Cosmology - Boundaries of the Knowable (3/10)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- Professor Russell Stannard explores what kind of universe we live in and what caused the Big Bang.
(Part 3 of 10)
Playlist link - • Boundaries of the Know...
Transcript link - podcast.open.ac...
Related content in:
Space, Time and Consciousness: Track 1 www.open.edu/o...
Boundaries of the knowable www.open.edu/o...
Study a free course on the arts and humanities at the Open University www.open.edu/o...
Study module S282 Astronomy with the OU
www.open.ac.uk/...
Study Q64 BSc (Hons) Natural Sciences (Astronomy and Planetary Science)
www.open.ac.uk/...
The Open University is the world’s leading provider of flexible, high-quality online degrees and distance learning, serving students across the globe with highly respected degree qualifications, and the triple-accredited MBA. The OU teaches through its own unique method of distance learning, called ‘supported open learning’ and you do not need any formal qualifications to study with us, just commitment and a desire to find out what you are capable of.
Free learning from The Open University
www.open.edu/op...
For more like this subscribe to the Open University channel
/ @openlearn_ou
Like us on Facebook: / ouopenlearn
Follow us on Twitter: / oufreelearning
#OpenUniversity #thought
Stannard reminds me of Carl Sagan: he's humble, likeable and leaves his questions open-ended, unlike most other scientists.
I'm glad I've found these videos, they're enjoyable to watch. :D
These are beautifully profound contemplations
I can’t stop watching this profoundly wonderful series.
What a humble and down to earth man.
Very wise indeed.
This video was great, because it made me came up with the question "why is there anything rather than nothing?" shortly before it was actually asked.
But on another note, in the vacuum particle pairs come into existence without cause (if I understood this correctly, which is very much doubtable). This is a thing that only happens at really tiny scales. At the big bang the universe was really tiny, so the question is, does the big bang need a cause?
Stars and even galaxies are forming all the time, even today. Therefore,M51 and NGC5195 need not have formed at the same time and there's no reason to expect the stars in any galaxies at the same redshift to have the same ages.
I could listen to Russell for hours.
great presentation at the old style... thanks so much for posting
This is awesome.
this is some deep stuff... very deep!
Another way to put it which I've head Brian Greene say is, it isn't an explosion IN space, but an explosion OF space. Quite a nice simple way of saying which helped me understand it a little better.
M51 and its companion galaxy (known as NGC5195) are relatively nearby galaxies to our own, being only 23 million light years away. The redshifts of each are the same (and both very tiny, because of their nearness to us, around 0.0015). The interaction between these two galaxies may have given rise to the spiral arm structure seen in M51.
My mind is blown...comprehensively.
@signalchef The Big Bang is a fact; just as gravity is. Look up cosmological red-shift, the Doppler Effect, and the speed of galaxies. The general fact that the universe is expanded is pretty well understood and undisputed in the astronomical community.
The more we discover the more questions we create
@EruIluvatar That question is pretty interesting, but my answer is bit different than the one below.
When Christians talk about Atheists, some of them say things like 'If you don't believe in God, why bother living? What is the point?'. For me, as an atheist, your question makes me react in a similar way. The study of cosmology is very much the study of the meaning of life for people who aren't satisfied with 'God did it' as an answer.
Stannard is a christian ;)
Galaxies are not moving apart from each other, but rather the space between them are stretching and expanding. So there was no central point in the sense that everything rushes away from that point, but you can think of it as every galaxy staying in their place, in the centre, at the big bang, but are getting further away from each other because of the expanding space between them. Hope that makes sense lol, tricky subject
Everything is expanding away from everything else. All points in the universe are expanding equidistantly. There is really no 'center location' in that all points are a center location of the instant of the big bang.
hi. is there such a field of physics studying the macroquantic laws? as in, i know at quantic level our laws dont apply, but do they apply at the macrocosmic level? shouldnt it be the same, like a macro quantic stuff...?
"We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance."
- John Archibald Wheeler
the best question you asked is why does anything exist?
Science - "it takes the world as a given." Exactly. Why are we here? Probably a question with no answer. Nor for our purposes, does there need to be one.
@OldManHunger And just what is this point I missed,,you do not say !
@Films4You
If life never came about, there would be no universe because this universe gaurentees life, thats why we have it.
I tend to wonder if the universe is actually infinite without the big bang and what we are calling the singularity is simply a limitation in our method and devices. We already know that the clusters are moving away from us, but we are also moving with and away from them, this means that the singularity could be likened to how we saw the earth when we thought it was flat, maybe we are saying this about the universe because with think that it is "flat"?
What if the question gains scientific meaning, while we learning more and more about the universe we live in? Who knows, there might be still an answer.
Has anyone backtracked tge motion/expansion and worked out the location of the big bang (or at least, the central point from which the movement is away from) ?
What if the universe started out as a fully packed event horizon, one bit of info per planck area, and expanded. Maybe a previous universe's Big Rip caused its cosmological EH to appear to collapse because space was moving faster than light, faster than the event horizon was allowed to move. Once the event horizon was fully packed, could not shrink anymore, the larger expansion force outside the horizon would pull the universe out in a new Big Bang. No inflation, or singularity needed.
