Ripples From The Big Bang: Listening to the Beginning of Time
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 чер 2014
- In March, a major breakthrough in understanding the origin of universe took the scientific community-and the general public-by storm. A team lead by astronomer John Kovac, using a powerful telescope at the South Pole, reported evidence of ripples in the fabric of space time produced by the big bang, a long-sought prediction of our most refined approach to cosmology, the inflationary theory. Amidst the worldwide celebration, though, some have been quietly suggesting that the champagne has been uncorked prematurely. Join a singular conversation, among the world’s most respected pioneers in cosmological theory and observation, that will explore the state of the art in the ongoing quest to understand the beginning of the universe.
This program is part of the Big Ideas Series, made possible with support from the John Templeton Foundation.
Subscribe to our UA-cam Channel for all the latest from WSF.
Visit our Website: www.worldsciencefestival.com/
Like us on Facebook: / worldsciencefestival
Follow us on twitter: / worldscifest
Original Program Date: May 30, 2014
Host: Brian Greene
Participants: Andrei Linde, Alan Guth, Amber Miller, John Kovac, Paul Steinhardt
Brian Greene's Introduction. 00:12
Participant Introductions. 20:34
Can we confirm that there are ripples in the fabric of space? 22:19
What did you find with BICEP2? 26:05
What is the inflationary theory? 31:46
What is making the universe accelerate? 37:33
What were the main issues with the inflationary theory? 44:42
What is chaotic inflation? 51:22
How do we calculate density motivations? 59:00
Looking for cosmic fluctuation. 1:03:40
How close were the predictions to the observations? 1:09:03
How confident are you that the swirls are coming from quantum fluctuations? 1:14:40
What are the concerns about the inflationary theory? 1:23:49
Final thoughts. 1:29:33 - Наука та технологія
Hello, UA-camrs. The World Science Festival is looking for enthusiastic translation ambassadors for its UA-cam translation project. To get started, all you need is a Google account.
Check out Ripples From The Big Bang: Listening to the Beginning of Time to see how the process works: ua-cam.com/users/timedtext_video?ref=share&v=70Y1Dri0umI
To create your translation, just type along with the video and save when done.
Check out the full list of programs that you can contribute to here: ua-cam.com/users/timedtext_cs_panel?c=UCShHFwKyhcDo3g7hr4f1R8A&tab=2
The World Science Festival strives to cultivate a general public that's informed and awed by science. Thanks to your contributions, we can continue to share the wonder of scientific discoveries with the world.
Hello Manuel, To get started, all you need is a Google account.
Check out Ripples From The Big Bang: Listening to the Beginning of Time to see how the process works: ua-cam.com/users/timedtext_video?ref=share&v=70Y1Dri0umI
@@WorldScienceFestival is their any evidence that points to our universe being inside of a black hole??? Or maybe a theory that has some scientific facts that could theoretically prove our universe may just be inside a black hole???
@NATURAL SPIRIT even if that is true, and it might be, the moment the two membranes came into contact is the same event science has been calling the Big Bang, and the effects are exactly the same. The only real change is that we'd have a guess at the mechanics that caused it, other than "Let there be light"..
@@tyrasmith6477 More like that the Big Bang might have come out of it's theoretical opposite.. and possibly from a different place/dimension..
That would make the Big Bang more a contact point than anything.. Anywho.. theories.. we don't know, but they're intriguing, aren't they?
Lolll oh my ... all those self-proclaimed genius that understand the universe on UA-cam.
I have been hooked on these lectures/videos, all I do is pop it on while I am on my way to sleep and BAM! I get to dream about the cosmos and the like. Lately I've been on a Quantum Mechanics binge though. =-)
Chris Z. I have been on similar trip, my starting point was double slit experiment then quantum physics and finally cosmology,, Chris keep at it, it's magical
I thought I was nuts. So glad to hear there's others like me...I do the exact same thing. I've been lately hooked on this subject too.
Same here. I listen to them in the background and usually fall asleep at some point.
I easily fall into the same category, can't stop, will never stop listening and learning....
I love this stuff. Brian Greene is excellent. So thankful for UA-cam for all these great videos about various subjects. I've been listening to this particular video a few times in past weeks and go to sleep listening. I have a lot of stress from bad circumstances and enjoy these immensely as I need stuff that makes me think so I can try to take my mind away from the bad stuff for a little.
its amazing when you watch scientists think loudly
i love these science shows...its a nice change from my normal life where i spend most of my time wallowing in my own ignorance
apnaem Yeah, I like getting to know what scientists are like.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! It is always very nice learning new things.. And Proffesor Green makes things that are difficult easy to learn.
