I am always grateful for ANY person who simply attempts an accurate explanation of what evidence shows THEM…instead of trying to be “sensational” or “all-knowing”…
TLDR: A scientist said something salacious and the press ran with it like a Christmas ham under their arm. The more I hear about this type of stuff, the more I think that "separation of press and science" is more important than separation of Church and State.
The "news" is just another unregulated way to make money, so truth and verifiable information are less important than clicks and eyeballs. So, Separation of Press and Reality.
You change that to politics from science and you have a point. The press is needed to convey information, politics warps it to whatever is the party line.
I am a francophone and I perfectly understood what Sabine said in French, so she's a good learner! I wouldn't dream asking her to lose the Teutonic accent. It gives a distinctive twist to her English and we are now used to it, so the same goes with her French. Accents are the last thing one loses when learning a foreign language, if ever.
I thought she just sounded sexy all the time. Here is the question do you think there is as fine a singer in French as Lea is in German? I have reason to suspect that no one makes music as well as the Germans do to-day in German. À propos Traduit de l'anglais-Lea-Marie Becker, connue professionnellement sous le nom de Lea, est une auteure-compositrice-interprète et claviériste allemande. Wikipédia (anglais) The reason I note this is for selfish reasons. I love to look at the videos of the musicians in all the nations and language to debate who is the best. French music is stellar. Sabrine sounds like Lea. Lea is sexy thus Sabrine is sexy also ❤.
@@JBroMCMXCI I ask. Have you heard of Lea? Sabrine has music videos. I like them. She sounds like Lea or Lea sounds like her. But if you are saying who am I to ask? That has been answered. Yo soy Sancho Panza y Sancho Panza Es una persona ignorante nadie... nada y estúpido. Gracias et merci encore
I wish there was a lot more "we don't know" out there instead of "here's how it is". Knowing what we don't know, and the curiosity to fill in the gaps, is what drives the best science.
"We don't know" also leads to the best kinds of spirituality. We need to be comfortable with not knowing, and being comfortable that we might never know. That doesn't mean we don't strive to know.
@@geoinmot, you are right that "I don't know" is the beginning, middle, and end of science. But what was actually said was "one big problem is that too many people are not ok with the concept." Let's all promote "I don't know" as a valid answer!
More people are content with Big Bang Hypothesis, which is itself a creationist myth and it's defenders still ignore intrinsic redshift, the thermodynamic impossibilities of standard cosmology and the holes all through GR, including its falsifications and better explanatory models put up in its stead. #toobigtofail somehow, even now...
never got that smirk thing, but i have noticed it in members of family ( cousin of my mother and his son), so it seems to be some character/genetic thing that can occur.
Douglas Adams wrote: "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. Many races believe that it was created by some sort of God, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure."
@@darylcheshire1618 - The reason that it is called 'dark matter' is because we are still in the dark as to what it is. It seems to have a regulating factor on the universe, it is slowing down the expansion of the known universe and even possibly increasing the age of the universe. We don't even know if is 'matter' and that only it acts that way. It is however doing a positive and important role. Just saying.
for the ignorant in comments: "In addition to their individual work, Cox and Hossenfelder have also collaborated on a number of projects, such as the book "Black Holes: The Key to Understanding the Universe" and the documentary series "The Universe: A Journey Through Space and Time." These collaborations have helped to bridge the gap between theoretical physics and the general public."
Brian Cox and the BBC - a scientist that endorses political views and thrives on the air of sensationalist publicity, working for an organisation that I would not trust to inform me of todays date!
@arturama8581 I don't understand why Prof Brian Cox is being cooked for this, the guy just tried to explain complicated science in terms most would understand, when you talk about science on a scale like Cox does then you have to dumb it down, treating this as a negative is in itself negative, science can be scary to new comers and we need people like Cox to be welcoming and make it feel manageable, bringing good science to the forefront is absolutely vital especially when considering increasing budgets for stuff like nasa
@@ryanlee6920 But the Daily Express dumbs it down and warps it to the point where there is very little, if any, fact left. It is an absolutely disgraceful rag.
I think Brian Cox is a very pleasant science communicator to listen to and is generally good at communicating complex ideas simply. He may occasionally be just a bit loose with language, but not to any ridiculous extent. However, he seems to be one of those physicists whose words often get twisted into outrageous headlines by the media and by tabloid science youtube channels. I honestly don't envy him that.
Its not a twist. Brian Cox really does use the term "big bang" in an odd way, but, since scientists dont use it at all, nobody has held his feet to the fire over it until now. Sabine is ruthless. Thats why we love her. 😳🔥❤️
@@deltalima6703 For sure, but she's not really being ruthless to Dr. Cox here. She's being much more ruthless to the "science media" that is grossly misquoting him here. She didn't really disagree with anything that Cox actually said.
@@deltalima6703 Scientists don't use the term Big Bang? Try an academic search engine: you will find the phrase in the titles alone of more than a million published papers. BTW Brian Cox is professor of particle physics at one of the World's most prestigious [physics] universities. It seems scientists use the term.
I wasn't a fan of daily short videos at first, but I think you hit a pretty good sweet spot now in terms of length. If the videos are 5-10 minutes long, I don't mind it as much! It was only at first, when they were 2-4 minutes long and 1 minutes was sponsorship, that it was a bit fragmented :-)
I am not a mathematician, but the idea of infinity as well as proportions or types of it, such as half infinity, is all considered kind of a real thing. Even though that's all basically still just infinity. First of all you need to fully accept that we humans have no perception of it, and that it's fully natural to emotionally dismiss it. The start to see that this way of thinking opens lots of possibilities in science, and especially with physics and time. Also think a second about how time can become infinitely slow around black holes, while it still is there. There is also something with singularities if I am right. They do not actually exist at our point in time, but the idea is that they exist infinitely far in the future for related reasons, if they actually even do.
info: The Daily Express was broadsheet until 1977. Doubtless it went tabloid to attract a more lucrative readership that preferred glib and emotive sensationalism over detailed factuality.
