John Carlstrom | What Do We Know About The Big Bang?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 мар 2017
- John Carlstrom gives the plenary lecture at the New Horizons in Inflationary Cosmology Templeton Conference organized by the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics.
Our understanding of the origin, evolution and make-up of the Universe has undergone dramatic and surprising advances over the last decades. Much of the progress has been driven by measurements of the fossil light from the big bang, called the cosmic microwave background radiation, which provides us with a glimpse of the Universe as it was 14 billion years ago. This talk will discuss what we know about the Big Bang and how we learned it. We will also talk about the new questions we are asking about the origin of the Universe and the experiments being pursued to answer them, peering back to the beginning of time. 
Наука
I had the pleasure of working for this man. I hope his home is complete and as beautiful as it should be.
He is a tremendous teacher... and one of the most agile minds on Planet Earth... I learned tensor calculus from him in his books on string theory... and I deeply appreciate it. ... it was just what I required to figure out how our Universe works.. I am working on still
A good talk for a layperson like me. What exciting times to be living in.
I've not heard of these shadows before. Fascinating!
Great talk!
What a sweet way to close the lecture!
BigBen Kkkmmkkk mmkmmkkkkkkjjiij
N.
Every 7 days
Really ?
I never knew the doctor from "Star Trek: Voyager" was also a university professor.
I never knew he was also gay :D
Iio oioiiiioooiioiooii
Than he knows everything!
What is the mathematical difference - how would you mathematically model differently - objects moving apart from each other through space versus space expanding?
Thanks for the video.
Am I misunderstanding Density of the universe topic?
And here 39:05 it says 3 atoms in 1 qubic meter.
But then it says matter is %25 of the universe?
how?
As far as I know from some books matter is around %0,1. In one book it was saying that "There is so little matter in the universe that it is ignored in the ratio charts." So, How matter can be %25 of the universe?
Why is the image of the CMB elliptical and not circular? If we're measuring in every direction from Planet Earth, shouldn't our image look like a circle?
1:01:30 - Fascinating!
I’m 16 and this is the most interesting thing I’ve ever watched. I can’t get enough of looking at the stars and imagining the Big Bang. I want to be an astronomer and a scientist someday. My dream is to work for SpaceX one day and possibly go on a Mars mission. It’s nice to know that there are people who understand as much as I do out there.
Good luck to you! Astronomy is awesome! :)
59:53 Why does it look roundish that big area to the left, as if it is a giant atom? A ball sort of....that big thing in the middle seem to have bluer colour arround it, why this effect, what causes that?
Very well explained, it's clearly put. Being English my second language, I appreciate the fact that I have no problem with your pronunciation. THANK YOU.
Hour and a half to cover "what we know about the big bang"
Thank god I didnt find one about "what we DONT know about the big bang"
I havent got a whole week to sit and watch a video.
Distance is also time, so the phrase by Hubble could be the older / farther the measurement, the faster it expanded, so now / here expansion is slowing, because now it is expanding slower.
Psy phy physics from a sci fi writer! THE LITTLE TEAR!
During the Big Bang, Dark Energy broke out of Dimp, the singularity before the Big Bang, and started the universe. But did it explode or tear???
Photons made the first pair conversion, and it tore into nothingness and nudged space apart. This made more Dark Energy / vacuum energy - expansion began! Consider this the first grain of rice on the chess board analogy! The second pair conversion expanded space more. Every point of new space made by more pair conversions, allowed more space and vacuum energy that allowed more pair conversions to pop up. Soon pair conversion was not a single Big Bang event, but an explosion of pair conversions as space ballooned up exponentially. This started a recurring cycle - the first pair conversion made more space, which made more dark energy / vacuum energy, which made more pair conversion, which made more space .... Finally let's rename it the LITTLE TEAR instead of the BIG BANG!
LITTLE TEAR IN SPACE. Photons that are outside space-time, enter our universe of space-time, and make a pair of particles that expand in opposite directions! This TEAR IN SPACE, EXPANDS the UNIVERSE and MAKES A BIT MORE ROOM! That suggests that PAIR CONVERSION creates SPACE!!! The pair annihilate almost immediately, MOST of the time, and that SEWS UP THE TEAR!!!
The pair of particles tear space time apart with both the creation of space and distance between the two. Photons in eternal Dimp, through pair conversion of positrons and electrons, create distance, space, and time!
But even though pair conversion usually does not last, it did during the Little Tear, and sometimes it does today too because we know that DARK ENERGY continues to expand the universe today; and IT'S GOING FASTER! So the Big Bang, or better yet, the Little Tear, is going even stronger than ever.
This guy has the perfect narrating voice lol
Why do more and more of these SCIENCE personalities doing social media presentations sound like charlatan TV evangelists with raised hands and all ... announcing the Coming of God Particle II?Alas, even Big Science is becoming a money making swindle!
Very interesting. As I'm watching this, the lecture took place more than three years ago. Has any progress been made in looking for the "swirls" of gravity signals that were predicted?
@Samwisegamgee The Brave
Fractals get me high
The supposed discovery of the Higgs was supposed to unlock all the secrets of the Universe for us. Thats been 8 years ago now. Still waiting. Not sure about the swirls.
They don't know the universe is expanding they think it is expanding and that is a very big difference
Wow! Excellent lecture!
i would love to work there!!
15:00 Number of Galaxies. The following was Published on Thursday, 13 October 2016:
A universe of two trillion galaxies
An international team of astronomers, led by Christopher Conselice, Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Nottingham, have found that the universe contains at least two trillion galaxies, ten times more than previously thought.
