy to become more redshifted.
CMD radiation is also photons of galaxies coming from very far away.
There is no real expansion. illusion of enlargement effect is formed.
Just proves to me the James Webb is creating a lot of questions about these theories of the Universe. It will be interesting to see what else is discovered.
Well what ever is out their all ready exists 😐it’s the fact we dont see it 😑mars Jupiter and the Andromeda galaxy were all ready present even during the time of the dinosaurs 😑it’s the fact we humans did Not see it 😑
When I say the Big Bang didn't happen it's to better explain the expansion as a process that follows the known rules of physics in the framework of a fractal cosmology in which all systems can be considered infinite sets that are birthed from larger sets. It's the linear conception of time that I take issue with, not the expansion aspect.
you can rest easy in knowing time across the cosmos is non linear. linear time is an experience, not reality.
Fractal cosmology didn't happen! See what I did there?
Hmmm
@@TempoTrack OK then what is reality surely u know hmm
@@roystondaniel2849 reality is not subjective, it is an objective constant that exists with or without us being around to perceive its existence. Lmao that's all I can say
The more I look at the early universe, the more comfortable I am that the big bang did not happen. The big bang contradicts the supermassive black holes, pulsars, and spiral galaxies we see.
How so?
No it doesn't
No it does not!!! WTF are you talking about. Read about the proven CMB and understand this and you will know the Big Bang did actually happen in some form.
The "Big Bang" being assumed due to observed expansion in space has always been another way to sidestep infinity. Logicians and physicists hate infinity.
The observed expansion can be explained as thus "The strength of the force of Gravity falls off in accordance to the inverse square law, meaning there is no area of space with a non zero value of energy. Due to this, the farther away an object is from you, the weaker its gravitational effect. If you place an object infinitely far away, it will have almost no effect on you, but it will still have an effect. So, its as simple as this. An infinite Universe has infinite material. This means that the farther away an object gets from you, the closer it gets to the infinite material pulling it away from you and it now travels faster away from you. Scientists right now describe what I am describing but call it "Dark Energy"
Why don't you fly apart due to "infinite gravity" Well again, inverse square law. The stuff nearer you has a stronger gravitational effect. Exact same math we observe right now when wondering why Dark Energy doesn't make galaxies fly apart. Though they call it "Dark Matter". Gravity resists Dark Energy in galaxies enough to stay structurally sound against the expansion. Just replace the fudge factor this "Dark Matter" with Gravity.
JWST doesn't prove Big Bang wrong; I agree with you about all the hype and wrong conclusion in some Twitter posts. but it does suggests that most got the early evolution of the Universe wrong. Some who suggested Black holes developed far earlier than previously thought now appear to have been correct. It's the only way to explain what JWST is discovering.
But we don't know whether the idea of primordial black holes, very early fast developing black holes, or both is correct. But I guarantee that large black holes early in the Universe is a must.
Yes, JWST hasn't proven the BIg Bang wrong but it hasn't proven it right either.
I'd like to mention 2 things:
1- Regarding Hoyle: he was a brilliant scientist who was the first to propose that heavy atoms were all cooked inside supernovas, but he failed to explain how Hydrogen and Helium formed and were so prevalent in the universe since for that to happen, particles needed temperatures so hot that there is no place in universe which is hot enough to turn them into hydrogen, let alone helium. Gamow was able to explain that with the theory of a big bang. He proposed that nearly all Hydrogen and Helium atoms in the universe were formed during the first 8 minutes of the big bang. But Hoyle was an atheist and hated with all his might the idea of big bang because that implies the existence of a Creator.
2- Regarding the Webb telescope: It cannot see further in time till the moment of the big bang not by design but because the laws of physics do not allow it. See, after the big bang, the universe was so small, so hot, and so dense that all photons were trapped inside matter and could not escape, at least no before millions of years when the universe expanded enough. If no photons escaped, then there is no way any telescope could see them. We literally have no possibility to see the moments just after the big bang, let alone the big bang itself.
That is very insightful! Thank you!
Also the scientist in the first point (Hoyle) is really arrogant to take and discard important information just like that, being a true scientist means that you consider every possible scenario to draw out the truth. Not very ethical in the case of that atheist scientist, would not believe him nor take his word as truth.
@@beanybeanbag True! Ironically, Hoyle was the one who coined the term "Big Bang", the very thing he did not believe in.
The article titled "Panic! At The Disks" is likely a reference to the band "Panic! At The Disco" -- wish they would be a bit less tongue in cheek with potentially confusing titles
It's such a scientist thing to do 😅 the number of cheek-in-tongue titles I come across as a biologist is huge, guessing it is the same for the astronomy field.
Yeah, but the data also casts doubt on the age of the universe as they have now found fully formed galaxies that simply should not exist given their age and what we know about star formation. Which means that there is something we do not understand about the early universe. Plus you know they are going to find galaxies that are much older than the ones that are causing problems now.
Or we could be missing something regarding how galaxies form or how long their formation takes. That’s the fun part of new discoveries; We don’t know what we don’t know
if it does reach that point where galaxies are seen forming in less than a million years , will it be viable then, honestly I highly drought that . some of galaxies are a 10 million light years long !
Every single time we have seen farther it was supposed to reveal an early 'proto' phase of the universe which would confirm BB core prediction that the universe has evolved drastically due to dropping density and incressing structure formation. And every time this has failed. And each time they just say that all the nessary evolution/formation processes must have just occoured in a more compressed period of time and the NEXT time we see deeper will be when the differences manifest. People are already bringing out the knee-jerk response and it's gotten to the point of absurdity and we need to admit it.
@@kennethferland5579 Uhhhh no this is just blatantly false my guy. We can see drastic changes in the universes evolution easily. Anton brings up the CMB all the time. I don't think you understand what Expansion is as a cosmological concept.
Yes, the age of the universe gets older year by year. Come back in 100 years and they'll be saying it's 33.7 billion years - in fact, it might be a trillion years. Why we can't admit that we're in no position to say how the universe exists and/or how long is beyond me.
Great explanation Anton. I'm a big fan of Fred Hoyle, and I think he got robbed of a Nobel Prize for his Nucleosynthesis work, but you are right here. People always try out their New and Improved Physics Models on me, and I always tell them, it's not enough to explain one thing, or explain away one thing, you have to explain everything better than the current models. Personally, i prefer a Steady State Model (just from an existential perspective), but I think Hubble Expansion and the CMB put that to rest.
Photons get tired and redshift in time, radioactive materials decay because of this. This is what happens when observing galaxies. rays are redshifted as they travel billions of years in space, which causes the ray from the distant galaxy to become more redshifted.
CMD radiation is also photons of galaxies coming from very far away.