I love the fact that CERN labeled the tubes. CERN LHC. Just in case you were lost inside that tunnel at least you know that you're at cern in the large hadron collider.
it was also very interesting to me that those labels are slightly worn off. like, who is rubbing up against the particle beam tubes so often that the lettering is wearing off? hmmm
@@almscurium "Space is hard. Words are harder." seems eloquent to you? Well, I can take that as an opinion. I think, it is obviously not, not that it was supposed to be. It's part of the joke that it is imprecise language.
I'm glad this was said. I was thinking the exact same thing as I listened to this, lol! I'm still gonna have to say it again, if only to give Dr. Becky another shout out! 😂
At least it's easier to steer clear of those known sources of misinformation than it is to negotiate a narrow path of factuality through the vast jungle of nonsensical www 'science'.
All those Rupert Murdoch's newspapers are great for a ton of things.......use it balled up under kindling to get the fire lit then keep feeding the fire with more of his newspapers
String theory for me is life between birth and death hot to cold, cold hot, rich to poor and love to hate. And anything that could fall in between is real too us. And everything else beyond can only be measures
I think you mean hypotheses or speculation and not theory when talking about what happened before the Big Bang. Love your work. Learned so much from you. Thank you!
I wish every idiot in the world would look up the word "theory" and realize that it doesn't only refer to scientific theories, but regular theories that don't even need evidence. A theory is a theory whether there is evidence for it or not.
Thinking about the universe hurts my brain and my soul. It's so infinitely beautiful and sad at the same time. The endless mysteries and the fact that we'll never ever scratch the surface of understanding and knowing it.
It will probably be dead simple once we understand it. It wouldn't surprise me if you could easily explain how the universe works to a five year old if you just knew how it worked.
Thanks for this clarification. Brian Cox is not alone in referring to the Reheating following inflation as a Big Bang; IIRC, Ethan Siegel does, too. It is confusing for those of us more accustomed to thinking of inflation following the Big Bang rather than preceding it.
Ethan Siegel (and others) generally refer to this as the "Hot Big Bang". AFAIK this puts constraints on the initial conditions of the early universe w.r.t. size and temperature to explain the lack of certain artifacts (e.g. magnetic monopoles) that would otherwise have to exist, but for which there is no observational evidence
Catholic priest and theoretical physicist George Lemaitre is the father of the big bang theory and for this concept he let himself guide by the Genesis: Let there be light and there was light. For him the suddenness of the light‘s existence was equal to the suddenness of matter coming into existence.
Every time a watch one of Sabines videos I struggle to keep up, I'm just an average gut trying to learn something new. So for all of you out there that understand all the information, respect !
@@JOHNTIM212 My favorite was how we need to allow Lia Thomas to particpate in women's competitions because people with ambiguous body parts exist. You cannot get more "scientific" than that...
@@andreasrumpf9012 That's just common sense. She's 100% correct about it, too. Sport has always been about having genetic unfairness lead the way to victory. Talking about things that only need a functioning brain doesn't make her a "hack". You're just idiots who had their ideologies touched and are offended about it. Get lost.
Thanks Sabine. I've been trying to nail this down for quite a while without any success. The story keeps changing over time and with different people explaining. It's nice to know that it's not me.
@@SabineHossenfelder Sabine, i Love your videoes! I have a question for you: Is it impossible that the gravity we are affected by from sagitarius, could explain the redshift we are observing from objects outside our galaxy cluster? That everything isnt traveling away from us, but that its an effect of being trapped by our own black hole? Im not a physicist, and I realize Im probably provably wrong, but I would love to hear your perspective on this and why It might be wrong. Thanks
"According to this theory, out universe is created in a quantum fluctuation in a field called the inflaton." OK, give me a few years to chew that over....
One of my favorite Brian Cox quotes (at least I think it was him) is “Nothing doesn’t like to exist.” (in response to the question of why is there something instead of nothing).
It's the natural curve evolution to shear entropic radiation resonation waves. We know literally everything in the universe has it's paradoxical opposition. The fact that we can make any choice or have distinction between inverse properties.. entropy wants our disorder to permeate and refract into nitrogen jello or plasma without thermodynamics.. but we are here, partially aware of this, evolving everything scope to human existence towards curving our destruction. We are the natural evolution of resonation currents trying to shear the radiation waves they needle cast to phase vibrate through. Just think of the universe as a neutrino ocean and pay attention to fluid mechanics/dynamics.. curvature into spheres is the perfect inverse skirting of resonation pressure attempting to squeeze things into diffraction after loosing their coupling, entanglement, attraction forces/reactions. Because they weave through paradoxical sets in a looped system.. it can only expand to evolve together in Ying yang transference across turbulent exchange into strange attraction. So like the train in the movie "the core" .. no matter how much energy pours in or how much one side jumps to gain relative to the other.. they refraction and bifurcate waves and vertices, Vortex and supernova, fusion and resonation pulsation field coupling to only strengthen eachother. Over a Lorenz strange exchange and paradoxical flips
@skipper2285 naw the opposite. Look up strange attraction and the von Karman Vortex streets. Dynamical systems mean they ebb n flow but any gain diffracts into resonation harmony in Ying yang over paradoxical flip. It's why we are/everything is expanding
1:08 - Why is it considered a singularity??? If the matter is spread homogeneously throughout space (even though very dense) the gradient of the gravitational potential should be small, as well as the curvature of space-time, so no singularity should be present. Please explain.