Preprint: arxiv.org/pdf/1607.03909v2.pdf
There are a large number of small galaxies, like the magellanic clouds, that we cannot see at distance. We therefore have no clear idea of the numbers of them. Also large galaxies formed from the mergers of small galaxies so this is important for our understanding of galaxy formation. There would have been far more galaxies in the past than the present.
WOW!
I'm not that smart, but I really enjoyed this!
super densive blackholes can only maintain density in clusture that reinforces the capability. independently they expand very quickly back into full galaxies.
Great lecture. But someone should have told him to point the clicker at the computer and not the screen if he’s having trouble advancing the slides.
I've noticed that as well, It seems the more expert you are, the less practical !
38:00 - Cool! ^.^
I have one question - he mentioned that the bright spots on the CBM map are emissions from galaxies, but how we know that the entire CBM is not just a fused emissions from trillions distant objects?
Very interesting question! I found that I solve physics problems better when I stick a finger up my bum. The more fingers I can fit through my anus, the better I become at solving said problems. I hope that my method to solving mysteries in my life helps you get a better idea on how exactly you could find the answer to your question. God’s speed Krastev!
The theory says that all of space is expanding. Everywhere you look it is expanding. So, why does the microwave background have to have any synchronization? Please explain this.
@Dirk Knight I'm sorry, that doe not make sense to me. The entire universe has been undergoing expansion from day one in all directions so why do we need a something to synchronize the background radiation? Would it not be synchronized by space? According to this theory, are we not expanding as I sit here writing this?
@Dirk Knight I now have an even longer list of questions that I would like to ask, but I shall attempt to start with what I believe is the single most important one. At a mere ten to the minus fifth difference displayed in the image of the CMB, are you certain that what you are seeing is not just the internal noise of your instrumentation? 10 the minus 5th is a terribly small quantity.
@Dirk Knight So you are claiming that all of these experiments are about half as accurate as a currently operating atomic clock, which is claimed to be accurate to one part in 10 to the 14th? I don't know and cannot tell if you are indulging yourself in empty bragging or not. Let's just say that I remain suspicious. I shall do some more reading and get back to you on this. In the meantime, do please understand that this level of precision would run your average machinist nuts.
@Dirk Knight Oh, holy shit! Another Mikey Bloomberg! Ain't you special? So, on top of everything else you are going to play the snob. Congratulations, you have succeeded in annoying me.
I’m pretty sure that like everything else, gravity slows down even light emitted from any galaxy. Eventually stopping that light in about 14 billion light years of distance. But that would mean that the distance light travels takes somewhat longer to reach us at such distances since it must have slowed down to under ten percent of its original velocity from 13 billion light years away and completely stopped at 15 billion light years away.
I am pretty sure you failed science class with that one. ;-)
Thus time and gravity could be the same thing, given the fact that we are all quantum systems as well as the planets, gravity could be inversely proportional to quantum entanglement. That would explain why there is less gravity at higher altitudes. Quantum entanglement with space fabric could be mass.
The Great Andromeda Galaxy is M31 NOT M33. M33 is the Triangulum Galaxy.
I noticed that too, but I think (not sure) I saw it correctly labeled in a slide shown around the time stamp when he must’ve misspoken, or perhaps it was the other way around, with it being mislabeled but verbalized correctly.
There were two distinct fizzes then a bang.
If the universe is homogenic and isotropic out in the universe, how can you then explain what void is because that isnt homogenus and isotropic compared to the rest?
The homogeneity and isotropy assumption is only valid for very large scales. On intermediate scales the universe is very grainy and stringy. There is a discussion, right now, whether we can apply the homogeneity and isotropy assumption at all. If we can't, then we have to collect a lot more data to achieve similar levels of confidence for the age and density of the universe that we have now with that assumption in place.
Were there moments throughout the lecture when anyone else thought his voice was familiar, then realized he sounded like George Clooney?
That's because there large ears. People with large ears tend to have the same voice.
Serous replay: Besides they both have a low pitched voice. No not really.
A dick
It is not possible to "know" anything or something or whatever about a fantasy except that it is a fantasy and the fantasy has been called the big bang.
Why can't the back ground noise be radiation stars.
♦️قال الله سبحانه وتعالى قبل 1442سنة،
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم :
{{ أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَنَّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقًا فَفَتَقْنَاهُمَا ۖ وَجَعَلْنَا مِنَ الْمَاءِ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ حَيٍّ ۖ أفلا يؤمنون }} (30) الأنبياء
الرتق يعني الإندماج والتجمع الإنضغاط والتكتل
عكس الفتق الذي هو الإنفجار والتحرر والإنفتاح والإتساع والتباعد.
thinking about killing myself has never made me feel good. its been thinking about not killing myself that once gave me wonder about how much life is going to hurt.
Maybe use some opioids instead?
The biggest question is that, Why that singularity didn't become a huge Black Hole .
There must be something wrong with our understanding of the MBR. The original radiation from the big bang are long past us. We are mere 4.5 billion years old while MBR is 13 b. So if we are seeing the radiation, it must be bouncing off a background. Is this the background of spacetime created at the big bang? Isn't the original radiation supposed to keep going away into oblivion?
The radiation we see today is coming from a part of the universe that is expanding away from us very rapidly. The space in between has expanded so fast that it has taken 13.8 billion years to get to us.
On the picture "History of the Universe" can you specify the moment when dark energy and dark matter appear?
at the very start.
I think?
What is Dark Matter, then? If you expect the answer, it must be known. Right? If Dark Energy is Vacuum Energy, I would assume it appears around the same time(?) as Space-Time? I did not watch the video yet. I might. So feel free to give me the answer to the DM question.