There is no real expansion. illusion of enlargement effect is formed.
this is what you want. explains lots of things
@@fikretonderbudakin2643 Yeah, I have heard of the 'tired photons" thing before. I think it's missing a few details :)
CMB is a fraudulent pile of pseudoscience as refuted by Pierre-Marie Robitaille and others.
@@LaserGuidedLoogie what is that missing detail.
@@fikretonderbudakin2643 the lack of any model explaining "photons getting tired" or their involvelement in such a way with radioactive decay, obviously. Explain it: for example how does that not break comservation of energy, or relativistic reference frames at the speed of light, and what involvement with the weak force that gives radioactive decay
Where did the material for the Big Bang come from in the First Place?
I really appreciate this. I was avoiding those click bait titles, now I'm glad I didn't fall for it. You are right about clickbait leading to misunderstanding over time. A sensible approach is more appreciated than words can say. 💖
I would not assume a “Big Bang” like the theory predicted happened while its supports are being shaken at their core. It was only a physics theory to explain what we see without a full understanding of the nature of the universe anyway. The theory is limited by design. Like “special relativity”, it may be close to the truth, but not the truth.
good luck making an evolutionary big bangist acknowledge any truth
All science is an approximation of (some) truth (that gets asymptotically closer as time goes on).
@@rfichokeofdestiny That’s the idea, but then explain transgender studies, or predictions of 200 ft of ocean rise globally. It appears as a whole we are getting stupider, further from the truth.
@@greg5326 transgender studies? You are really desperate to prove something here
@@olasek7972 It is bad science. AND it is hurting people - a LOT of people. Suicide rates are an excellent indicator. I don’t think any of this is hidden. Not sure why it continues to grow.
Big Bang is a pretty wild idea.
I'm curious about one idea: what if all observations are local? Like you said, universe is clearly not the same everywhere, but then what if this effect is local and the universe existed before and beyond local space where observed effects might not apply.
I don't understand why anyone would think that the universe is expanding.
The scientific definition is simply objects moving.
When you swirl a cup of water you don't say the entire cup is expanding.
They move away, but other objects are moving towards us.
Logically they would have to argue that contracton is expansion.
Once all visible stars leave our view, they would be replaced by others that we couldn't see before.
The size can't increase because space is infinite. And objects moving towards us are not slowing down.
@@aliensarerealttsa6198 I think when scienctists say the universe is expanding they mean the observable universe
@@jaxmc1912 What does that mean? Lol.
What you said literally means that the observable univerise is increasing over time. (Not because of technology or science)
Which means that we would be able to see farther and more stars over time.
Also, you didn't clarify anything other than say that the scientists aren't smart enough to convey their thoughts coherently.
@@aliensarerealttsa6198 No, I mean that if you take all the points in space of the current universe we observe right now and go back a few billions year, they were all closer to each other, condensed into a smaller point. In that sense the observable universe has expanded.
@@jaxmc1912 ALL observations? Lol. No.
The Andromeda galaxy would be farther away than it currently is.
That galaxy is heading towards us which is the opposite of what you said.
You: a billion years ago the andromeda galaxy was closer to us than it is now, then moved away, and now it's heading back to us... it's moving towards us even though "everything" is moving away from us.
Nice logic.
Thanks for trying to explain the psychosis of the best and brightests.
Give me a Nobel.
last time i saw a video from you, you had like 250 subs and now over 1 million congrats man
its arrogant for man to think we know what happened 13 billion years ago, we barely know what happened 1300 years ago let alone 13 billion.
We are just following evidence and observations to put together the best theory we can… it has no arrogance in it
@@stevedv629'We?" You must belong to some club. Most people could care less about the unverifiable thoughts you have in your head about what happened 13 billion years ago, when time and space began. One thing we know: you (singular or plural) were not there. Nobody was. Good luck.
@@patrickirwin3662 good
Luck you too, don’t believe in things like the tooth fairy
@@stevedv629 my friend it is you who believe in things. I do not claim to know "when" time and space began. You and that mysterious "we" club you belong to, do.
@@patrickirwin3662 I don’t think you understand how science and critical thinking works… nothing is “believed”… we go and we observe using telescopes and radio telescopes and our best theories and we go wherever the evidence leads us… but even then the ideas always remain a theory… if new evidence arises that contradicts these ideas, then it is rethought and the theories are changed … there is no belief, this is just, at the moment, what all of the observations and current theories lead us… is it really true? Who knows, probably not… but it is the best theory that accounts for everything that we know and have seen thus far… we may see and learn new things in the future that change this …. If you truly doubt this big bang theory, which is perfectly fine, and you should…. You should go look at and try to understand all of the evidence that has lead people to develop the theory in the first place, so you can properly enter the conversation… the biggest piece of evidence was the microwave background radiation being exactly what the theory predicted
Another thing that troubles me in these discussions - it's not just an argument between one theory and another. When Fred Hoyle and company backed off from their steady state theory, that didn't mean they accepted the Big Bang. There is always the possibility that no theory is right, that we just don't know how or when the universe began. That, I think, is the most realistic position given the evidence.
A theory doesn't need to be right. It just needs to be the best explanation for the available data, making as few assumptions as possible. With the presentation of additional, higher quality data, the theory has to be revised to account for the new evidence or a new theory needs to be formulated.
Yup, sometimes the best answer is that we don't know. (Until gathered data proves otherwise. )
It doesn't take away from your worth anything nor intelligence, admiting that you don't know shows humblness and that you are also human with limited potential just like everyone else is.
Some topics are too much for the human mind and can truly mess with the psyche or wellbeing of the brain, its important to still remember our flaws or else ego takes place and takes away your credibility, personally, any scientist who shows arrogance or is absolute that their work is the truth, i would not take them seriously nor take their word for it.
Truly smart and intelligent people don't brag about their "smartness" for they know that no matter how much they learn there is still much that is unknown, our knowledge so far is just a droplet in a sea of unknown territory, that we might never exist long enough to fully discover.
@@russellmillar7132 One of the problems of the Standard Model, which includes the Big Bang, inflation, etc, is that it is riddled with assumptions that are not based on evidence.
@@russellmillar7132 The problem with the Standard Model that includes the Big Bang is that as new evidence comes in that conflicts with it they never admit that there is any problem with its foundational thinking - instead they just come up with ad hoc adjustments like inflation - bandaid science.
@@kennethenston9562 That all may be true. And, again, the LAMDA-CDM model is the best model; the one that explains the evidence better than any other, so far. When a new model, one that explains all the updated info from JWST, is proposed and tested, we may soon have a theory that will more than justify the 10 billion dollars and 20 years it took to deploy this masterpiece.
But please, give me a few examples of assumptions that are not based on evidence. The whole formulation of the "BIG Bang" was predicated on observed evidence, and precise measurements.