They have fun at our expense, having to learn it and take tests about it as though it's serious science. When their theories are proven wrong, we don't get a single apology for being jerked around!
"Well, that's no fun!" Is the thought before every tax season knowing they fund garbage like this instead of things to actually improve conditions for people.
Over the past year I've noticed a disturbing trend on UA-cam; videos are being put out which appear to be essentially clickbait. The title will include some prominent name (Cox, Musk et. al.) and the content is revealed to be a miasma of speculation, pseudo-scientific nonsense and often with only a brief mention of the headline act. My wife watched one yesterday on Oumuamua which was total rubbish - I heard every word while doing a crossword in another room. I also think some of this stuff is being generated by an AI and I think that particular one was one of them. Point is, one needs to hone one's b.s. detector these days. I now ignore videos which I can readily identify as garbage.
sorry to say but if you boil a kettle at all you're a scientist. cooking is science and i don't mean domestic science i mean actual science, you conduct an experiment and if you're lucky you get dinner out of it. you are an artist too, if you can make a mark you're an artist - don't ever exclude yourself from the human race. we are all journalists too - check out the first amendment.
I am glad Dr Hossenflelder and her team, are here to put things in perspective. We just don't know, a refreshing disclosure. However that is no reason not to come up with alternatives and theories, which Dr Hossenfelder mentions.
what is this meant to mean, it's an analogy for singularities not the universe. And the tap just moves water from one place to another so what does that imply. huh
Well, part of the problem is that 'Big Bang' is a terrible name. At best, it was a super tiny event and there was no 'bang' because there is no air in space. Also, the theory doesn’t adequately explain certain aspects. Why 'Big'? How did the 'Bang' happen? It's like naming a theory 'apple theorem' and then discussing orange juice. Moreover, what kind of theory requires adding 95% of unknown substances to make it work? That's a 20-fold error. It's akin to a child claiming to have two PHDs after the first year of school (the additional 19 being 'dark education'). So, rightfully, people question if the theory's name is wrong, what else could be? If you need to add (fake it to make it ) 95% material to fit observations, it's not science; it's prophecy.That's exactly it. This is precisely why a Priest read the Bible and formulated the Big Bang theory. Just like other observations, such as everything appearing to orbit around us, leading to the belief that we are at the center of the universe.. It's astonishing that people still refer to observations as facts, much like those who claim the Earth is flat because, based on limited observations, the horizon appears flat. The Big Bang theorists are, at best, like divorce scientists who conclude the main reason for divorce is marriage based on observations alone. Without mathematics, it's not science; it's philosophical speculation. Mathematics clearly shows that 5 does not equal 100, and it's time to abandon such religious-like beliefs and seek better theories.
The problem is, we don't really have any data on the time around the supposed 'Big Bang'. It's like an impenetrable wall for our observations, because the Universe was really different back then. So, any hypotheses are just that - hypotheses.
Was that correct: 0:33 1. we observe universe expanding 2. we use GR equations ...and conclude that there was a big bang Is that really correct as I understand the expansion is not fitting the GR equations (why we have to invent dark energy). Is it not more correct: 1. we observe universe expanding Rolling back this expansion brings us to every close to each other, apply GR to this state and we find there should be a singularity. For the role back we don't really need GR, just assume we can reverse the motion we see to understand the state we came from.
Sabine, I have not understood why you say that eternal inflation must also have had a beginning at some finite time in the past. My understanding of this theory is quite limited, but what I get is that it should, on large scales (much larger than any individual universes), more or less resemble a de Sitter model (spatially flat with Omega_Lambda = 1). Under these conditions the expansion law is a pure and simple exponential, it does not admit any beginning or singularity and more in general there is nothing special about any point in time.
I am sure that refers to asking "what happened before time?", which has no meaning. It's like asking what is at 91 degrees north. It's beyond the scale, and so the question has no meaning. To ask what is outside space-time may be such a question. Saying you don't know is also a good answer, but there are a lot of examples of meaningless questions that include an impossible premise for example.
Some questions have inherent assumptions built into them. Examples of such questions that are NOT meaningless include leading and loaded questions. Other times, the bult-in assumption simply makes no sense. "How many angles can fit on the head of a pin?" depends on if an angel occupies a finite amount of physical space and, if so, how large a head of a pin really is in comparison (do we take a statistical average all pins in the world?) Just because a question is meaningless doesn't mean it can't have any value. "What is the sound of 1 hand clapping?" is a well known *koan*, used in Zen Buddhism to challenge rational thought.
@@LiveFreeOrDieDH Single handed clapping is possible, by whipping the four non-thumb fingers around so they slap the palm hard enough to make a sound. It sounds like two-handed clapping done by someone who has only barely learned to do so: weak and irregular. Anyway, I hope this doesn't ruin Zen Buddhism ;)
@@Antares2 Well, time's a funny one. Either it's infinite in both directions, or has a "start" or an "end". But for time to "start" is a pretty weird notion. And I don't blame anybody who'd ask what happened before the "start" of time. I mean, "start of time" is circular, as far as I can tell.
I DO think that Brian Cox did say something wrong. He presented an unprovable or disprovable theory in far stronger terms than is warranted. And this is a MAJOR problem in science, and it is often the scientists themselves who are overstating their claims in order to gain attention/funding. This happens all the time in origin of life research, but I see this trend across many fields. It is rarely (if ever) presented to the public as “here’s one possibility of what may have happened, but we just don’t know.” It is presented as “1.3 trillion years ago, X, Y, and Z HAPPENED.”