@@Maxander2001 we do now know what it is. It's a hypothesis to answer the observation that the matter we can see isn't enough to generate all the gravity we see
@@suushii90 Yes, it is semantics.
Is our universe simply a manifestation of the inside of a black hole?
It could be, we could be in a black hole bigger than what we can imagine. Or we are insanly small inside of normal size black hole. We just can't see outside of our universe because light can not escape. Each black hole contains a smaller universe, and they too, are trying to look out, but can not. Each Black hole universe has its relative time. We are dating ours to 14 billion year, another one on the edge could be dating their universe at 466 billion years.
♦️ قال الله سبحانه وتعالى قبل 1442سنة
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ :
{{ وَالنَّجْمِ إِذَا هَوَى * مَا ضَلَّ صَاحِبُكُمْ وَمَا غَوَى * وَمَا يَنْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَى * إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحَى * عَلَّمَهُ شَدِيدُ الْقُوَى * ذُو مِرَّةٍ فَاسْتَوَى * وَهُوَ بِالْأُفُقِ الْأَعْلَى * ثُمَّ دَنَا فَتَدَلَّى * فَكَانَ قَابَ قَوْسَيْنِ أَوْ أَدْنَى * فَأَوْحَى إِلَى عَبْدِهِ مَا أَوْحَى * مَا كَذَبَ الْفُؤَادُ مَا رَأَى * أَفَتُمَارُونَهُ عَلَى مَا يَرَى * وَلَقَدْ رَآهُ نَزْلَةً أُخْرَى * عِنْدَ سِدْرَةِ الْمُنْتَهَى * عِنْدَهَا جَنَّةُ الْمَأْوَى * إِذْ يَغْشَى السِّدْرَةَ مَا يَغْشَى * مَا زَاغَ الْبَصَرُ وَمَا طَغَى * لَقَدْ رَأَى مِنْ آيَاتِ رَبِّهِ الْكُبْرَى }}
(النجم 1~18)
theyve never found a bottom to particles. they always find it smaller the further they search.
Here's my suggestion on how
the Universe was made from Photons in the Big Bang
in Three Steps.
1. Suggestion that in the first second of the Big Bang, at those extreme temperatures, there was a short period when photons made electron/positorn pairs that became separate electrons and positrons.
2. Suggestion that as temperatures dropped and space expanded, these loose electrons and positrons, in combination, made up the elementary particles such that:
Electron = one electron wave = negative charge
Neutrino - one electron wave and one positron wave = neutral charge.
Proton = one electron wave, and two positron wave = positive charge.
Neutron = two electron waves, and two positron waves = neutral charge.
3. Suggestion that these 4 elementary particles in turn, made up the rest of the universe.
I wonder if Dark Energy IS Inflation
He says “right” more times than the number of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field photo.
Thirty minutes to review
(Looks at clicker, says “right”)
what everybody in the room
(Looks at clicker, says “right”)
likely already knew.
(Looks at clicker, says “right”)
...
Tough to watch so skip the first 30 minutes.
😎
If you look at the Antarctic telescope site at 55.21 you see a fence around it. Why a fence in literally the middle of nowhere? Penguins?
Well why not?! I bet it’s very expensive and they could at very least put up a fence to keep others out or protect the equipment, I would think it’s even more careless to not have a minimal fence quite honestly. Do you lock your doors at home or even have doors at all?! Why do you have them? To protect your valuables maybe? What a weird question to ask...
you know there are polar bears right?
Not in Antarctica.
2 seconds before the Big Bang.....
the hair stood up on the back of God's neck.
and sadly someone somewhere actually believes that....
psycronizer sadly billions believe that😒
Yes he said “shit what have I done”.
Can any student write in FOUR LINES of SCRIPT how PHOTONS made the UNIVERSE?
But it will challenge much of what we accept now! (See below).
Background: My suggestion is that the BIG BANG, with the EXPANDING UNIVERSE, and the period of INFLATION ; PHOTONS caused a sea of HALF WAVES of ELECTRONS and POSITRONS.
PHOTONS can create (-) ELECTRON and (+) POSITRON pairs in PAIR PRODUCTION.
HALF WAVES: This is a new idea that suggests that there are electron and positron waves that have a charge in the crests but not in the troughs of the wave. They become a full wave only when they combine with other HALF WAVES. That sets up a force or drive for these half waves to combine to make a FULL WAVE.
These half waves made combinations that in turn made all the elementary particle/waves.
They do so in the four ways listed below.
When this birth period of elementary particles was over, most positrons didn't exist on their own, but were locked in protons or neutrons.
Here are the FOUR LINES OF SCRIPT.
KEY: (-) negative half wave or electron. / (+) positive half wave or positron.
Electron (-)
Neutrino (-) (+)
Proton (+) (-) (+)
Neutron (+) (-) (+) (-)
That Means that With This New Idea, We Can Rethink These Ideas in Physics:
Strong Force
Weak force
Quarks
Charge
Spin and why it takes an even number of electrons to fill an electron shell.
The problem of the missing anti mass
Neutrinos, Electrons, Protons, Neutrons, Positrons.
Why electron and positron are point particles.
Why no electron/positron annihilation during the period when elementary particles were made.
Why positive charge goes to negative charge instead of the other way around.
Your Nobel prize is in the mail. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Sadly , no chance - the physicists I know block out most new ideas.
This lecture is documentary quality, so..