But if you have a hypothesis that you feel does better explain, or provide evidence for, the observations, which appear to confirm both the general theory of relativity, and a dense, hot, ancient beginning to our universe, I would like to hear about it.
Awesome to see you hit one MILLION subscribers. Way to go man!
Hard work pays off
This could put a lot more weight behind what happens when you go through a black hole. Maybe a black hole formed and is a gate from one of the multiverses. A white hole is the exit pushing all matter outward and constantly expanding.
...............
In my opinion the big bang is a white hole, it's how new universes start. The ultimate end of our universe is that all black holes eventually swallow each other and combine, until all matter is sucked into one single black hole. And also, since black holes exist outside of time, from their perspective matter isn't going into it "over time" and instead is all at once. Thus, a white hole will inevitably spit out all matter of the previous universe at the exact same time in some sort of quantum soup, and a new universe with the same matter starts again somewhere else. Another layer. Maybe that's why it's theoretically possible for white holes to exist but they can't actually exist as physical Objects in our universe with our known laws of physics, and we can't see any, it's because white holes are the start of new universes not objects inside them. Just like how black holes technically are the end of our universe, as they will be the only thing left.
Idk though I'm probably just high
@@dyslexicstoner2408 opinions are not facts
Thankyou Anton.. great work. The world needs this stuff. Kudos.
Watching you for many years become an effective communicator of science and cosmology has been a joy. Respect from Far North Queensland, Australia.
Couldnt agree more iv been watching for quite a while as well 😁love coming back each nd every day!
I have always wanted to visit your Great land down under...for some reason Darwin and the Northern territories fascinates me. Always has, and I have no idea why? lol
@@siroswaldfortitude5346 it's boring and expensive, not sure why anyone would want to come here. It's clean I guess
@@chrispekel5709 in a chaotic world, boring can be just what the doctor ordered
Thank you for presenting the known facts without becoming condescending! You’re an awesome educator sir
Yes, he is, but he is also biased in favor of the consensus instead of what the data actually shows. The data shows that they found galaxies that are fully formed that simply should not exist based on what we know about star formation and that is with the tiny amount of data they have acquired so far. The JWST will operate for another 5-10 years and who knows how old the oldest galaxies they have found will be by then. Like the archaeology branch of science they tend to hide any discoveries that do not support their accepted view of how the universe works and when it formed.
Thank you so much, Anton!! My goodness!! I love science and space yet I'm not very clever!! I truly enjoy how you're able to explain these things with simplicity so we can all understand what's going on!!!
So, I thank you for bringing us real information, in a way all of us can understand!!!! It's a wonderful thing for people like me!!
Not very clever? You certainly don't type like it.
@@tyetr9853 hahaha!! Thanks!!
@@Microplancakes Np, keep enjoying science!
@@tyetr9853 I will, Tye TR!! Science, especially space science and Oceanography, is my jam!!! Lol!!
There are so many scientific terms which can be used and I'd be lost very quickly!!
I do love how Anton articulates his information!!! I won't say he's "dumbing things down", but he makes outer space accessible to all of us!!!
Remember, just because someone can type a sentence doesn't mean they don't have learning difficulties in many other aspects! I will say, though, you made me feel very good with your compliment!!!
So, again, thank you for that!! You made me smile!!!
@@Microplancakes Np, rock on
I was a bit lost with all the fuzz , thanks for clearing things up Anton
Anton - I’ve been a science nerd since I was a little kid; haven’t been able to tell the order of the planets and how they orbited back when I was about two or three years old. I have very much enjoyed gleaning the 5 to 50% of what you say that I can actually understand at times (… especially since my life and career of 60 years did not take me into the sciences…).
That said, just the way you carry yourself describing an author of an article that you don’t necessarily agree with is refreshing
I don’t know how much of American culture and politics you keep up with, but we have unfortunately entered an era where if you don’t agree almost wholeheartedly with someone’s point of view - politically, scientifically, socially - you ( not necessary your ideas) are insulted, branded as ignorant or evil, while some try to silence you.
SO refreshing to hear someone express respect and professionalism towards a person with a different opinion or viewpoint. Thanks!
But Anton doesn't have a different viewpoint. Watch again.
TY Anton for proving "clickbait" science fizzles and the real bang is real science. Hype is tripe. Facts are facts. TY Anton for the facts.
Odd that you accuse Eric of clickbait science when Anton did not address a single point Eric made in his article. Who's actually the one guilty of grifting and clickbait science here? I'd say it's Anton considering that he drew you in to this video as though he was going to debunk the article, and then all he did was just give a 10 minute speed course on modern Big Bang theory, without addressing a single point Eric made. Go read Eric's article and see if you think Anton debunked anything here.
As a scientist and engineer I’m actually happy we don’t know everything or life would be boring. New questions to answer is a good thing. Theories need to be tweaked that happens over and over and nothing to panic about lol!!!!!
The more candles you light in the darkness the more you realize how vast the gulf of the unknown.
Please tell me how would you tweak geocentric model after knowing that Earth is orbiting around the Sun and not the other way around?
If the model makes no sense it must be replaced. And BB has problems at its roots and always had. New data just confirms the flaws in theory, again.
@@NameUserOf hmmm I’m missing something lol!! The amount we know about the universe is a drop of sand in the bucket compared to what we know about the earth-sun system. So throw out the theory and come up with a new one I won’t be offended!!!!!
Majorly different from what the cosmologists expected. Data trumps theory.
Thanks Anton for another great video. I have a question for you about red shift, since it comes up so often in your videos and is widely accepted and undisputed in the physics community...
The question: Is there anything else, other than the expansion of the universe, that could explain red shift? For example, could wavelengths simply lose energy over time, just by travelling so far or for such a long time? Are there examples of wavelengths that have travelled for billions of years that haven't red shifted? Or could there be some other explanation, like the substance space itself was different in the early universe and it affected wavelengths in a way that no longer happens today (so light emitted in the early universe looks red shifted because it passed through a slightly different type of matter).
I have seen so many videos where physicists explain why red shift happens, but I haven't seen anything that explains why the other possibilities couldn't be the case. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks
According to current physics, anything at the speed of light does not experience time - from its perspective, creation and destruction are simultaneous. Observations are not consistent with light being absorbed and reradiated, so it can't be interactions with matter. Just about any other process would require light experience time, which would be a massive upheaval.
Light does change wavelengths the further it has to travel, It goes all the way down to x-rays.
@@lepidoptera9337 I was talking about the distance not the frequency ;)
They will never answer your questions
@@lepidoptera9337 what else causes red shift
I think you're right Anton, the question is more "local" than the universal aspects of Cosmology. Thank you for continuously defending Science with openmindedness and sustained curiosity, child-like awe, a real Scientist in you!
The people questioning the Big Bang are not anti-science. Do a search on the 2014 letter to New Scientist magazine "33 Scientists against the Big Bang".