A few years back I commented on a video regarding a similar topic and said that from what I can observe, everything around us is some sort of oscillation or waveform. So why shouldn't what we call universe be a cyclic expansion and collapse? I got laughed at and I still can't explain why I think that other than my observations of daily life.
There is some that think that theory is one of the explanations, they call it the big crunch when it contracts. And if people laugh of that they are just idiots... But as it is now parts of the universe we can observe is moving away from us and is already moving away faster then light speed can cover the distance and it is lost for us forever (that is called the particle horizon). So for now it seems that this universe we live in will not be able to contract ever again.
The latest observations suggest that it is likely that the universe will eventually contract. Philosophical intuition and logic tells me the same thing as it tells you, but experimental evidence is needed. What is expected is that the dimensions can only be those that we observe since they are an abstraction of the orthogonal directions from a point, from that reasoning and knowing that nothing can arise from absolute nothing, what can be deduced is that space-time has always existed and will always exist, with local Big Bounce cycles probably. I am of the opinion that what we call the Big Bang can be described as a white hole and what we call the Big Crunch can be described as the maximum density black hole that is incapable of further curving space and undergoes a transition towards a new white hole, or Big Bang.
of all the theories for what happened before the big bang, eternal inflation is the most pleasing to my brain. Would be interesting to know if it could ever be verified through observation?
I believe there is a certain type of polarization in the CMB, B mode that if detected would make inflation more likely and rule out alternative theories such as the cyclic models.
Eternal Inflation is eternal into the future, but presumably finite into the past. That's why Sabine said the Eternal Inflation multiverse had a beginning at a finite time in the past.
I've always liked the comparison of "asking what was before the big bang is like asking what's north of the north pole." It might not be right if there's all these theories out there about what came before, but I think it gets you in the right mindset to think about time and space as intrinsically connected. There's all sorts of interesting questions that come out of it, like how do you build a frame of reference that doesn't consist of space or time? What is the universe expanding into? Does that question even make sense? Mind boggling stuff to think about and it's kind of amazing that us pink meat apes can even begin to think about it.
Yes I remember a physics teacher saying the universe is only expanding in our 3D world and contracting in a higher dimension, I'm not really qualified to know if that makes sense either,just his theory I suppose
The only thing that detracts from this video is the obnoxious set of the compulsive, obsessive hustle culture's sales ads which limit the universe to how can I jack off for money in my little microcosm.
That’s because we are not just “pink meat apes” that just stumbled on fire and electricity by accident, our consciousness is also not generated by our brains rather a receiver, that’s why we can even ask such questions. I doubt that “animated matter” with chemical reactions(which is what we are portrayed as being) can think such mind melting topics especially when this gets mixed with theology( btw theology and science are both asking the same questions just in a different was like 2 different sides of the same coin)
@@Jack-r2v9b I'd be lying if I said I understood it any better but to me that explanation falls under the "push it up the chain" category that Sabine was talking about. If there's a higher dimension then where did that come from? How can it contract if it doesn't also have some dimension that represents time or space? It's mind boggling, the more I think about it the less sense it makes. Clearly "Something Happened," and we're all here today, but the idea of "Something Happening" without time or space existing doesn't make any sense, let alone "everything happening all at once." Who needs to quote Brian Cox out of context when thinking about the reality is enough to destroy my brain...
I would guess pretty much what she also says here about eternal inflation: we don't know. Interesting theory that we haven't proven wrong - which you can say about just about any of the early universe/before it theories, because we just don't have any data to speak of.
Very interesting Sabine. A quick question: As space expands into the universe, could there be galaxies that are so far away from us, so their light would never reach us?
I'n not Sabine, but i can answer that. The answer is yes. There is a limit on how far away we can see, because the speed of expansion becomes faster than the speed of light after a certain point. That's not in contradiction with general relativity because nothing (i.e., matter and energy) is moving faster than the speed of light in their own frames of reference. The set of all things we can see is called the observable universe: it's a sphere of 45.7 billion light-years radius centered on us (of course, if there are alien astronomers in another place of the universe, their observable universe would be also centered on them)
@@juanausensi499 that's just the maximum rendering volume of the Universe's engine for a single instance of a game, they'll patch it at some point, at least Will Wright said so... 😂 Jokes a side, such a fascinating concept, thanks for explaining, and yes i think our unjverse its basically Spore's videogame server, every intelligent species is a different run of the game, and no one will convince me otherwise. 😂
@@ozymandiasultor9480 Nah, I agree with Fjord. The problem is these long form documentaries where he has to travel to India and Egypt (using Orientalist type tropes) or South America where he writes in the sand, spending tens of thousands on their production budget, when he could have stood with a blackboard behind him and said more in two minutes than in the entire 45 minute show.
Oh come on. This reminds me of some historians going on amazon trashing a popular science history book. Cox makes these programs for the masses and people like me have learned a great deal from him and enjoyed doing so. If you want more, there's other sources, but for most people Cox will do just fine and it should be shown on TV regularly.
Some difficult, but interesting theories to ponder. Humans may never completely understand many ideas. Worthwhile to search, investigate, & discuss. Artists’ “renderings” of complex theories often very entertaining & imaginative.
Of course there was a "before" before the big bang, another one in fact, even larger. The Rolling Stones said so with their "Bigger Bang" album, and everyone knows those guys predate the universe by far.