Opinions from unqualified Commentators are worse than worthless, but every Student intending to learn the Scientific Method is required to know and understand the holistic message, ..the Philosophical difference between knowing by operational doing, and unspecified belief, hope, and trust in empirical laws of evidence taught by those who have come before.., and the reciprocal sciencing re-search methodology in which the Scientists know that everything "known" is equivalent to the Socratic question of probabilistic veracity.
It all comes down to Truth in labeling, WYSIWYG pseudo random fields of Uncertainty in otherwise specific resonance interference positioning Image condensation, of logarithmic numberness, quantum-field bases, in Superspin.
Big Bang theory is a "testable" hypothesis in the observable landscape, similar in practice to a disection into related processes in animal or plant biological vivisection, not the actual Physics of time and space based on actual Quantum Mechanical operation, and that is all about the methodology of relative motion mathematical reciprocal positioning formulae, techniques.
If we look to the East from equatorial regions, the further you look, the earlier is the expectation of seeing the dawn of the Sun as the planet rotates.
The equivalent in temporal physicality realization, is looking "down" a "line of sight oneness-connection", at orthogonal Inflation +/-, the real-ization of modulation at e-Pi-i resonant entanglement reflection.., of time duration timing modulation.
So although the natural occurring conception of in-form-ation is here-now-forever, the real-ization of remote distances in the echo-chamber of Spinfoam fractal bubble Spacetime Totality, of continuous creation connection Principle, which is of an "early universe" in observational holographic entanglement-loops, ..an "exploding view" of condensing information in Black Hole type e-Pi-i interference positioning.
The Horizon "Problem" is the reciprocal positioning prediction of information density-inensity of relative timing connection rates centred on Black Hole Singularity objectives, ie there's a direct ratio of mass sync-duration resonance to apparent structural distances such as the critical mass-diameters, ages of Stars, Neutron-BH sizes and so on to Galaxies.
Ie Dirac's reciprocals idea, which, if objectives are cause-effect hetrodyne emitter-receiver self-defining modulation of logarithmic Superspin condensation, then CMB radiation is an EM/Speed-of-light energy leak, in holographic AM-FM Inflation +/-, image projection drawing. And Dirac's reciprocals are the physical mathematical re-cognition of the importance in Conception of Temporal reciprocal, naturally occurring positioning formulae.
Wow sounds like bunch of horseshit to me. You cant test bbt. Computer Models are not reliable
@@donniesgotu I'm familiar with horse and other such natural fertilisers, but I have never seen it before as represented by mythological narratives like the Big Bang Theory. You must be better acquainted with consuming HS.
@@davidwilkie9551 That's a lot of words but still doesn't mean anything.
@@donniesgotu not to deliberately ignorant people
♦️قال الله سبحانه وتعالى قبل 1442سنة،
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم :
•{{ فلا أقسم بالخنس، الجوار الكنس }}•
⚫( سورة التكوير 15~16 )
وهي الثقوب السوداء صدق الله العظيم
معنى الخنس هي المختفية عن الأنظار والتي تجري وتكنس صفحة السماء وتسحب الأجسام والضوء وتبتلع النجوم والمجرات.
BLACK HOLES ⚫
What we know, is that somebody smoked some really good mushrooms, when they thought of black holes
Smoked mushrooms?
@@PeteV80 smh
@@josephd.4890 dumb
@@PeteV80 yes, believing in black holes is dumb
say in certian circumstances ppl dont see particles unless they are real low on waves. but i constantly hear crickets. im a constant
if they ever discover the building blocks of allmatter it would be an amazing accomplishment.
@Rad Derry And yet you're here on your phone or computer responding. And you likely pollute a lot too.
@Rad Derry I think I'll apply Hitchens' Razor and move on.
Do you realize that you cannot raise the living standards of everyone? There will be those who will pay for your standards being raised, be it in the West or further afield. To make YOUR life easier someone else will have it harder. The constant of cause and effect will always apply.
are you fucking kidding me its so far beyond..........and and and and and,,,,,,,dust particules,,,and and and and,,,, ppl that see particuates is another story
What is the relationship between the last surface of scattering and the boundary of the observable universe?
There are theory saying that we are unable to see beyond the observable universe because the light cannot reach us due to the expansion of space in the observable universe. If this is indeed the case, this mean we will not be able to see the last surface of scattering after some period of time? Are we able to calculate how long that period would be?
The Farther Away a Galaxy Is,The Faster Its Moving Away From Us🤦🏼♀️,Duh
Or, the further light has to travel before it reaches our detectors the more gravitational redshifting occurs. Transnational velocity is not the only thing that can redshift light. We have too much uncertainty in the position of galaxies relative to the photons that traveled to us let alone the laws of gravity to assume negligible gravitational redshifting but that is the invisible assumption not popular to discuss. Don't just regurgitate what you've heard, do some investigating and calculating before you become dogmatic about dark energy.
@@HotPinkst17 Gravitation red shifting is a better explanation than dark energy.
@@paulsmith1981 Agreed! Such a more elegant explanation than breaking the law of conservation of energy. 'Dark' explanations are balderdash.
Shilly Shillerson ... allegedly. 😱
oh...witty....let me guess...you think...GOD did it !...