"There is no way to explain this without the big bang" ~ Yeah there is, what you are seeing it the EV of the Schwarzschild radius we currently live in. From our point of view it becomes a point in space, from an observer outside of the universe it is the shell of a blackhole at super high temperatures with us going towards the center singularity which is infinitely in the future. Due to spacetime inversion what they see as a point infinitely in space we would see as a future infinitely in time. Gamma radiation entering the radius would be red shifted overtime to the observed CMB. Penrose is currently attempting to work out the data in this which is a representation of the outside parent universe but he takes a different stance on what he is seeing in that its what remains of a previous iteration which technically correct leaves some important information out.
PENROSE?! THAT BASTARD.
@@cowboyflipflopped What's your beef with Penrose?
@@seditt5146 the universe and black holes are 2 different things 😑black holes are NOT the universe they are part of the universe 😑and 2 I think you have Ben misinformed about red shift 😑
@@jettmthebluedragon Idk where to start because idk where your knowledge level on any of this stuff is however there seems to be enough mass in a small enough area such that our universe could itself be a blackhole many believe it is a coincidence, I do not. Furthermore I am talking about converting to AdS coordinates at which point it all becomes totally different then not only what we currently believe but what we experience because we would be unable to tell if we were actually falling into a singularity as all scales stay the same.
What we would experience however is what appears to be a universe inflating faster and faster. Time and space invert after crossing an Event Horizon btw and relativity would start to explain the red shifting. We would see an isotropic background radiation which got increasingly red shifted due to the photon ring.
We could also view particles as standing waves formed from information on a 2D plane being projected into 4D spacetime.
Idk man, its a theory that holds more weight that you seem capable of understanding and as time moves on more and more important values start appearing out of combinations the hypothetical blavkholes properties which create the constants that are currently very mysterious to us at the moment.
PS: chill with the patronizing emoji crap. Ya wanna talk about it we can talk but while I am not sure if this hypothesis is correct I can assure you that your rigid mainstream understanding is wrong as it fails as understanding 95% of all matter and energy in the universe while mine can explain it with rather basic blackhole physics and angular momentum conservation.
Do you even know how to calculate redshift?
@@seditt5146 the universe is NOT in a black hole 😑black holes are the natural cycle of a stars core collapsing on it’s self and 2 galaxies have a black hole in the center it’s a CD 😑in a way 😑so their are NOT multiple universes their is only 1 😑galaxy’s are only part of the 1 universe whatever if the universe is finite or not 😑what ever is out their all ready exists it’s the fact we don’t see it 😑that’s like saying a tree falls and their is no one to hear it does it make sound scenario and yes it DOES make sound Beacuse their is air for soundwaves to vibrate the air 😐however in space their is no sound Beacuse theirs no air in space 😑no air no sound scream all you want from a few feet away in space…..NO ONE WILL HEAR YOU 😑
You are very unbiased. You only bring the facts, and opinions are only conclusions brought on by facts, or evidence. Evidence is material proof . You hold no biases. You are trustworthy
I thought it would be hard to explain the cosmic microwave background without big bang even if we are wrong about the red shift...but I was curious if it could possibly be right.
He explains in his presentation that without the burst of radiation when the universe became transparent, there is no good explanation for the CMB.
@@inyobill That's just conjecture which presupposes we know everything. We don't. Wait and see.
It's just black body radiation, any object will emit that. Yes it is mysterious how uniform it is in the sky but if you don't assume a finite age for the universe their is plenty of time and distance of which to create it via normal processes.
@@dirremoire It's not conjecture when the theory matches the observations and alternative plausible explanations do not fit. Particularly when theory precedes the observations, and the observations are very good fits with the predictions.
I like Dr Becky's analysis of the big bang, essentially explosions throughout the proto universe, and no singularity or starting region. It conjures the idea of a zero kelvin universe that started with a spark, but then even singular photons could spark galaxies far distant.
Your zero kelvin universe starting with a spark is essentially a Big Bang is it Not!?! I understand it is difficult veering from that mentality, but maybe the amplituhedron diverges from that.
Zero degrees Kelvin is the point where all movement at the subatomic and atomic level stop. And when that happens it means there is zero energy. That would also mean there are zero photons because photons are created by nuclear reactions which can not happen at zero Kelvin. That means that on its own, there would be no spark.
@@oldtimefarmboy617 That is why I said it only takes the slightest of temperature raise to begin movement AKA a spark
@@JohnDoe-qz1ql Yes, also a big bang, but more likely across the universe once there is any temperature rise
@@richardtucker5686
And that is why I said that at Zero degrees Kelvin it would be impossible for that spark to happen. A spark requires energy. And if the universe is all that there is and the universe is at zero degrees Kelvin, then there is not any energy. And if there is not any energy, then there can be no spark.
Thank you Anton. I love the new discoveries we are finding. What a great channel here!
If you change one parameter in the big bang theory and simply say that light gets redshifted naturally as you'd expect by all the gravity and energy in the universe instead of making the assumption that the redshift is caused by all the galaxies in the universe moving away from us you get a completely different picture of the universe that explains this but of course this requires all the scientists and theorists admit they were wrong!
So why have you not gotten your nobel prize since you have clearly explained all the observations the big bang mostly explains?
I love this guy! He has the ability to direct his focal point! He's definitely a sharpshooter! I have to be honest, he has a pretty good bead on things!
The fuck does any of that nonsense even mean?
@@JROD082384 😂😂
@@JROD082384 He's not a Half stepper hes a real straight shooting type of guy an a real full steppin archer with high capacity.
Get it now?
Maybe Big Bang ideas revised a bit..
Certainly seems like there was a big bang, but causation unclear. I find Penrose's idea of a conformal cyclic universe quite compelling where what seems like a big bang is a phase transition.
Exactly, new observations lead to modifications of the current successful model, not a complete replacement.
No astrophysicist is panicking as far as I know.
You say that the Big Bang theory is the best we have, because the observations match the predictions the best.
But did it ever occur to you that the observations might be skewed?
The only observations we have were made from a single location in the galaxy; earth and we've only started making these observations for a few thousand years, which is a blink of an eye in cosmological terms.
Also we are basing our observations on information that has traversed space for billions of years, before it reached our planet to be observed.
What if some cosmic events that happened millions of years ago, changed that information in some way that we are unaware of?
Or what if something else than traversing distance can cause red shift?
What if we are located in a pocket of space that has a different set of cosmological constants?
To think that we can explain the universe by looking at it for just a fraction of a second from our fixed location in space, is just an absurd notion to me.
Personally, I find peace in the idea that the universe itself always was and always will be, without a begin or an end.
It's the cycles within it, that have beginnings and endings.
So until we are able to travel to other galaxies and start making observations from there, I will hold on to the idea that the Big Bang theory is a just political tool that combines religion with science.