Hey Sabine, that part you said about singularity arises because we assume space to be smooth and not discrete??? Yeah... that's kinda what Stephen Wolfram has illustrated for us quite elegantly with his method of quantizing space using hypergraphs. He's onto something that turn-of-the-century physicists all assumed to be true (but didn't have the tools to probe).
To correct you on a point Sabine: Since we don't know what happened before the big bang (if there was one), we also don't know if it is connected to us.
Half true. Yes, it might have determined a lot of the matter or energy that went into "our" big bang, but she was clearly referring to it from a physics calculation standpoint where it would be 100% impossible to determine what there was before because of the singularity status of the event itself.
@@StevXtreme Thank you for your thoughts. I maintain my stance, noting that our understanding of singularities, like that at the Big Bang, is limited by the current framework of mathematics, which breaks down under such extreme conditions. This limitation echoes historical shifts in scientific understanding, akin to Newton inventing calculus for previously unsolvable problems. Hence, while it's a plausible hypothesis that pre-Big Bang conditions are unconnected to our universe, as per Sabine Hossenfelder's statement, it's important to remember that scientific and mathematical advancements could potentially unveil new connections. Asserting a categorical disconnection, given our evolving comprehension, might be somewhat premature.
@@goodlookinouthomie1757 Just because it appears to make logical sense doesn't mean it's correct. Also, I still react negatively to the word "before", as it implies the passage of time, but as time is a direct property of the universe itself it may not make any sense. Maybe there's another form of "time" that exists outside time, but good luck proving that.
@@goodlookinouthomie1757 Once again, it makes logical sense, but isn't necessarily correct. You are describing a temporal event; going from non-existence to existence. This change of state would appear to require the passing of time, no matter how miniscule... but how can anything "happen" when time doesn't exist "yet". Any verb you choose to describe this... event or... thing.... necessitates the passage of time, yet it also had to be the cause of time. Our language simply doesn't cover the concept of non-spacetime or a situation where time and space doesn't exist. The absence of time and space is truly "nothing". As inhabitants of the four-dimensional (that we know of) spacetime, we have no way of detecting anything outside it or knowing if there "is" anything outside it. The phrase "before time" goes against the very definition of "time". I am not saying that there is nothing outside of spacetime, but we have absolutely no way of telling... at all. So making any assumptions about the nature of "beyond spacetime", the cause, lack of cause of our spacetime is purely speculation. Even if you manage to prove some kind of "super-universe" beyond ours where our spacetime is just another "bubble" in it and they have their own kind of "time" that lets universes like ours pop into existence, it still doesn't explain the how or why. Nor does it explain the origin of that super-universe or multiverse, so you've just moved the question to the next level. Maybe our universe is eternal in the way that time passed infinitely slow in the beginning. Seen from us, it happened 13.8 billion years ago, but if you could travel back in time, you would never 100% reach the "beginning" of time. Or maybe not, nobody knows.
@@BalBurghit's Doctor Who. That's a requirement, lol! After all, one of the 5th Doctor's stories (the one where Adric died, for Whovian timeline clarity) had a spaceship crash into the Earth, about... 65 or so mya. Not that pesky asteroid that left the big hole in the Yucatan about that time that got such a bad rap. 😂
You're generally right, there's probably some complexities that we will probably never comprehend, but i believe that the creation of the universe isn't one of those things. The main issue isn't a limitation of our brains but a limitation of access to data. We'll probably never know how the universe came to be because either that information just doesn't exist or is completely unattainable. However, I'm open to being surprised by future scientists.
@@skorpiongod It is impossible for the question 'What was there before the creation of universe' to be proven or discovered by science in any ways, this is literally a extremely hard limitation. It is a hard limitation simply because even if we HAD the data about what came before the big bang (for example), the question "and what came before that" would still be open, and we know that we don't have any ways to have so any response to these questions would turn to be metaphysical, either by God or by some god scientists believe in (like "eternal existence" or "the static universe").
@diadetediotedio6918 the hard limitation is access to the information. I just dont believe creation is beyond our comprehension, just beyond our ability to know for certain.
@@skorpiongod Bro, I literally argued to you why information is not the problem, it is literally an impossible problem that requires , and this also turns to be a metaphysical problem.
We did not invent all this. We did not cause the “big bang”. Thus I surmise that there is a before the Big Bang and that it was not to nice, that is there was much disagreement & turmoil. What brought about order, authority and thus the need for some to go into separation (the big bang) was the discovery of the Power that over rules all other power. Now this new Power is not what we think of as power, we as humans think of power as that which makes others do things. This new Power invites us to do particular things. Yet there is no force to back this up. There is the reasoning that doing what we are invited to do leads to harmony among all while choosing to not do as invited leaves us in an ostracized position. Re-stated; we did not do what was best for all and a particular situation thus we did not exhibit concern for all. This puts us, those who choose to not do the invited action, on the outside. Wait this is prior to the Big Bang, there is no outside. Well bang! There it is and doing the wrong thing lands you there.
I hate the fact a lot of people still think that the bing bang is a theory of origin (people think the same way of evolution). And then most of them get frustrated at the answer "we don't know."
Biology isn't falling apart unlike physics though. Evolution is really hard to disprove when we we have been able to observe it happening in the past hundred years.
Wouldn’t it throw a great spanner in the works if it turns out Red Shift can’t be relied upon to determine relative velocity? Then we’d find out what happens after The Big Bang.
The redshift can't be used to determine relative velocity unless you assume that time dilation is either negligible or non-existent... The minute time dilation occurs, you can't really say anything about the relative velocity. You can however still say something about the relative velocity time coupling... Which is a distance.