There was no singularity at the point of the big bang's formation with the universe starting out smaller than a proton. Maybe that applies to the observable universe, but not a flat and supposedly infinite one. I think it's more likely the universe started out within another universe from a whole region of space as an ultra dense and low entropy state of matter somewhat like liquid water. The water in this region started boiling creating lots of bubbles that crashed into each other creating sound waves and an 'almost' perfect temperature distribution as well as extremely rapid expansion (inflation), so the start of inflation didn't have to come from a singularity and could have come from a whole region of high density, temp, low entropy instead. The idea of a singularity and the whole universe coming out of a single quantum fluctuation in the vacuum just doesn't make sense.
yeah ok...and how do you account for all this ultra dense and low entropy matter you speak of when it is very CLEAR that when you reverse time everything started from one point, there was none of this so called matter doing all these absurd things that you think it did, there was ZERO matter back then, the energy in that point region was off the scale, matter had no chance in hell of existing. You clearly know bugger all about quantum gravity if think that vacuum space is not capable of producing matter...because it can and DOES...everything..came from nothing .....just because you do not know about it, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense, what you mean to say, is that it doesn't make sense to YOU...there is plenty of real world evidence for the virtual particles appearing from a pure vacuum....
@@psycronizer Most scientists believe our present universe in flat and goes on forever. It's infinitely huge with no boundary. So reversing an infinite universe would just get denser, not go to a point. Why not communicate civilly instead of throwing juvenile insults?
In addition to Vincent Van Gogh, we have the ancient Norse who believed this: "Ginnungagap, the Yawning Void which faced toward the northern quarter, became filled with heaviness, and masses of ice and rime, and from within, drizzling rain and gusts; but the southern part of the Yawning Void was lighted by those sparks and glowing masses which flew out of Múspellheim. In the northern part of Ginnungagap lay the intense cold of Niflheim, and in the southern part lay the equally intense heat of Muspelheim. The cosmogonic process began when the effulgence of the two met in the middle of Ginnungagap."
Mind you, I do not accept any religion or religious beliefs as being real. There is no such thing as the supernatural. Infinity exists only as a potential. There is no such thing as an actual infinity. Everything that exists manifests its existence in a specific quantity whether or not we can measure it. There is also no such thing as "perfection," at least not in the sense that Plato intended it. There cannot be any such thing as a perfectly straight line or a perfectly smooth plane or a perfectly smooth surface of any kind. Most importantly of all, the only way you can have a paradox is by having accepted a false premise as being both real and accurate. Logical paradoxes are warning signals that tell you that you have made a mistake in your thinking.
@Dirk Knight Since when do scientists claim that there is no such thing as an actual infinity?
@Dirk Knight Not according to what I have read.
@Dirk Knight Here I am trying to have an adult correspondence and you start treating me as though I'm a green kid. Did I hit a never? Does an electron have mass? If so, how big is it? Oh, that's right, physicists think that an electron is a charged particle with no dimensions, right? What does that mean? It means that the electron has an INFINITE mass. What is a black hole? It is a ball of "ideal" gas that has imploded and become so dense that not even light can escape from it. How is that NOT another infinite quantity? It is at least another infinite density, is it not?
Manuel do you have a soul? Who created that? Unexplainable things are part of human nature because we don’t have all the answers. And that is the beautiful part of being a human being on this wondrous planet. We are not in control and that’s perfectly ok.
"What do we know about the Big Bang"?
I dunno mate, I had me head down at the time, the other half kept me up all night,lol.
cool i spent six or seven years living in russia
the name big bang is a translation of an ancient chinese concept and its lesser address as God a word that was always a cop out and almost shortsighted embarrassment historically. the shepard noteworthy as apprentice at best. the universe being so huge only the big bang was able to inspire the concept of the slightest sizzle, the ignition zero pop. it gets big but time looks faster from a great distance.
Quantum mechanical origin of the universe, indicates Makdacena's conjecture that the universe is a quantum computing function, that will explain the unitary evolution, from low entropy big bang to photon death and Penrose's eons (t=0. massless and low entropy), but alas we will never know the divine design (algorithm that eliminates randomness/chance to achieve determinism, guaranteeing evolution of life.
If the Big Bang didn’t happen, then what did?
Well the beauty of it is we have another question to ask and look into
The universe is infinite, has always been here. Which is a lot easier to believe than it suddenly appearing from nothing.
I have always thought it most interesting that they can have such faith in their theories and mathematical formulas but no faith in God. God is laughing at you, well at what you are trying to prove. Man is not mature enough to understand the universe. On a side topic, we need to worry about taking care of this planet before we go trashing other planets and I am so conservative I could barely stand going to class when I was at Stanford; for engineering, business or law. At least it was not Berkeley. 🤣.
Theoretical Physicists should get theoretical paychecks. PROVE SOMETHING.
GPS alone is enough to pay for all theoretical physicists, and if you just will use your 'God given' brain, you would virtually say the opposite; but will you? I dunno!
If there was proof of God it would be known to everyone and the basis of everything... there isn't and it's not. Science doesn't prove anything it gathers evidence and us grown folks think for ourselves what it could mean. Scientists are quick to change our minds in light of new data. Dogmatism: the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others. This is the realm of religion.
I find it strange that we are told so boldly by physicists "this is how the universe works" then moments later "here's a 95% chunk of universe we don't yet understand". ?? But believe us when we tell you 'All of it came from virtually nothing ' !?!? Getting 5 questions right out of 100 speaks for itself.
@Tim M This has to do with how we don't have a theory of gravity that works for everything at all scales. Defining the universe as a whole is pridefully ambitious but that is what cosmology attempts. Science does have amazing predictive power within the realms we actually have direct access to. Dark energy is most likely a figment of the calculations caused by assuming that gravitational redshifting is negligible and all redshifting is due to doppler shifting from translational acceleration away from us. Include the uncertainty about presence and location of significant masses billions of years ago and Dark Energy is just a passing fad that was more marketable than the technical relativistic calculations most people have no experience with. Dark Energy is a meme, a question mark, and a sound bite only. Science will always be quick to change in light of new data or more useful interpretations of that data. Learn chemistry and you will see that science is the rock of what certainty that does exists in this world, repeatably. Turning to the infant science of cosmology (a mostly theoretical field) for the overall grade for all of science is Russian troll bot levels of obtuse and asinine.