That's why they don't pay you the big bucks (just kidding, theoretical physicists aren't paid the big bucks either.)
You say the notion "that we can explain the universe by looking at it for just a reaction of a second from our fixed location is absurd" but then go on to propose a cyclic cosmic theory that you "choose to believe" (not necessarily incorrect) while presenting no evidence.
Isn't it better to base your hypothesis on evidence, even if it is just based on what we see, rather than on our imagination? That's what science is all about: observation. If we all just based our beliefs on our imagination, we'd end up with a whole bunch of... religion.
@@JungleLibrary Well, first off, I didn't "propose" anything. I merely stated my personal beliefs, so there's really no need for me to "present you any evidence". I'm a proffesional software developer, so this subject is not in my field of expertise, but I do find it fascinating. Which means that I get my knowledge from others and that I base my opinion on the research and opinions of them. So I'm certainly not alone in this "cyclic cosmic theory" as you call it.
And second, I think it's pretty funny that you completely ignore the points that I made and immeditaly jump to the insinuation that my level of understanding is comparable with that of a religious person. Which, if you knew me personally, is absolutely ridiculous.
So instead of patronising me, why don't you adress the questions that I raised?
But to answer your question; Isn't it better to base your hypothesis on evidence, even if it is just based on what we see, rather than on our imagination?
I think it's always the best option to base your hypothesis on evidence, I'm not disputing that, at all.
What I'm saying is that you have to be carefull with what you accept as evidence.
Like I said, what if some cosmic events millions of years ago, altered the information while it was on it's way towards earth, to be observed by us? How could we possible know? We have to keep that in consideration.
As for the importance of imagination, I suggest you google what one of the world's brightest minds, Albert Einstein, had to say about that.
think your underplaying the difference in expectations. It was not a "just a little bit different from what we expected" it was a factor of 10 different! An order of magnitude difference is not little here. James webb is showing us that our models of early galaxy evolution were basically totally off base.
Thanks for explaining what the term "the big bang" means within physics
Thank you for your voice of sanity on RUclips. I always learn something from your videos. As to Dr. Hubble, his observations confirming that galaxies were outside of the Milky Way were done using the 100" Hooker Telescope on Mt. Wilson near Pasadena, CA. Pasadena is, of course, also the home of Caltech and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
I love Anton but he didn't address many of the specific things the author of that article talked about. If you read the article he goes overs new JWST data coming in such as redshift numbers, luminosity of galaxies, number of galaxies, size of galaxies....etc. it wasn't all about the word PANIC in a headline. I've seen so many people defending the big bang by just reducing it down to the word PANIC and then explaining why people believe think the big bang happened.
Personally I don't care if there was a big bang. I think what people should be questioning is the 13.8 billion year Age of the universe. JWST is showing galaxies that shouldn't yet exist in the 13.8 model. I think future humans will look at our current time and say that instead of reevaluating long held theories we just "tweaked" our models so that this new data would fit into those theories.
I've watched some of Eric Lehere's videos and I find it quite fascinating. I am disappointed Anton did not address any of the interesting points Eric has made in his videos. In fact, to me at least, Anton's video comes across more as propaganda to me. *sigh*
Your comment comes off as someone who does not understand how science works. When scientists work, they are usually looking for deviations from the current model and in this case, that's what they found. They have not found, even in that paper, anything to contradict the mountain of evidence for the big bang. There is a reason the big bang model is our current accepted model and that's because it explains a lot of our observations. We also know it is not complete or could be wrong because it does not yet explain certain specific observations. When we find evidence which contradicts our current model, we not throw the baby out with bath water. The first attempt is always made to see if our model can be adjusted to fit the data because the model already explains so many existing other observations. It does not mean people are not looking at non-big bang cosmology models at all. There are tons of groups including Nobel prize winning scientists who are working on other models.
@@rogertheprice Eric has some interesting ideas but he does not have a lot of evidence for his hypothesis yet. When he does, his ideas will be more than just hypotheses.
@@neurolancer81 I am actually a huge fan of the scientific method and how an hypothesis becomes a theory after building a mountain of evidence. What I am more concerned about, however, is the fracturing of knowledge and compartmentalization into specialized fields. As helpful as they may be, there seems to be a disconnect, at least to me. I wish I had someplace to talk about these things. I remember something Frank Zappa had said when listening to the news about being able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Or perhaps I could prattle on about Edward Bernese and Neom Chomsky but I do not believe this is the forum for it.
Thank you for your response.
yes indeed indeed.
anton explained nothing and he deliberately watered down the genuine cosmological panic.
i have noticed the same pattern of deception with evolutionists claiming to debunk anti evolution evidence , or evidence for young earth!
when i read the actual " debunking" all i found was cheap insults towards the source and religion with extremely scarce scientific merit, just like anton has done here.
they basicaly just claim " false " as if thats enough!
we really need to be careful with mainstream science views , there is evidence of "religious " fanaticism towards their atheist ideals .
they will suppress science when it comes against them and scream ScieNCe when it favours them even minutely and most of the time evidence doesnt favour them even at all yet they go ahead to twist and claim it
again just like the zealot anton has very falsely claimed that JWST images actualy support bigbang .
unbelievable , right in the audience faces but his fellow fans of lies are chanting all over the comments about how thank ful they are about him telling the "truth" and " debunking"
my point is that dont just ignore and forgive what anton has done here , his reasoning or lack of it has to be dissected
I love your videos Anton. You make things easy to understand too!
Kinda weird that you wouldnt go into the article if you think its wrong.
Also, "the only possible explanation is the big bang"
No it isnt.
Also, someone saying the big bang didnt happen is not saying that the universe is not expanding. The article isnt stating this, youre misrepresenting the argument.
Theyre talking about the idea that the universe derives in an absence of something that pre-exists.
Another part of the argument is that the size of galaxies we see and their state of red shift would put their generation before the big bang, meaning the big bang theory is wrong, even if there was a big bang.
Not everything in the studies confirms what we thought before either, you provide no actual support for this argument and then you contradict yourself right after.
This is the reason for the word "panic" at the beginning of papers and astronomers questioning their lifes work.
This is a big misstep for you.
This is a fascinating history of how The Big Bang Theory came about, as well as how JWST is helping to confirm as well as to initiate new questions to further solidify it.
can't help but thinking Fred Hoyle might have had somewhat mixed feelings about how the "big bang" name first got coined.
Odd that the majority of this video was just that, a history of Big Bang theory, instead of a video that addressed the points being made in the article. Isn't that odd? He's asked to give his opinions on the article, and he chooses instead to rehash current Big Bang theory, instead of addressing the problems it faces.
@@steadybacon1606 You must have been out making popcorn when he talked about how recent data from JWST confirms predictin models made based on the understanding of The Big Bang Theory, and how the discoveries raise questions about the conditions of the early universe, but do not negate the model altogether. Isn't that odd?