Keep watching these!! I would love to make these live. I live in NYC
sounds a lot like allowance to me
Lmao
Spoiled much 🤔
the writing for the intro is incredible. well done Brian!
I just want to say Thank You Brian Greene!
Brian Greene is irreplaceable when moderating these extremely complex science presentations. I for one am so glad that WSF did not resort to the standard suit journalist when producing these videos. For Mr. Greene's work on many of these shows bringing these sciences to a wider audience, he should be acknowledged with a Nobel under a new category, which I'll leave up to the committee to decide.
Fascinating to hear these heroes of mine talk about their work.
Much more interesting than hearing me talk about driving a truck.
Such poetic choreographic presentation of Einshtain's first ideas. Lovely.
The talk/debate is a superbly interesting and honest science education event. Kudos to the organizers.
12:17 The Big Bang was so big that there was sound in space!
:P
There was no empty space then.
Or at least a wave that relates to sound.
Thank you for Sharing. It's so important for all stundents.
I like how Andrei Linde always and inevitably comes up with the perfect outro 👏
I absolutely love these lectures! Thanks to these I’ve checked out a couple of Greene’s books (The Hidden Reality now Until The End of Time) from my library for more (:
Astounding, simply astounding!
I very much enjoyed the discussion, Thanks for taking the trouble to post it. Wish I was 45 years younger and could go back into physics. An exciting time indeed.
I never thought I'd want to be something called an astrobiologist.
I love the expository teachings of Dr. Greene... my favorite science teacher by far. He helps me understand deep, esoteric topics. And wow, what a distinguished pannel! I'd give anything to be in that audience at the feet of the masters.
Eric Johnsa Supernova inflational motif
The "supernova inflational motif" is a Big-Bang inflational pattern of explosion-implosion-explosion. The Big-Bang occured according to the supernova inflatinal motif inside an ultra old and dilated maternal universe as Alan Guth suggested. The intermediate implosion occured due to recoil of the first explosion on the previous universe's brickall field, and provides solution to the Andrei Linde's initial conditioning problem also to the cosmic microwave background homogeneity(CMB homogeneity).
Thank you Robert Wilson!!!!...
The science programs shown are outstanding
Andrei Linde you are a true star.
Not true ..he is a drama artist.
Just glad the Ligos project eventually payed off. Since, I had being intrigued & kept tabs on it, for many years.
Just a heads up that the LIGO experiment detects gravitational waves of a different nature than this; LIGO studies the gravitational waves created when massive gravitational events happen, like stellar mass black holes colliding.
The gravitational waves created by the Big Bang are a very different beast, and we can't detect them. Part of this talk is about the BICEP2 project on the South Pole that was looking for a signature of those gravitational waves by looking at the polarization of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, an extremely difficult task. The BICEP2 discovery they're talking about in this video was announced in March 2014, and by June 2014 when this was filmed, I guess the team was still pretty excited. Unfortunately, since this video aired, further analysis of this discovery revealed that this BICEP2 announcement was not the smoking gun that they were hoping for. :/
These lecture videos is what I listen to while driving to classes, funny because I’m going to school for aviation maintenance!
I love listening to these scientists discuss their ideas. So exciting.
I’d like to see the 3-D animation, anyone have a ez link, pls?
This was a real treat. Thank you for sharing this important discussion.
I understand so much better now, and it has been a bit of a struggle.
do scalar waves vibrate atoms? Thanks for any answers. cheers Kev
Brian, Where do the fundamental particles get their charge from?
Excellent Paul !!!
Alan's Jacket is from Macy's :-)
this is a great conference. Now I understand a little more about the dark science of astronomy.
dark penises he means
The dark science of astronomy ....you're right!
Brian Greene and all of physicists must be upgrade in astronomy in order to know that Albert Einstein was very poor in astronomy, that's why in special and general relativity Einstein had ignored refraction of light: ie.astronomical refraction and terrestrial refraction.
Einstein's curved geometry of spacetime is false. The fabric of spacetime which curves around the mass is not the empty vacuum but the asmospheric medium,
@@gsanewphysics8902 You think after all these years astronomers haven't already thought of that? Especially terrestrial refraction, which is a well known phenomenon. Astronomical refraction is also known. It slightly shifts the position of astronomical objects in the sky. Of course, this is not a problem for space telescopes.