@@abighairyspiderI‘m not sure if doppler effect is the precise terminology here, since it relates to a source of waves that travels itself with a velocity reasonably close to the velocity of the propagating wavefront. 1. Redshift is not caused by a moving source, rather by expansion of the propagating medium (Space itself). 2. Light travels at c for All observers, even for an observer travelling at 99% of speed of light from your point of reference (relativity)
Most speculations about natural history in the natural sciences depend on philosophical naturalism. If you assume only natural processes are responsible for everything that exists whether biological or cosmological, then this has to be true for any speculations to give an answer. Actually it is impossible to figure out how the universe was created, we don't know.
My dad was a very intelligent fellow. His mind was well beyond his education and he often got a huge amount of disrespect from well educated idiots. (Yes. I'm bitter.) One day I told him that I figured out what came in the moments before 'The Big Bang.' 'The Big Click'
@@user-gs4oi1fm4l Nah, the distinction is more abstract than concrete, we know for sure that they are intrinsically connected because macro objects can have what we call quantum phenomena (like superfluids or superconductors).
No, not our universe. Maybe time is a property our spacetime universe has, but the field from which it emerged has not (it might not even have space as it seems to be bound to time). Then any question of before, beginning, end, eternity etc. were indeed meaningless.
That clip of Brian Cox sounds like an editing mistake, since there is a long pause between voice lines. Someone at the BBC probably took a clip of Brian Cox saying "the Big Bang" from some other context, then threw it at the end of the pretty graphics because they thought it would sound good.
That's just the normal timing one would use saying that sentence in that context. It's a simple dramatic effect. No reason to speculate about editing mistakes, in my opinion.
I am not a physicist and my mind boggles at the complexity of it that it takes years of thinking to even grasp it. That said, the big bang seemed so off and childlike to me when I first heard it explained. I think that the divide line of science/religion will have to be combined to proceed forward. As a child I played D&D and no one ever wanted to play the cleric and so I took the mantle and made it to the point of being kool to be the hybrid priest/fighter within my group. Instead now though it will be a priest/scientist character
I'm studying for a physics degree at the moment. I do have to admit that a lot of theories of creation require homogeneous (omnipresent), inviolable (~omnipotent) laws of nature that exist outside of time. What exactly were the hairless apes making fun of the other hairless apes for believing in again? A higher purpose or something not backed by data?
@@jeschinstad because we grew up with God and the universe being infinite. Suddenly theirs a TV show called.....wait for it....the big bang theory and then I looked into it and found what I felt was just ideas thrown out of crazy people. Now I do know a lot of thought went into this idea and even the math kinda pointed to this as it might be true....but just a gut feeling it was way off. It was created by people who cant accept a higher power. Like with quantum science and how scientists are baffled by the conscious mind of the observer controlling the outcome. To me its simply God controlling us by making the next step in evolution of our species a major hurdle....like when I devised a new lock to keep my hamster in its cage and woke up to find the dam creature somehow figured it out and escaped.
How did the "universe" get there in which this Big Bang happened? How did the "before" even get there? How can a universe "begin" unless there was "space" in which it can happen? So how did "space" in which this expansion get there? That is the work: not what happened before the Big Bang but how a place for anything to happen got there.
Brilliant paraphrasing of complex ideas for the interested lay person... The analogy of a drop of water splitting from the surface of water in a tap was really helpful. Thanks!
I am always grateful for ANY person who simply attempts an accurate explanation of what evidence shows THEM…instead of trying to be “sensational” or “all-knowing”…
TLDR: A scientist said something salacious and the press ran with it like a Christmas ham under their arm. The more I hear about this type of stuff, the more I think that "separation of press and science" is more important than separation of Church and State.
That's why science communication is a thing. I think it's up to the audience to be skeptical. Good luck with that 😂
Do you think the solution is to eliminate separation of church and press?
The "news" is just another unregulated way to make money, so truth and verifiable information are less important than clicks and eyeballs. So, Separation of Press and Reality.
I remember when journalism was a respected career. Now it's just glorified blogging.
You change that to politics from science and you have a point. The press is needed to convey information, politics warps it to whatever is the party line.
I am a francophone and I perfectly understood what Sabine said in French, so she's a good learner! I wouldn't dream asking her to lose the Teutonic accent. It gives a distinctive twist to her English and we are now used to it, so the same goes with her French. Accents are the last thing one loses when learning a foreign language, if ever.
I think weight is always the last thing one loses, learing a foreign language or otherwise.
Leering is what happens at you if you do lose the weight.
I thought she just sounded sexy all the time.
Here is the question do you think there is as fine a singer in French as Lea is in German?
I have reason to suspect that no one makes music as well as the Germans do to-day in German.
À propos
Traduit de l'anglais-Lea-Marie Becker, connue professionnellement sous le nom de Lea, est une auteure-compositrice-interprète et claviériste allemande. Wikipédia (anglais)
The reason I note this is for selfish reasons. I love to look at the videos of the musicians in all the nations and language to debate who is the best.
French music is stellar.
Sabrine sounds like Lea. Lea is sexy thus Sabrine is sexy also ❤.
@@josedelnegro46 who asked?
@@JBroMCMXCI I ask. Have you heard of Lea? Sabrine has music videos. I like them. She sounds like Lea or Lea sounds like her.
But if you are saying who am I to ask? That has been answered. Yo soy Sancho Panza y Sancho Panza Es una persona ignorante nadie... nada y estúpido.
Gracias et merci encore
I wish there was a lot more "we don't know" out there instead of "here's how it is". Knowing what we don't know, and the curiosity to fill in the gaps, is what drives the best science.