I was expecting this video to also refer to the recent discovery of gravitational waves as another bit of evidence supporting the big bang theory. Cosmic background radiation is certainly a relevant evidence Anton talked about in the video.
The CMB does NOT mean Big Bang 😑the CMB just means microwaves the only difference is they just added the world COSMIC 😑but the truth is the CMB uses the same energy to power your food in well duh a microwave 😑
So if we look away from the big bang is it moving slower? And is it forward, back or up an down?
Thank you for being so generous towards those who lead with a sensational headline in order to attract attention and thank you for focussing on peer reviewed science, which I still have faith will save us.
One thing flew out of todays video that posed a big question for me. The subject of the super hot condition of the early universe in which atoms could not exist as we know them. A few tiny, provocative words for a BIG subject. I am desperate to know about this period and what it tells us about matter and the relationship between matter and energy.
The first guy signing the paper is in Twitter congratulaing himself for what is now a supposseldy "comical" title... which nobody got cause everybody is dumb, except himself...
@@TheChzoronzon Sometimes it's more important to be funny than smart when you have no friends🤭
@@TheChzoronzon Don't be so quick to judge. No doubt the editors and peer-reviewers knew what was what, because it is extremely unlikely the paper would have been published if they didn't. The joke is really on science journalists!
@@Classical741 Errr... there's no editors in Arxiv, anybody can upload there... and the paper isn't reviewed yet...
"Don't be so quick to judge."... but on that I can agree :D Sweet Jesus...
It’s a play off of Panic At The Disco. It’s literally titled Panic! At The Disk… how can people not realize it’s a joke and not a sensational, clickbait heading? And it’s on arxiv for crying out loud… I’d be patting myself on the back too because it’s sending people into a tizzy for no real reason when it’s literally just a play on words lol
6:05 Anton you just blew my mind when you told us that static on old TVs are caused by cosmic microwave background radiation. Thank you for being such a great teacher!
Partially caused, as he said. To get only the cosmic background radiation, you must clean out all man made radio signals and all naturally occurring radio signals from any natural phenomena that's not CBR.
Fun fact, same old TV is better for observing the effects today than it was when it was made just because there is less man made radio transmissions to interfere with it this days.
I think its less than 1% of the static you see, but yeah, its there.
The CMBR was supposed to be 50K according to BB theory but it was actually 3K which was the value the steady state advocates had calculated. So why did the 50K get massaged down to 3K and the Nobel Prize awarded to the BB advocates?
@@fivish 50K as in 50 Kelvin?
Thanks to Anton and Becky for expanding upon this topic. 😎
I see videos with clickbait that says Webb sees lights on other planets and in the thumbnail it's a planet with city lights. I was so excited.
In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives.
This is an amazing time to be alive in science! Thank you Anton!
Hi Anton! Huge fan, but this is the FIRST time we disagree. Sorry, but it seems to me that you are not looking at this objectively.
No. YOU are not looking at this objectively.
Lemaître didn't use the word singularity. He referred to the big bang's starting point as Cosmic Egg.
I thought I’d seen - in one of your videos - that heavier elements had been found by JWST in these very early galaxies, before they were expected to have been created? And that they were looking more structured than expected at that time. And I still struggle with that expansion phase, which seems to contradict tracing back the expansion linearly to a single point. But hey, if you say it still fits, I believe you, I just don’t understand it. Maybe I never will!
Inflation phase you mean? So do I... It feels like a fudge
Don’t beat yourself up, I doubt if anyone will ever truly understand what happened 13.8 billion years ago.
It would require a staggering level of arrogance to claim that you do, such arrogance usually only exists in stupid people.
The observed ratio of H, He and Li versus prediction remains a thorny issue with BBT. And they are far from the only issues of observation versus theory. It’s far from right versus wrong though as Anton points out. It’s always a matter of watch this space… so to speak.
We are in the expansion phase now. I think you mean the ‘inflation’ phase the phase that happened milliseconds after the start and only took milli seconds. So with these two different rates you can’t straight line trace from now back to the Big Bang. Also about 5 billion years ago the expansion of the universe started to accelerate and dark matter and energy is attributed to this. So now we have 3 different rates of expansion. The first size change is called ‘ inflation’ and happened right right at the start of the entire Big Bang process we are still in now. The inflation turned energy into matter, you could say the energy solidified into matter, and was virtuously instantaneous. Inflation is often called a scale change rather than a size change because a single nano meter became hundreds of thousands of light years in a few instants. That’s the first ‘expansion’. Then the universe expanded at a steady rate for about 9 billion years, and is the second phase of expansion. Then dark matter and energy happened 4-5 billion years ago. Coincidentally about when our sun formed. This dark energy that somehow happened from somewhere that’s still unknown to science, but possibly a tentative idea is that it’s from the ‘surface tension of the void bubbles somehow’, started the acceleration of the universe expansion. This is the third stage if expansion.
So having three very different rate of expansion! 1 instantaneous unbelievable scale change that created matter, 2 9 billion years of constant rate expansion, 3 4-5 billion years of accelerating expansion, you can’t just have a single number or rate of expansion so you can straight line trace the Big Bang backwards to a point. You need 3 lines, a curved line for the accelerating expansion, then a straight line back from that, and then a line straight down from there to ‘the point’ since that last bit was instantaneous.
@@mitseraffej5812 Well said.
Anton,
could you please explain to me how we are able to see light from when the universe was about 50 million years old? At that time, in whatever early forming State the Milky Way galaxy was in, it's location was far closer to the center point of the Big Bang than it is now. Light emanating from that and other galaxies at the opposite end of the smaller universe would be traveling faster than our galaxy which is moving at very slow sublight speeds. Therefore if we have already been traveling for 13 billion years since the origin of the universe as we know it, views of the universe that were 12.9 billion years ago would have gone far beyond us by now moving in an outward sphere with a radius of..... I'm not sure what because I don't know how to do that math but I'm sure someone does. Considering that there is nothing to reflect that light back at us and the fact that that light is continuing to move out Into the Dark Void beyond probably the edge of the actual physical Universal barrier, how could we ever see that view of the 50 million yr old universe unless we traveled in a wormhole outward on that radius and popped out in just enough time to look back and see the view of the 50M yr old universe. When we look across the greatest length vector of our universe and view a Galaxy about 10 billion light years away, it makes sense to me that I'm looking back in time and actually seeing what that Galaxy looked like 10 billion years ago. Once again this creates a paradox for Imagining the universe to be 13 billion years old when I'm looking at a Galaxy that was only 3 billion years old. In any case it seems to me that the universe is much much older than we think it is, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see all of these incredible distant galaxies as they were so far in the past.