@@fukpoeslaw3613 All of them? No. Some yes but somewhere someone else built it and implemented it. Want to see something funny? Watch a physicist try to fix something.
“Cosmologists are often in error but never in doubt” Lev D. Landau
"it's not that they are moving further apart. it's just that space is expanding"... SO are the atoms growing bigger? Otherwise they ARE drifting further apart. You've just found a dumber and more confusing way of saying it.
"and we know" you postulate professor! Wow and stanford's physics department cost how much per year? It was the dark matter "explanation" that gave me a smile, great pictures that was helpful. How this "dark" matter interacts with a fundamental force that we have yet to discover the carrier boson for you skipped over but nice stick men and vacation photos!
cool stories
Repent!
We need to distinguish between matter/energy level (where humans live ) and subatomic level where everything happening .The clasic physics in matter/energy level can not be applied on subatomic level,our observation is a reflection to what is happenning on subatomic level incloding time ,for example,what we experience it as heat is actually atoms vibrating on subatomic level,and what we see it shinning is actually photones created and ejected from an object undergoing transformation on subatomic level.
The whole universe works on subatomic level,The universe don't see sun and earth and planets and trees and buildings..it sees concentration of particles that form these objects, and with particles it deals,any term in physics associated with matter/energy is meaningless or does not exist on quantum level including (mass,force,time,energy,...etc) so in this case any physical laws that include these terms does not apply on quantum level..we need to find the aspects that play role and the physical laws that governe them on inerta scale and they are thousands if not millions including time.We can understand quantum physic beter if we use the term (behavior of particals of the universe) , there are nothing such as particles,there are only particles of the universe and the universe forces particles to behave on a certain way in certain conditions and one of these behaviors is gravity,gravity is behaior of particles,dark matter is behavior of particles , Why Oxygen is a gas and iron is solid metal is behavior of particles , any chemical process or reaction is behaviour of particles.movement is space is behavior of particles,the electrical charge (- and +) are behaviour of particals (so they are not properties of particles),double slit experiment is behavior of particles,the Gyroscope is behaviour of particles,the speed of light is behavior of particles,and all fundamental forces humans know are actually behavior of particles ,particles change their behavior accordingly with the circumstances surrounding them
Tthe existence of black holes is still to be investigated ,but for the moment let's assume there is black hole in the center of each galaxy,the galactical behaviour is totally different than the behavior of mass on smaller scale like planets orbiting stars and solar systems which controlled by what we know as gravity ,on galactical scale it is totally different (no matter if they are close or far from the center of the galaxy) , where the stars far from the center of the galaxy orbit faster than the stars close to the center of the galaxy ,The only explination of this is that the behavior of particles is a function of distance (or space)
lets take 2 magnets north and south and put them close to each other ,their particles will change behavior and pull each other and if we move them away from each other their particles behavior start to change, and the attraction force starts to weaken so space in fact change the behaviours of particles,the same applies for matter that circle the galaxy ,the space is much greater of matter in galaxies than space between the mass on solar systems ,that is why particles on galactical level behave diferently.This was explained by scientists by the effect of dark matter
Anything beyond our universe is non existence ,The particles of the universe are the building blocks of the universe and the universe gives them their properties and their behaviour ,exactly like the cells of our bodies if any cell disattached from the body it dies
So according to all This the origin of the universe was not the big bang but when particles start to get their properties and behaviours and atoms start to bond together and take shape to form matter and its companion energy ,the universe was different to what we see now ,The properties and behaviours of particle are ever changing ,and continou to do so for ever. Entropy is a good example for this.
The issue with big bang theory is that it turned many aspects of the universe to constants,and we know very well that nothing in the universe is constant every thing is changing all the time (incloding properties and behaviours of particles ) and every thing is moving in space,and nothing is stand still. We have expansion of the universe and we have a big bang ,we just need to fill the gap between them and we have a theory of creation
The behaviours of particles in your body is reacting to ,the particles surrounding them ,the particles of the planet you are on,the particles of the solar system your planet in,the particles of galaxy your solar system part of,and particles of all galaxies in the universe,particles have multy behaviours at the same time. So if we remove all galaxies in the universe ,and only remain you and the most far away galaxy then the particles of your body will behave according with this galaxy.
The change in properties and behaviours over de course of time of particles was not equal or at the same rate everywhere in the universe,some regions didn't develop matter yet or developed to different properties
The Gravitational Instability Cosmological Theory on the Formation of the Universe
When the Universe started to fall . When did Motion Start ?
(1) The expansion of the universe is a result of the " heat ' contained therein;
(2) The source of the " heat " is the cosmic microwave radiation background at 3 kelvin,
wherein;
(3) The microwave electro magnetic-nuclear energy was formed as a result of the
interaction of two different static gravitational vacuum fields, causing gravitational
instability and the motion, void of matter, at this time,
wherein; static gravitational field (1) began to go into "motion".
Therefore; the interaction of (2) motionless / static gravity vacuum fields, could eventually create dust particles in the Universe that later form into stars, galaxies , planets, moons and other objects in or about their current locations.
When did motion first start ?
Science knows the formation of matter in our universe was caused by the forces of the
universe.
These forces are:
(1) The Force of Gravity
(2) The Force of Electro Magnetism
(3) The Strong Nuclear Force
(4) The Weak Nuclear Force
At some point in time, motion within the universe, had to begin.