Thanks for the upload this was a great conference as usual from World Science Festival, you gotta hand it to Greene for being an excellent host - on top of a genius scientist, in breaking the ice and gradually providing the questions for the conference to unfold upon. Good stuff!
I believe the gravitational waves is what helped String string theory. I couldn’t tell you what day it was but a lot of airplanes were in the sky it was absolutely beautiful.❤️
"All of the energy and matter that existed still exists. Matter does not create energy of itself. The actions of matter enable energy to become manifest".
Energy yes, matter comes into existence and cancels itself back out all the time. It's a levelling out more than a creation or destruction.. technically with advanced enough science, we could re-seperate that particle and anti-particle into existence..
Most of the time matter and anti-matter cancel each other out almost immediately though. Within planck-time, which is parts of seconds.
We and everything we know and everything we don't but that does exist in the physical reality, are what was left over because for some reason the matter and anti-matter didn't cancel out.
Maybe gravity tugged on on particle but not as much on the other it whatever but matter is actually relatively rare..a fraction of what might come into being just long enough to disappear again... but here we all are, every atom of us made in the universe surrounding us.. and a lot of that in stars in the last moments of it's lifecycle..
Energy and matter can be converted into one another, much like water can be changed from a solid, into a liquid, into a gas.. it can't be created or truly destroyed, only separated from it's counterpart, but it can be cancelled out by it's equal and opposite.. What is amazing is that not all of it already has..
@@a_diamond *Believe whatever it pleases you to believe*
*I offer a different interpretational -model, and if it is wrong, then it is wrong, and many years of thinking came
to nothing...yet your rebuttal offers nothing more than 'suppositional magic as truth'*
@@gerrynightingale9045 None of this was superstition or magic. It's science. Read a book once in a while.
@@a_diamond *I should expected this, and am not impressed how much you can 'Quote' from dogma*
*I present an alternative that neither you nor anyone else can counter effectively because you have no comprehension of what I wrote, which is that 'Energy' exists of itself and that the actions of matter enable the
energy to become manifest*
@@gerrynightingale9045 Okay, I apologise for getting snappy. Yesterday was a bad day on my end.
Let's go back to the water example. Imagine you have a glass of water in an enclosed system. You can heat it, cool it, freeze it... So your glass of water can be a gas (water vapor), and if you make it colder it will form liquid (water), and then a solid (ice) if you freeze it.
Would you consider that solid block of ice a "gas becoming manifest"?
Because E=MC^2 means that matter and energy at the speed of light are the same exact thing. It means that while we may know one to be solid and the other not, that under the same conditions they will be identical. (Take that block of ice and the water vapor, bring them both to 70 degrees Fahrenheit, and both will be a puddle of water. In our closed system, the same glass full we started with. One doesn't "enable" or "disable" the other. It does not "work with" or "against" the other..
*there is no "other".* That's the point of E=MC^2. It's the same thing. Nothing is "becoming manifest". It's the same thing.. in a different phase.
As such, your idea isn't "alternative" at all. You only are seeing the water vapor and the block of ice as two different things when they are in fact the same.
On the upside: if we didn't already have E=MC^2, you might have discovered it. You're pretty close to it. So keep going..
That said, there is value in coming to things already known in your own way. I've certainly been there, but that does mean that sometimes when you ignore the road markers of others who have already been where you are, that you may find out they were there for reasons *other* than "misleading you" or "lying to you"..
Sometimes it isn't a bad thing to read the literature available of other people who struggled with understanding what you are trying to get as well. It means you don't always have to reinvent the wheel..
That said, you'll probably end up with a wheel of your own all the same, and gain a deeper appreciation for them while you're at it, so go for it.
Keep going, and maybe take it a step further. Try plugging in data into your ideas. Make your own measurements and experiment. Does what you think work? Can you take your ideas out of the abstract and verbal, and apply them?
Because until that moment all you are coming up with is "doctrine" of your own, based solely on your own abstract thought, without any testing of it's validity. Right or wrong, you'll end up with new answers and new questions. There is no such thing as a "failed" science experiment (even if there are some we shouldn't do for various reasons..)
Consider looking up Walter Lewin's physics lectures on MITx.. they might move you forward..