There is no center of the big bang. There may also be no edge to the universe; it could be infinite, so no "Dark Void" beyond. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is light from around 380,000 years after the big bang, so it was emitted over 13 billion years ago and is reaching us now. It doesn't come from any one direction, it comes from everywhere since the big bang happened everywhere. We can see light that has been traveling for almost 13 billion years since everything has been moving apart at a high speed. The thing that emitted the light would have been much closer when it was emitted. The light is just reaching us now. If it has been traveling for 13 billion years, then the object that emitted it is much farther away by now (around 70 km/s/Mpc expansion rate). That adds up over millions or billions of light years and exceeds the speed of light for very distant objects. That is why we talk about the observable universe. We will never be able to observe anything from beyond a certain distance since the light can never reach us as long as the universe continues to expand at the current rate or faster.
@@jamescox8429 James, awesome that you got back to me so fast. I really appreciate it. so at age 56 you are reshaping right now my traditional concept of the cosmos. If you could elaborate on a few of the things that you said in even more simple layman's terms that a country boy could understand, I would become even more enlightened. One point that seemed to be jumping out at me in your explanation, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that our galaxy jumped out of the Big Bang at a speed faster than the speed of light. This essentially is analogous to the Wormhole I was thinking about such that our current position is beyond the light emitting from the early universe therefore enabling us to see it as it approaches at 12.9 billion light years, understanding of course that those actual early galaxies are much further away from us than even 13 billion light years cuz they have been moving also at the expansion rate. Just a quick question on the expansion rate .. that is clearly sublight speed right.. I'm not familiar with how speeds measured in miliparsecs correspond to the speed of light or the constant known as C? I am a little bit taken back at your statement that the Big Bang happened everywhere since I thought that it was clearly established in modern cosmotology that the Galaxies have all been expanding away from a Common Center and that all the mass in the current known universe was at one point condensed into the single singularity from which the Big Bang came forth. If that is the case, wouldn't there have to be a finite spherical boundary of the universe, albeit and ever expanding boundary, moving outward at the same expansion speed that you referenced above? When I use the term boundary I don't mean like the Star Trek galactic energy boundary, I am simply referring to a spherical surface area measured as a radius between the distance of the farthest Galaxy and the conceptual center of the universe. If you are speaking about the Big Bang happening everywhere rhetorically as a result of the fact that all that is in the universe was in the same spot when the singularity that contained everything erupted into all of the hot gases that we know existed due to the residual background radiation. Bottom line if what you are trying to say is that our galaxy was formed in roughly the same area that we are currently moving away from, after ending up there as a result of the gases out of the Big Bang arriving in the area at a speed > c, then that will help eliminate the mental block that I had making me think there was a paradox. My apologies if this is all frustrating to you but you have been the one person who has taken the time to try to explain so I want to stay at it until I get it.
@@Teflon2017
The only thing I can tell you of your questions is that the expansion of the universe isn’t necessarily moving at any real speed, per se. The reason that we lose sight of galaxies beyond our particle horizon isn’t because it’s suddenly moving faster than light, it’s because as you increase the distance between us and said galaxy, the space between is constantly ballooning up. At a certain point, that ever increasing space becomes too much for the speed of light to overcome and therefore we either haven’t had enough time to see it, or we simply never will. It’s important to remember that space isn’t simply moving outward from the singularity, as science understands it, and therefore at the, “edges,” it is simply going faster than the inner portions. Rather space is constantly expanding at ALL points instead of from a single one. It’s like if you put a series of sticks starting from 1 foot away from you and continued placing them at 1 foot intervals. Then imagine that for every foot, you increase the distance between each stick by an additional foot so it’s 2 feet, then 3 feet, then 4 feet… so eventually there is 10 feet between each stick, then 20 feet, etc. this is the reason the farther galaxies haven’t had time or will never have time to reach us. It’s kinda difficult even for me to wrap my mind around, and I frankly think that space itself is infinite and even beyond our particle horizon there is more matter than we can see or will ever see. But that’s just my opinion. Or I suppose it’s possible that we are just the “center” of one observable universe and that there are many many more in bubbles throughout the infinite expanse of “empty” spacetime. I don’t really know! That’s what fascinates me so much about the universe… we know so much already, but there is always going to be questions that we will never be able to answer.
@@JanoyCresvaZero J, that was beautifully said! I agree with so much of what you said because it makes sense. You made me remember the computer pic of the vast amount of cosmic galaxy filaments, twirling and twisting because of the varied gravity everywhere. Although generally speaking galaxies are moving apart, they obviously are not doing so uniformily in a spherical shape. Its more like rivers finding their way down hill through various topographical formations. Given the universal law of conservation of mass and energy, I wonder if matter going into the core of a black hole doesn't come pop out as a white hole in one of those neighboring universes?.....
Thankyou for taking the time and writing this thoughtful explanation.
What happened to James Cox's replies? He deleted 'em? I'm curious about what he said.
Thanks for chopping through the BS for us Anton!!🙏 Hopefuly 'news' outlets start hiring people like you to write their science articles, instead of...what they call journalists now..also I wish there were some standard 'seal of approval' for articles, you know, so real scientists can approve them as sufficiently correct or plain BS, because with all the noise and dirt thrown to the winds these days it gets really complicated to know what youre reading.
especially in places like YT, where every man and his dog have opinions that they believe so strongly that they think is fact, when in reality it's nothing of the sort.
chop chop
@@psycronizer 👍🎯👍 "true science tries to prove itself wrong.." 👍👍
@@whatdamath hi Anton
Do you think we can see the start of everything or is it endless space. Maybe there is more space than what we can see but so far away that the light would never reach us. What is outside the universe?
@@whatdamath hi Anton
Would we not be able to see a cosmos full of imploding suns in real time with James Web? After all these billions of years we should see stars dying and exploding? Sorry for the stupid questions but it just boggles me
Anton is the clear, calm voice of reason and rationality in the world of hyperbole, hysterics, and misinformation that is Social Media and RUclips!
I find it adorable how scientists can be arrogantly confident on "known" science then equally arrogantly dismissive when the data doesn't match their theories. Already starting with "you just didn't understand our theory", no "it" really means this. One thing is always certain, in almost every field, what is known today will be corrected tomorrow.
yeah we barely know how to tie our shoes lmao humanity be funny. the more we discover the less we know.
_" then equally arrogantly dismissive when the data doesn't match their theories."_
Where did that happen?
I sense a fundamental misunderstanding of science. But first, lets get something out of the way. The whole notion that the big bang was "disproved" is complete baseless bunk. This is pseudoscience that has spread from click bait articles and videos, and using the novelty of the James Webb Space Telescope to attempt to give their BS claims an air of credibility.