Is it a reasonable hypothesis to suppose space and time as well as everything else began with the big bang? Perhaps, but it is only that. We think we know enough about how gravity and light and space and time interact to pose that hypothesis but how can we test it?
So, the vectors of the stellar motion are not related in any way? Mind officially boggled.
@Films4You if a tree falls down and noone is there to notice it, did it still fall down?
the answer is maybe, and irrelevant.
if none ever notices the tree, it doesnt even matter that its there (fallen or not). if someone notices the fallen down tree he will deduce that it has fallen down, but the act of the tree actually falling down is irrelevant.
-bohr
Well, I suppose as a scientist he would say its meaningless to ask what preceded the big bang. He is saying that because he and no one else either knows how to answer this question. The question is still there and maybe one day science will be better equiped to answer it. Anyway, I thought all scientists held the view there is a scientific answer to everything, given time !
@buitrami And what caused god to exist? How did his or her intelligence come to be? If you answer "god just was there", why does this not apply to a mother universe to ours in which ours came into existence just through uncertainty?
@EruIluvatar, actually it does. You owe your very life to the universe itself. For example, if no stars were to explode, none of the elements heavier than Helium would exist, this then leads to the fact that you nor I nor anyone else would exist either.
2 Corinthians 4:18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen,but on what is unseen .For what is seen is temporary ,but what is unseen is eternal.HalleluYAH !
my question is, how is there something
@brindow1 i think you missed his point....
I've got that cup!
if the universe is expanding... what is it expanding into???
eh ??
So, the vectorso
Still tho:
What caused the bang?
It's also quite interesting to note how what is called "the observable universe" which simply means that, "this is all we have been able to observe so far" is quite similar to neurons in the brain. Maybe the old philosophers and magi of old were right when they said that the stars are literally inside of us? Consciousness exploring inner space and humanity exploring outer space, could very well be one and the same.
Poor Tony. XD
infinity.. O.O
he just drank the coffee he stirred with a pencil :S
I disagree, I think there was a before the big bang. Space and time must be infinite.
Like learning cosmology from Obi-Wan Kenobi... I'll get me coat.
there is no fundamental difference in the 'way of thinking' in the creationist idea and the big bang theory. in both, there is a single point of starting and a linear progression that follows. in both theories, there is a 'denial' of answering what happened or what caused that point of starting. at least, in the creationist case, there is 'God' to show as a reason. Science doesn't even have that. (i'm not saying creationist idea is the 'truth', both suffer from the same weakness)
Big bang model first proposed by Georges Lemaitre physicist and jesuit priest, stannard is also a christian
42.
@dharshana81 Except creationism can't even be consider a scientific approach in any way, it's very fundamental difference, actually. Sure, creationist posit that god created everything, and has to be the cause to everything, but that's making a argument from ignorance. At least the scientific approach is humble, and simply says "we don't know".
Stannard is a christian ;)
@buitrami The thing is that god isn't a logical consequence from this context. Its just one story you could fill in if you'd like. However, this isn't science and there is no rational reason whatsoever to believe into something that isn't scientifically proven. Of course you are free to do so anyway. But I think what Dara O'Brian said is right: "Science does not know everything, otherwise it would stop. But this does not mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairytale appeal most to you."
I maintain that reality is God dreaming, that way every philosophy and religion is technically correct without violating science or reason. The premise is so ludicrously flexible that it can make no predictions or be disproved. Funny actually, just because its all embracing, is it wrong?
Hard to hear. Volume needs to be louder please.
IMO:
There was no big bang, the universe is infinite.
Nothing can emerge from nothing.
There's space that is occupied by matter and there's free space which is infinite.
Can someone point me to something that explains why everything came from 1 spot and how the hell they'd calculate it cause i'm not buying it! ;-) Enjoy your day!
@blenderpanzi You're asking me like i know the answers. Lol...I don't f*ing know! No one does. I was just adding what comes next after he said that there was a limit to science. After knowing all there is to know about the facts of science, you hit a wall. And that's where faith or the idea of God comes into play. You must admit, he set himself up for that one...
They really don't, there quite contradictory. Science attempts to understand the beginnings of space and time, while Christianity deems that they already know what caused the universe, God. I relate it to the ancient Greeks; in order to understand the unexplainable they created Gods such as Zeus to explain lightning and thunder, in attempts to understand the next question (the universe) us humans cope with we create another predictable deity. Break free from this blinded mindset!
read the bible. Genisis. its all there... science need not exclude creationism/(christian religion), and creationism/(christian religion) need not exclude science. in fact it makes a huge amount of sense if the 2 go hand in hand :-)
This is where God comes in.
2nd Cor 4:18 HalleluYAH !
Give up the wise old man full of riddles gimmick and talk to us straight, like adults. Your concept of communication is condescending and incredibly annoying.
and stop chewing and swallowing on camera. Unbelievably agitating!
So, the vectors of the stellar motion are not related in any way? Mind officially boggled.