@@Angelitech Another brainwashed individual. People prefer the truth over anything else. If it excites then also even better.
@@Angelitech “a little to the imagination” - they want to believe they can grow wings and fly at FTL speeds.. but it's not because they're stupid..
But... but muh granny on a cloud!!! ✋😩🤚
For some people it‘s hard to accept that they can‘t wrap their head around something they are interested in. That‘s where delusion comes to play
"We don't know" also leads to the best kinds of spirituality. We need to be comfortable with not knowing, and being comfortable that we might never know.
That doesn't mean we don't strive to know.
as someone who just moved to paris, I can confirm "excusez-moi, quel âge a l'univers" is very practical in day to day life
You can always add "Mon aéroglisseur est rempli d'anguilles" - Trust me, I have a B.A. in Monty Python
What ?! Ca vient d'où ?
doesn't that translate to "will you sleep with me tonight, under the stars?" or "will you help me move my couch?" i forget.
@@adrien5568Hungarian phrase book sketch peut être?
"Excuse me, where is the nearest mail box or toilet?"
I think one big problem is that too many people are not ok with the concept of: I don't know
That's not a problem, that's science.
@@geoinmot, you are right that "I don't know" is the beginning, middle, and end of science. But what was actually said was "one big problem is that too many people are not ok with the concept." Let's all promote "I don't know" as a valid answer!
@@susand3668 I agree
@@geoinmot You'd think, but many scientists let ego get in the way...
More people are content with Big Bang Hypothesis, which is itself a creationist myth and it's defenders still ignore intrinsic redshift, the thermodynamic impossibilities of standard cosmology and the holes all through GR, including its falsifications and better explanatory models put up in its stead. #toobigtofail somehow, even now...
With that constant smirk on Brian Cox's face its clear he knows exacly what happened at the beginning and he is having fun not letting us in on it.
His constant smirks … it’s what irks
never got that smirk thing, but i have noticed it in members of family ( cousin of my mother and his son), so it seems to be some character/genetic thing that can occur.
Just seems to me as if he's passionate about what hes talking about and happy people wanna converse with him about what he loves @ulazygit
Yes, God made it. The smirk is revelation of the method, and the joke is on you.
@@michaeljsullivan524 God could very well have initiated the big bang
Douglas Adams wrote: "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. Many races believe that it was created by some sort of God, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure."
That was fiction, not science. Zaphod Beeblebrox told me.
The universe is part of some kid’s terrarium, the ‘Dark Matter’ is the dark green glass of a giant bottle.
@@darylcheshire1618 - The reason that it is called 'dark matter' is because we are still in the dark as to what it is. It seems to have a regulating factor on the universe, it is slowing down the expansion of the known universe and even possibly increasing the age of the universe. We don't even know if is 'matter' and that only it acts that way. It is however doing a positive and important role. Just saying.
for the ignorant in comments:
"In addition to their individual work, Cox and Hossenfelder have also collaborated on a number of projects, such as the book "Black Holes: The Key to Understanding the Universe" and the documentary series "The Universe: A Journey Through Space and Time." These collaborations have helped to bridge the gap between theoretical physics and the general public."
mmmmm???.........wonderful???
I prefer bridging the gap between empirical physics and the general public.
SO GLAD that you did post this brave open, honest video, and NO NO NO, it wasn't too much at all. THANK YOU SO MUCH, Sabine.
G-Day Brother.
I saw the Daily Express logo and that answered the question for me.
Yes it really simplified it. A good equation to use is. D.E = a zero point of truth. They are a singularity of pure nonsense.😂😂😂😂
Brian Cox and the BBC - a scientist that endorses political views and thrives on the air of sensationalist publicity, working for an organisation that I would not trust to inform me of todays date!
@@tonib5899 Brian Cox might not even know he works for them 🤣
@arturama8581 I don't understand why Prof Brian Cox is being cooked for this, the guy just tried to explain complicated science in terms most would understand, when you talk about science on a scale like Cox does then you have to dumb it down, treating this as a negative is in itself negative, science can be scary to new comers and we need people like Cox to be welcoming and make it feel manageable, bringing good science to the forefront is absolutely vital especially when considering increasing budgets for stuff like nasa
@@ryanlee6920 But the Daily Express dumbs it down and warps it to the point where there is very little, if any, fact left. It is an absolutely disgraceful rag.
What an excellent example of a singularity (2:02) that everyone can understand, one of the best I've ever seen I think. Thank you!
"The smart thing to do would be to just leave it at that. But that's no fun". Well said.
I think Brian Cox is a very pleasant science communicator to listen to and is generally good at communicating complex ideas simply. He may occasionally be just a bit loose with language, but not to any ridiculous extent. However, he seems to be one of those physicists whose words often get twisted into outrageous headlines by the media and by tabloid science youtube channels. I honestly don't envy him that.
Brian Cox was a Blairite & is a remainiac globalist who believe in nationstate democracy. In other words he doesn't believe in democracy.
Its not a twist. Brian Cox really does use the term "big bang" in an odd way, but, since scientists dont use it at all, nobody has held his feet to the fire over it until now. Sabine is ruthless. Thats why we love her.
😳🔥❤️
@@deltalima6703 For sure, but she's not really being ruthless to Dr. Cox here. She's being much more ruthless to the "science media" that is grossly misquoting him here. She didn't really disagree with anything that Cox actually said.
@@deltalima6703 Scientists don't use the term Big Bang?
Try an academic search engine: you will find the phrase in the titles alone of more than a million published papers. BTW Brian Cox is professor of particle physics at one of the World's most prestigious [physics] universities. It seems scientists use the term.