Now, lets say that a piece of evidence came along that suggested that we need to revise how we think the universe originated. The whole point of science is to revise and/or update our understanding of reality with the evidence! This would not discount the previously gathered evidence that indicated the big bang, but such a situation would mean we need a better theory that is compatible with all of the data at the same time, not just one set of data or the other.
This is the complete opposite method of religion. Religions assumes that either god/s or any other variety of supernatural answers as the cause for literally anything that cannot yet be reasonably answered due to their being insufficient evidence or data, and which demands that you filter all information and only cherry pick the data to serve that pre-held religious or supernatural conclusion.
This is why Religion creates dark ages that slow progress and the accumulation of knowledge to a crawl and makes for extremely close-minded and backwards societies, whilst Science creates technological revolutions that tremendously advance humanity in a multitude of ways.
By the way, the reason i talked about religion in my comment, is that it's almost exclusively people with religious upbringings that have this extremely deep level of misunderstanding of science. It's very obvious how you were raised, and because you weren't taught correctly how science works, you have no frame of reference aside from how your religious parents and church claims how science works. They taught you wrong. You have a choice, either choose to become educated on how science works, or stick your head in the sand and cloud your mind with convenient religious answers without a shred of evidence to support any of it.
@@ufodeath you shouldn't assume things my guy. You can't talk big on science then make assumptions on what someone else's beliefs systems are and how that effects their perspective. Even if you are somewhat correct, making assumptions is not very scientific of you, especially without having any evidence lol.
A singular "big bang" isn't very likely. Multiple however is much more likely. I do agree that these new "discoveries" have been minimal in being able to disprove the theory of the big bang but that theory in itself is flawed to an extent. It mentions nothing of where said bang may have originated from or the possibility of other planes/dimensions.
Just a question. A large pillar of the Big Bang Theory relies on the red shift of distant galaxies. This red shift is assumed because the are moving away from us and the Dopplereffect makes them appear more red. However, we rely on the Dopplereffect like we notice in every day life is different. Object moving towards us or moving away from us in a medium that is steady. The air is a steady medium when a sirene moves towards us or moves away from us. The Big Bang theory is different. The objects themselves don’t really move further away but the medium in which the galaxies are (space) is expanding. That is a difference. So how do we know the Dopplereffect also works in the case of distant galaxies and if that is the explanation of the red shift? Has it ever been tested?
I don’t have the means but you could try by a pulsating floater in tank of water and by adding water to the tank while the walls of the tank move away so that the water level remains the same. Does the floater move? Does the wavelength of the water due to the pulsating of the floater change when water is added? Thanks!
Yes it works the way we think it does and we know that because we have tested and retested, and tested light over and over and over again. We have tested in enough different mediums that we know how to make it look like light has stopped moving completely because of the medium we use to trap it during those tests.
@@Baronstone thanks, I understand it works in different mediums but does it also work when the medium itself is expanding? That is difficult to test..
Air is very much not a "steady" medium.
Doppler effect is a thing because of how waves behave, and light is nothing more than just an electromagnetic wave. By knowing that stars emit visible (among others) light, and that this light gets more and more redshifted, to the point of it being invisible to our naked eyes, we know that redshift occurs. And since majority of the objects appear redshifted, we can conclude that all of them move away from us. Keep in mind, that we also have blueshifted objects, like andromeda, moving towards us.
@@huib1965 Space isn't really a "medium" like the air is. It's just a set of dimensions. So when they say "space is expanding" that's kind of misleading. Everything is moving away from everything else. And so things that are far enough away are moving faster than the speed of light away from us.
"The objects themselves don’t really move further away but the medium in which the galaxies are (space) is expanding." That is not logically possible. If the medium in between two objects were in fact expanding, then the distances between the two objects must increase. That is a physical requirement of physical expansion. If that were not the case, you could say objects themselves are expanding while staying the same exact size. There is no such occurrence as non-physical expansion. The big bang theory is absolute nonsense as is practically all of its supporting logic.
"That is a difference. So how do we know the Dopplereffect also works in the case of distant galaxies and if that is the explanation of the red shift? Has it ever been tested?" That was the entire premise of Christian Doppler's original paper on the Doppler Effect. He described how the Doppler Effect was, in fact, the same exact effect for both light and sound in the very first paper on this subject matter. The paper describes the Doppler Effect as being caused by the relative motion of the emitter with the medium and the relative motion of the observer with the medium, with the observed frequency change being varied by the relative motion between the observer and the emitter and vice versa. There is no mention of any expanding media in this paper whatsoever. This paper has never been refuted or falsified, either. That is how you know the modern theory is junk "science."
"I don’t have the means but you could try by a pulsating floater in tank of water and by adding water to the tank while the walls of the tank move away so that the water level remains the same. Does the floater move?" That would be an interesting experiment, though I do not know how you could pull it off at a constant rate. Also, it seems to me that the vertical axis must expand as much as both of the horizontal axes in order for the expansion to replicate the hypothesis of the big bangers as they are postulating an expansion equally in all directions. The problem is, if expansion were occurring at a constant rate, the volume itself would not be expanding at a constant rate. This is easily shown with a simple 2 axis diagram. Start at a single point. Then move out one unit in all directions from the point, making a unit circle with radius of 1. The area is pie*r^2=pie=3.14 units. Now do the same process again from the second circle. Now the area is pie*2^2=pie*4=12.56. The next iteration would have an area of pie*3^2=pie*9=28.26. Basically, it is an exponential equation. Now, if you did that with 3 axes instead of 2, the numbers grow even larger even quicker, being a higher order exponential equation. The only way to keep the unit volume at a constant rate would be for the rate of expansion to decrease over time. They have never submitted a postulation for such a decrease in the rate of expansion, as far as I am aware, however it is rather nonsensical because there is nothing for the expansion to expand into. There is also a reciprocal way of describing this hypothesis. The space is remaining constant and the matter is shrinking, because the only two variables in this hypothesis is that of space and that of matter. Per this hypothesis, relative to matter, space must be expanding, but relative to space, matter must be shrinking. It is pretty absurd, when you think about it.
There is a much more common sense explanation for the observed red shift. It is observed any time you drop a stone into a body of water. Notice how the rings expand outwards? As they do so, the waves become more shallow and have a longer wavelength. Now, if you were a bobber on top of the pond looking from a distance at the location where the stone was dropped, you would observe that the frequency of the wave has decreased from its original frequency. There is no magic expansion of the water itself. These "scientists" have not even figured that out yet.
i just saw Dr Becky’s video on this & i’m super disappointed she didn’t mention the tweet & shout out anton 😔 if anyone in this community deserves a shout 😪
It's possible she made the video before the tweet 🤔 editing takes quite a lot of time for her videos
There's a good chance she had 200ds of peeps pinging her.
@@swedmiroswedmiro1352 that too 😅
Anton and 2 others are RUclipsrs I click thumbs up as soon as I start the video