The paradox would be, what force could cause motion to begin, without moving in its
present space-time ?
The Gravitational Cosmological Theory was
developed from an is rooted in the Einstein Steady State Theory and the Bondi-Gold-Hoyle Steady State Theory,
Wherein the Steady State Theory the universe,
contains more protons than electrons that
create dust particles and
galaxies formed in their current locations and the cosmic
matter is recycled therein at the center of the galaxy furnace.
------------
When the Universe started to fall:
The Gravitational Instability Cosmological Theory on the Formation of the Universe.
The Theory:
(1) The expansion of the universe is a result of the " heat ' contained therein;
(2) The source of the " heat " is the cosmic microwave radiation background at 3 kelvin,
wherein;
(3) The microwave electro magnetic-nuclear energy was formed as a result of the
interaction of two different static gravitational vacuum fields, causing gravitational
instability and the motion, void of matter, at this time, wherein; static gravitational
field (1) began to go into "motion".
Therefore; the interaction of (2) motionless / static gravity vacuum fields, could eventually create dust particles in the Universe that later form into stars, galaxies , planets, moons and other objects in or about their current locations.
Q: When did this motion start?
A: If a neutral particle is able to resist the universal motion, in theory, that particle
would go back in time. Going back in time the neutral particle would then enter into (1)
of the (2) motionless-static gravity vacuum fields void of motion, and cause an unbalance
and gravitational instability and this interaction would create motion and energy
particles.
Q: What causes a gravitational static vacuum field in the first place ?
A: Pressure force is used to create a vacuum on Earth, perhaps an exotic something
100,000 times weaker than the force of gravity decays, causing a static-motionless gravity vacuum field.
Q: What created the motionless gravity vacuum fields in the first place ?
A: Vacuums are created by pressure so the only answer I can think of is a created gravity vacuum pressure from the future goes back in time to start motion in the past.
( DRI 2002, the theory needs improvement - help yourself )
All I see are explanations, and no predictions. What hard predictions is this theory making, and are any of those predictions verified? I also see you are working to prove your theory, but more importantly, what are you doing to disprove your theory?
And the dark energy probably originated( and continue to do so) from existing atoms in the universe, in the form of beta radiation, thus completing a cosmic cycle of matter and energy. The S.S. describes the universe as constantly changing, but on the whole always looks the same, whatever the position of the observer is, and in whatever epoch he looks at it.
Beta radiation is electrons and part of normal matter.
I am not as happy as Andre' with his explanations.
Andre' -?-
Watch the video again - Andre' is not happy!
@@hosermandeusl2468 I didn't even watch the full video for a first time...
Well, this comment escalated quickly!
😜
shame einstein
The human brain is hardwired to believe everything must have a begininng our intuition common sense and every experience we have in life reinforces this belief so when we look for an explanation to the nature of the universe we are not doing so with a mind open to all possibilities we have already subconsciously predetermined that at some point the universe came into existence. And we call that point of origin the big bang. This might not be the true nature of the universe but it is the only way we can conceive it to be
al we need to do is send information up or down left a nd right on our own axis... fck microwaves. radio tv can do it too
*Using Einstein's own equation, Stephen Crothers proves that he was incorrect!*
Kind of, seems like, maybe etc.... Open the South Pole for exploration, verification...
It took an hour and a half to answer "What Do We Know About The Big Bang?"
The answer is so simple I laugh.
We know NOTHING about the big bang or if it happened. We only have theories.
Rip Toff Thank you for letting us all know how ignorant you are.
Rip Toff, you are correct. This Big Bang stuff is really getting silly at this point.
Jeff Sylvester Rip Toff made the assertion that “we know NOTHING”. That shows both ignorance and arrogance. He’s basically saying he knows more than the people that spend their lives studying cosmology.
The fact of the matter is we have incontrovertible evidence for the Big Bang. It’s easy to look up on the internet.
In science an established theory doesn’t have the same meaning that we use in everyday discussions. It isn’t a conjecture or hypothesis. It’s a well tested and established set of physical laws or processes. For example, we have the theory of gravity. Gravity is a fact. The theory is the physical laws that define how gravity operates and interacts between things.
Jeff Sylvester You’re not ignorant. Your’s was a question of someone that wants to learn. The poster made an assertive statement that they know better than the experts. That’s a textbook definition of being ignorant. It may be bad form in some circles to call these types out but I feel we’ve given too much deference to people who spew falsehoods without repercussions.
@@karagi101 where are all these "the big bang is a hoax" people in the comments section coming from? Are they intelligent design people, or these flat earth/moon landing was a hoax/all NASA's photos are CGI fakes kind of people, because I thought the big bang theory amongst astrophysicists, astronomers, and cosmologists has been universally accepted for decades.
It's wrong
CAN PEOPLE WITH PhD's REALLY BELIEVE SUCH RELIGIOUS GARBAGE ????
"Big Bang" & "Expanding Universe" THEORIES ! Both were published by a Belgian CATHOLIC PRIEST. Father George Lemaitre in 1927, with the blessing of the Pope. In an attempt to Hijack Science, and manufacture "Scientific proof" to prove the Biblical "Creation" Myth !
Edwin Hubble mental flaw.
Principle and practice : (true)
Higher the muzzle recede velocity (causes) the projectile to reach further out (effect)
Principle and practice : (false)
Farther reached projectile (causes) will recede at a higher velocity from a present location (effect)
Edwin Hubble published that
(1) Higher red shift, higher recession (causes) the galaxy to reach further out (effect).