Even though this Video is 8 years old..fantastic...Coolest thing is not only are the Guests smart enough to come up with the theories...They are Smart enough to explain it
I am having great trouble accepting the Multiverse hypothesis basically because the energy deficit of all of these universes would be so huge the multiverse of multiverses itself would have to implode....I can’t square this circle. Unless Energy itself is infinite, which would suggest then that a big bang would potentially be infinite, and if that was true then it would still be going on today at an infinite level, which it isn’t or we’d all fry!.
so before yhe beginning we had a set of coordinates. XYZ in where the big bang happened. In the beginning, please explain to me wfere it all happened.there were no coordinates, so the so cakked big bang was neither nowhere or everywhere. please explain. how can we detect the background radiation to me whilst everything moves away from us/
btw these are some of the world's brightest people
imo tbh idk lol
Why on some presentations do I hear a subtle small popping in my left ear only?
This is the best UA-cam video I have ever seen. Not only was it packed with new information, the people were so pleasant, it would be so fun to hang out with them.
I wish I could have been there to ask some questions.
1. the statistical graph looked like a roller coaster. I would have expected it to be smooth and monotonic. What gives? Why all those humps? It is saying that different scales of space have peculiar properties.
2. It seemed that polarisation came only in two flavours. Surely it comes in every possible angle? Is every photon polarised SOME way?
In mathematics, the common logarithm is the logarithm with base 10. It is also known as the decadic logarithm and also as the decimal logarithm, named after its base, or Briggsian logarithm, after Henry Briggs, an English mathematician who pioneered its use. It is indicated by log10(x), or sometimes Log(x) with a capital L (however, this notation is ambiguous since it can also mean the complex natural logarithmic multi-valued function). On calculators it is usually "log", but mathematicians usually mean natural logarithm rather than common logarithm when they write "log". To mitigate this ambiguity the ISO specification is that log10(x) should be lg (x) and loge(x) should be ln (x).
Haven Tierra What an Atheist. You have posted your copy/paste job in other threads without given credit to the source or even identifying it as a copy/paste job.
What's amusing is your ignorance to its irrelevancy, while you imagine you're tricking people into thinking you're an intellectual.
So far I accepted the theory of the expanding universe, but since tody (after watching another video with Brian Greene) a question occured: why he always says that space is expanding? Why can it not be just the „stuff“ (galaxies etc.), that is drifting appart? Or is both possible?
@TheRaybo66 - My humble understanding of that theory of the universe expanssion is that rather than the "stuff " Galaxies moving apart it is actually the opposite that is happening ie, the Galaxies are in a way static but the universe - space and time that is expanding hence the "stuff" Galaxies are pull and push apart. Take the balloon 🎈 as an example- if you mark two points or draw 2 cats on a balloon just one centimeter from each other and begun to blow air into that balloon and as you pump more air into that balloon it becomes larger and as the size increases the 2 cats will separate from each other and more air larger balloon resulting more space between Cat 1 and Cat 2 so in this case it is the space , the Universe that is expanding.
I am from the future here to tell you that yes we have discovered gravitational waves.
What you saw are not primordial gravitational waves..Future man..they are merely from two colliding black holes...what these guys claim are waves from the bang..which wa proven wrong in subsequent experiments...
@@santanchalla4652 yeah, but they are proven to exist all the same. They are no longer just theoretical.
@@a_diamond nope...not true. Slmeone would have received a Nobel prize by now if that were true.
Could quantum mechanics represent the physics of ‘time’ itself as a physical process with classical physics representing processes over a period of time as in Newton’s differential equations.
I know the answer: ap9fj q-8gh35gh99uj fq3-gth
Actually there’s no concept or evidence for time at the scale of quantum physics (eg the Planck scale)
Very inspiring lectures...
i'm not at all a scientific person, but i do listen and study. could these ripples have been from a "bump" from another universe as was discussed back in 2009?
You Tube needs to ad a ( Super Like Button) for these special moments...
Having made these discoveries about gravitational waves etc. and that they exist is wonderful ....but one must understand at the same time that the mind exist in a particular frame of reality and it apprehends a phenomena from it's own reality which it carves into a meaning....the mind knows such things as Mass, distance , weight , gravity etc.and all meanings are hinged unto such a frame ....in other words our perception and apprehension of any given physical phenomena is a relation to the mind functioning in a definite frame of reality......from the perspective of another frame of reality where say," consciousness as mind" exist in a different environment, the way it perceives and apprehends the physical observations will be totally different as the one created by the mind functioning from this vantage point in the universe.....we are amazed at such discoveries because our environmental frame creates in our minds astonishment in such things from this vantage point.......the truth is that the apprehension of time , distance , weight etc . is all due to our existence in this environmental frame......the mind attaches values and measurements to physical reality and at the same time creates the attached meaning to the phenomena by conceptualizing reality in a frame......
12:15 Blows you away
What an amazing panel! A great discussion.
this one is amazing
Gauss wrote his PHD thesis : four different mathematical methods all proving individually the Fundamental Theorem of algebra in 1799. So, to prove a physical law arising from a phenomenon , there is often not one, but several ways or methods. Newton's Law of universal gravitation is one, Einstein's field equation is another, the Coulomb's Law of electromagnetism is yet another. As Newton came up with his law in the 17th century, Coulomb's in the 18th century, and Einstein's in the 20th century, each of them did not know what the others did. Yet their respective different methods all describe the observed phenomenon of "gravity".
I'm I mistaken or did the evidence for gravitational waves discussed here eventually prove to be erroneous?
+Arne Hanna - Yes, the BICEP2 data was bad because it understated the effect of galactic dust. BICEP3 is much more sensitive and is taking data now.
Very BIG Thumbs up! That was fantastic...so proud to watch how science works. Explanations were great; personalities authentic and mostly charming; congratulations and continued excitement. :) #CharmingScientists #Science #BrianGreene #learning
1:26:17 And that's a very important point about Scientific Positivism and C. Popper's notion of Falsifiability in Principle. This is where science and metaphysics go their own separate ways. There are many things which are not testable in principle like God, Fairies, Giant Space Dragons, etc. and so don't belong in science. Cosmology is sometimes perched right on the very edge of that boundary.
It is perhaps no surprise why some of the theories in this field attract so many pseudo-scientific conjectures, some sites even went as far as to suggest that in the Holographic Principle Theory, the holographic "plate" was God and projection is "an act of creation". The closer a theory is to this boundary, the more "fluff" grows around it and the more it is treated by the lay public as some kind of justification of the centuries-old superstitions or evidence of the "merging of religion and science". This is why I personally choose to remain on the cautious, "conservative" side, even though I am anything but conservative in my views.
Added to my Science and Education (What Everyone Ought to Know) playlist
Regardless of "fluff", boundaries prevent inflation. A theory by any other name...
I think what Andre discusses as early fluctuating parameters producing multiple universes (realities) is extremely interesting. It makes the fine tuning thing seem less far fetched. He talks about a "fractal" condition. That is really compelling. What if dark energy and matter is the stuff of one or more of the alternate universes created with perimeters so close to ours that it actually interacts?
Agreed. Like in electrochemistry's mathematics, the common logarithm is the logarithm with base 10. It is also known as the decadic logarithm and also as the decimal logarithm, named after its base, or Briggsian logarithm, after Henry Briggs, an English mathematician who pioneered its use. It is indicated by log10(x), or sometimes Log(x) with a capital L (however, this notation is ambiguous since it can also mean the complex natural logarithmic multi-valued function). On calculators it is usually "log", but mathematicians usually mean natural logarithm rather than common logarithm when they write "log". To mitigate this ambiguity the ISO specification is that log10(x) should be lg (x) and loge(x) should be ln (x).
Haven Tierra
I have to admit that what you are talking about is over my head. Are you saying that the number 10 is profound in some way other than the fact that mammals have 10 digits?
***** Brian Greene is an Atheist hack who believes in the Catholic Big Bang.
The Big Bang makes sense. Who cares if Greene believes in it? It's not like he's claiming it's a fact, just his belief. As for being Catholic, are you sure? I'm a scientist. Well, junior scientist (only have an Associates Degree) but every other scientist I know of doesn't believe in any religion, other than Intelligent Design.
Haven Tierra The Catholic Big Bang was conjured up by a priest in 1927 to explain Biblical Creation and is endorsed by The Vatican. It supposes that the universe (space) is finite, and was brought into being within 'no-space' by a creative explosion of . . .
1. What's your definition of 'no-space'?
2. What exploded?
I often wonder if things will get better in the world because times are tough for so many right now and there has been too much loss of life.