While making a 2D chart Edwin, mistakenly placed the (cause) on y-axis while the (effect) on x-axis. How could a man like him made such a mistake, yes he is that kind of man. Such mistake soon be taken as a basis for his next theory months later.
Months later : after his paper published, Edwin review the same chart again, only this time he pick x-axis as the (cause) and y-axis as an (effect) for his new theory (2) below.
(2) further reached galaxies (causes) a higher receding velocity at current location (effect)
Edwin continues ... at a higher receding velocity, the galaxy will be relocated further, once there it gain a new higher recession velocity to a new further location continuously accumulating speed and distance ... until receding velocity exceed “c” therefore it suddenly the galaxy disappear from an earth base observer ......
If you can understand his thought process above you may agree that Edwin has a minor mental problem or willfully ignorance, fail to recognize that (cause) and (effect) is a one way process that can not go in reverse order. And yet 99.999% scholars today take it for granted - as if that is real.
If we can’t think correctly or given up thinking, all we can do is either, to keep learning or keep composing, junk science.
How to dislike twice?
The big bang theory appears to start with a miracle and finishes with fantasy dark energy and magical dark matter. The big bang theory looks like an exercise in group think.
And here I was thinking Jesus coming back was group think. How is that working out for you, anyway?
global warming as caused by human activity is also causing
space expansion acceleration …….
Extremely unlikely
nonsense
We depend too much on the concept. Multiple little big bangs over millennia are a more probable scenario. Space is the eternal.
Be honest with the people that fund you - you don't "KNOW"
Hello piggy! 🤗
Knowledge is falsehood. Science creates knowledge only to replace it with better data. Science isn't about knowing, it is about learning.
It didn’t happen
It's in NYT so it must be true! Lol 😆
You know better when you hear this.
The fact us inflation fits a huge problem easy to temporary use it but they've been
Arguing for years without a unanimous agreement. It's used to fill a blank.
Allan is a wacko everything he works on is unprovable and he is great with # but has more disagree with him on theory than the average.
Everywhere they measure isn't this uniform speed he is saying. It's messy .i that's why it shouldn't be smooth and also why this inflation can't be right. Something else lead to not only it's smothhness but also is driving different speed limits of space expansion. In fact it's many who don't think dark matter or energy exist. Again it's seeking excuse to fit a pre conceived narrative.
Like Allen most are trying to break the model big bang. They are marxist and as it does to ideology it drives them off the map at times. Thrive wondered into fantasy. One white lie but on another on a another lol
Don't mean its bad to keep trying but these things are guiding them from really solving the missing pieces.
My hypothesis that Dark Matter is not a WIMP, but maybe is a deformation of space-time by which the curvature of space-time ALONE is the cause of the gravitational effect. Gravity is the consequence of the curvature of space-time. It may be possible that the structure of space-time itself could be warped without the presence of mass. Space-time has been shown to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating independent of mass. These properties have been proven with observations of gravitational lensing, frame dragging, and now gravitational waves. Fabrics can be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of deformation. Such extreme conditions were all present during inflation, so it is plausible that space-time’s elastic nature could have hit its yield point and permanently deformed. Therefore, if gravity is the consequence of the warping of space-time, and fabrics can be permanently deformed, then a deformation could create a gravitational effect independent of mass. Thus, the unidentified dark "matter" that seems to be so elusive to modern science may not be matter at all but merely warped deformities causing gravitational effects. DM could be a microscopic black hole with no mass at the center...
Prediction: Spacetime's elastic property hits a yield point, so only that part of geodesic's "stretch marks" would remain after inflation stopped. These steep gravitational wells would not follow the inverse square law.
Not a bad idea...and it makes sense...
The title of the talk is what do we know about the Big Bang. The first question should be: do we know that the Big Bang actually happened as described. There is an alternative theory which puts a different interpretation on the cause of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). The proposal is that there is sufficient mass in the universe to create an event horizon within the universe which causes all radiation to be turned back within the universe. With this hypothesis the universe is much much older than the proposed 13.8 billion years with galaxy formation starting an estimated 115 billion years ago.
With an event horizon, radiation has time to reach an approximate thermal equilibrium so there is no need to assume an inflation model. The same model proposes that the universe is finite with a boundary and therefore there is a center to the universe and the Milky Way galaxy is located approximately 26 million light years from the center.
The nature of dark matter is also explained as neutron groups. For the complete theory see:
www.academia.edu/5009126/The_evolution_of_the_universe
Richard
the pdf doesn't indicate what journal published this?
There isn't, because no journal would ever publish that. There is no center of the universe. This guy is a complete crackpot
i thought you cannot create nor destroy energy, yet 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' came out of thin air !!! that's a contradiction
Nice religious Indoc.
Are you not paying attention to the crisis in cosmology. The big bang never happened. The electric universe and the Thunderbolts project has reproduced what we see in the space and on planets, in the lab with positive and negative electrodes and plasma Chambers. This includes the scar on Mars, the craters on the Moon, counter rotating currents on Jupiter and Saturn. If you're not aware of Emmanuel velikovsky, and Wallace Thornhill, then do not comment, because you haven't done your homework. 🌞🌞🌞
You don't know anything about it. Its Just a way to cover up your lack of understanding of the Electric Universe
"Oh, my God, first it was Trump and now this!". Pythagoras was wrong. All things are politics, not numbers. Institute for Theoretical Physics? C'mon... Institute for Practical Neomarxism and bad jokes, I'd say :D
Can't tell if you're serious or just...
Nope. Pythagoras (and Euclid) were right - but only for flat space.
LOL. Computer generated images that pretend to be space.