What a great moderator! Liked how he handled everything :)
Supernova inflational motif
The "supernova inflational motif" is a Big-Bang inflational pattern of explosion-implosion-explosion. The Big-Bang occured according to the supernova inflatinal motif inside an ultra old and dilated maternal universe as Alan Guth suggested. The intermediate implosion occured due to recoil of the first explosion on the previous universe's brickall field, and provides solution to the Andrei Linde's initial conditioning problem also to the cosmic microwave background homogeneity(CMB homogeneity).
Fantastic
So quick question: is a black hole considered “black” because the amount of gravitational pull it has bends light so well that all light behind it is viewable on the other side? So it’s more of a stealthing effect than the lack of light reflection?
I'm not a physicist, so I can only give an answer as a layman on the subject. The answer is no, that is not why they are called black holes. There are other objects that significantly bend spacetime (spacetime is the medium through which light travels -- gravity is not actually bending the light, itself, but rather the path that the light takes). Look up "gravitational lensing" and you'll find some cool Hubble pictures out there, if you're interested. The lensing effects in the pictures were not created by black holes.
Black holes have such a strong gravitational pull for their size that when light crosses a certain radius called an "event horizon," it will never again escape beyond that event horizon. There's a much more detailed explanation for this phenomenon, if you're interested. You can find it by looking up "light cones", and you'll see diagrams where basically, all paths forward all bend toward the singularity in the black hole.
This World Science Festival video is not about black holes at all, but there are some black hole videos out there, too, if you're curious.
thàñk you, awesome chànnel. i àppreciate
Good stuff!
My only issue with this is that nobody actually knows the age of any of the particles that are being observed.... including the background radiation. The origin is 100% being assumed... mainly because nobody has any other explanation for the background radiation that appears to be everywhere in the universe. What if the background radiation is actually being produced by the dark matter? That would instantly disprove the big bang theory right?
What if there was just a mirror image of our Universe that caused these skews (i mean if we have another Universe or maybe even several of them that flung out at the same time from somewhere) any ideas anyone
Listening to the team member from bicep2 speak towards the end of the video it's clear they lost their objectivity in their desire to be the 1st to prove inflation, which is very human. As a society we need to promote more skepticism so we can weed out our own inevitable human biases.
I'm a historian, fascinated by the physics behind the universe, precisely because I do not understand it. Today some things really clicked.
How can you tell how much does the sun curve space.
By using non Euclidean geometry - in Minkowski space, solving general relativity equations using the mass-energy density of the sun, gives you the answer
i love this guy so genius in presenting the 'dark' into light thought it hangs us to study, gives us space for us to see.
It blows my mind how this only has 900k subscriptions. To put it in perspective, TMZ has 5 times as many.
There is one question to ask:
Does light expand with Universe or within the Universe?
What about everything else?
I'm not exactly sure exactly what you're asking, but I will say that as the universe expands, it's taking the waves of light passing through the universe with it. Wavelengths of light get stretched and longer the farther they travel through the universe. It's a phenomenon called "redshifting" because existing light wavelengths are moving toward the red end of the spectrum.
That's why the James Webb Space Telescope, which just launched last month, is so finely tuned toward infrared -- It wants to look at some of that early light from the universe that was redshifted by the expansion of the universe.
@@tedsword If the whole Universe expands, then fields, waves and particles (as its integral parts) expand too?
Or just the "edges" of the Universe expand making more room for the matter in it?
Looks like the Big Bang was not "the only, one time source of matter" (Genesis from the Bible).
The matter most likely has lot of (permanent?, occasional?) sources across the space-time.
How can we say there is only universe?? Why the universe is in the shape of funnel instead of sphere or cylinder??
The panel had one female member, who was almost totally ignored for more than the first half of the program. Why was she there at all ?
For the second half....
But to be serious, why are you focusing on the female? Everybody was ignored in the first half apart from Guth while he was explaining the basics of inflation.
Brian gave her the first question because he knew there was a large segment where he'd be talking to the people who worked on inflation. She answered it with one word :/
Because she has a vagina. Probably.
Now i want to hear about more waves, not the wave that are in ur mechanical dataset. why have you only seen one wave or are reluctant to tell you have seen any more ?.
i love this ..............
Шикарное видео у вас получилось! А я хочу на море!!!!! А вы?
I've recently started watching this video and so far it is quite AWESOME as I know what they are speaking of. And when proposes what led to the inflationary theory and what has caused for the universe to expand so rapidl is because of dark energy: an extremely repulsive force that axiomly outweighted gravity's contracting force. Now there are a bit of singularity's in which gravity wins and that is called the Big Crunch singularity but as apparent that is not true
And to prove that Dark energy is indeed real is by the use of gravitational lenses
How can the earth arrive at its place from its origins in the Big Bang see an event that happens at its origin through signals that travel at the fastest speed possible- the speed of light?
Isn’t it like telling your friend who drives at 140 kms per hour “ I’ll wait for your coming in our destination”, even if you can’t drive any faster than him and you left the origin at the same time?
If this was a smoking gun, didn’t the smoke tarry too long for a multibillion old earth?
Mind you this is not about hating works like this. They’re fabulous. There’s just so many holes that need to be explained or filled.
Like the theory gravity is not a force. No one has explained why two masses attract, it’s just there, Newton said. Subsequent theories to explain the phenomena are still full of holes swept under the rug.
WOW! What a cool story!
Zurround100 you are right in a way. They don't say that the universe began. You need to study quantum physics. They are saying that our region of space that contains the laws of physics and contains matter, began. But space has always been there. Brian is talking about our region of space. Not the universe itself. Look up quality tum physics or even string theory to understand what you yourself are saying what brain is saying and how they are related.
Wouldn't the center of the universe be calculable if the edge of the universe could be determined and hasn't it with the determination of the age of the universe being 13-14 billion years. Can not the center of a sphere be determined so why can't the center of the universe be calculable unless each and every celestial body is not traveling at a uniform rate of speed or acceleration or in a straight line or vector.
Umm, nobody knows the topographical shape of the universe, or whether it’s finite or infinite, so the question of calculating the center of the universe doesn’t come into place.
The cosmological equivalence principle basically states that no particular region of space is special and can be treated as the “center” of its observable universe (which for us is around 49 billion light years in radius), since the energy density of the universe is almost completely uniform
I always respect scientist and how candidly they can say " well this is the problem with the Big Bang "Imagine believers being so honest and saying well this is the problem with God, No they cant say that instead they use that "run in" (whatever ot may be) with God works in mysterious ways. There just lazy in seeking the truth, Let them have the easy way out. I want to be amongst people with the mindset to conquer and never quit till finding the correct answer. Even if that answer isnt comforting I wil find the comfort in knowing its correct.
Cool Stuff
I downloaded this.....again ......
Flawed experiments and flawed results..you had to download this crap twice...but unfortunately the experiment was proven wrong within the next few months..all this was a sham
even my tears get bored with linde
Wherever there is interest there is money. When the money directs the interest there is trouble
Brain Greene is the stand-up comedian of physicist community 😄😄😄
LIGO FOR SPACE 2021!
Just because we hear the start of time doesnt bring us to existence. Time can only start because it has time to measure itself.
At the 18:21 mark, I hope I did not violate any copyright laws, but I HAD to take a picture of the Universe as it was 13.8 billion years ago, showing the COsmic microwave Background Radiation.
THE PICTURE IS AWESOME!
"Time is the only true unit of measure. It gives proof to the existence of matter. Without time, we don't exist. Humans consider themselves unique so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness. One is their unit of measure, but it's not. All social systems we've put into place are a mere sketch."
- Scarlet Johannssen, 'Lucy'
Brian Greene is the number One on Quantum Physics
One day he will come up with something very Big.We wish you Good luck
Mr Brian.(no one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.Charles Dicksen) Thank you Again for everything
I cannot help note that every photon of the CMB has been travelling through expanding space for almost 13.7 billion years -- so everyone of them must have interacted with something , somewhere , sometime, before they reached the detector .
So concluding anything about the information they may carry about the beginning of the universe looks more than daunting.
Actually most photons never really “collide” with baryonic particles (what is traditionally called matter), since most space is empty.
Also the whole discussion towards the end was of how the experimental physicists rule out interference from things like galactic dust that might distort the CMB
Brian is awesome, I just wish he wouldn't always pause between words so much.
Leave him alone bro. That is his style.
I am on the side of Guth and Linde. The others develop contrarian theories for effect and sensation.
BAM!!!
The first RECORDING, EVER
Bot sure if ripple in spacetime or just mosquito coil ?
Watched all of it 1:32:40
How can they talk about an event that is seen only now as the light reaches earth but happened millions of years back, in the present tense?
Listening to the beginning of time...how naive galaxies collide all the time doesn't mean that they've heard the "big bang" whats been heard is one of many big bangs in a multi universe
We now have ligo. I’m from the future btw