@@deltalima6703: Cox is referring to the observable big bang rather than hypothetical big bang. I don't see what's so odd about that.
I wasn't a fan of daily short videos at first, but I think you hit a pretty good sweet spot now in terms of length. If the videos are 5-10 minutes long, I don't mind it as much! It was only at first, when they were 2-4 minutes long and 1 minutes was sponsorship, that it was a bit fragmented :-)
Hearing you speak plausible French is honestly the best endorsement of a sponsor you've ever made.
"infinitely lame" had me replaying that 5 times. you're hilarious, Sabine!
infinitely hilarious
I am not a mathematician, but the idea of infinity as well as proportions or types of it, such as half infinity, is all considered kind of a real thing. Even though that's all basically still just infinity.
First of all you need to fully accept that we humans have no perception of it, and that it's fully natural to emotionally dismiss it.
The start to see that this way of thinking opens lots of possibilities in science, and especially with physics and time.
Also think a second about how time can become infinitely slow around black holes, while it still is there.
There is also something with singularities if I am right. They do not actually exist at our point in time, but the idea is that they exist infinitely far in the future for related reasons, if they actually even do.
Sabine will debunk you so hard your high school physics teacher will feel it.
LOL 🤣
Well played, oh Zen One
😂😂😂 Also just the sentence "debunked the Big Bang" 😂
Sabine is so cool… you will totally enjoy it when she debunks you. 😂
No. Sabine debunked nothing.
Ah, The Daily Express. That bastion of truth, accuracy and integrity.
True, but I'd extend that same sentiment to all mainstream media outlets as well. Even the so-called science mags are often full of it.
@@methylene5 whilst I agree, some publications are worse than others.
The Daily Express used to be broadsheet. Doubtless it went tabloid to acquire an appropriate readership.
info: The Daily Express was broadsheet until 1977. Doubtless it went tabloid to attract a more lucrative readership that preferred glib and emotive sensationalism over detailed factuality.
As soon as I saw Daily Express I knew it would be a total lie.
I'm surprised they didn't manage to imply that this meant we were in for a severe cold snap next winter and something something, Princess Diana lol
Precisely, The Daily Express doesn't qualify as a newspaper, it's a propaganda sheet for wing nuts and a scandal rag for idiots.
Don't you mean the guardian.... At least the Express reports the truth occasionally!
@@Andrew-Kerr You make it sound as if he hasn't said such things...I can assure you he has. He'll parrot whatever he's told.
@@TheJon2442 really? oh boy! poor you.
I love the fact that CERN labeled the tubes. CERN LHC. Just in case you were lost inside that tunnel at least you know that you're at cern in the large hadron collider.
It's marketing. We saw it, so donors see it, and your aunt watching a news clip on TV sees it.
Maybe it's so when they are being transported on the back on a lorry, people don't assume it's a supergun and start panicking?
it was also very interesting to me that those labels are slightly worn off. like, who is rubbing up against the particle beam tubes so often that the lettering is wearing off? hmmm
@@JonS But that's just what someone transporting supergun parts would label them with, isn't it?
"Hello? 999? Yes, I've just woken up in a concrete tunnel next to a very gradually curving pipe, and I also just realized I have no phone signal."
As one of my favorite science communicators, Dr. Becky, says, "Space is hard. Words are harder."
If there is an opposite to eloquence, this statement is a potential demonstration of the concept.
@@drydessert4198 considering eloquent means “clearly expressing or indicating something” it seems pretty eloquent to me. Your phrase however was not
@@almscurium "Space is hard. Words are harder." seems eloquent to you? Well, I can take that as an opinion. I think, it is obviously not, not that it was supposed to be. It's part of the joke that it is imprecise language.
it must have been magnetic fields bc she always says we don't understand magnetic fields.
also yay Dr. Beck, let me Smethurst ( ")
I'm glad this was said. I was thinking the exact same thing as I listened to this, lol! I'm still gonna have to say it again, if only to give Dr. Becky another shout out! 😂
Express and Dailymail should always be ignored.
At least it's easier to steer clear of those known sources of misinformation than it is to negotiate a narrow path of factuality through the vast jungle of nonsensical www 'science'.
I already knew she ran across a B.S. article when saw the title in the video. My question is why is she reading this garbage.
The Daily Express ~ "A right riveting read!"
Read ~ "a load of Bollox"
a load of Botox...
The only place to find the Daily Express is in the bathroom, just in case you run out of loo roll.
The British press is a dumpster fire lately. Mind you, the rest of the MSM is not much better either.
What do you expect from a guy named Cox?
All those Rupert Murdoch's newspapers are great for a ton of things.......use it balled up under kindling to get the fire lit then keep feeding the fire with more of his newspapers
Thanks Sabine. You are a treasure of sane, educated, thoughtful information. Coated in tasty humour. ❤
I would not make such an inappropriate comment, but some would say tastiness in more than just humor.
Time is the strongest force in the uni
An object at rest will not remain at rest if time is allowed
Life = heat time distance.
Time is what allows something to come from nothing
String theory for me is life between birth and death hot to cold, cold hot, rich to poor and love to hate. And anything that could fall in between is real too us. And everything else beyond can only be measures
Cool
I think you mean hypotheses or speculation and not theory when talking about what happened before the Big Bang. Love your work. Learned so much from you. Thank you!
I wish every idiot in the world would look up the word "theory" and realize that it doesn't only refer to scientific theories, but regular theories that don't even need evidence. A theory is a theory whether there is evidence for it or not.
Merci pour l'explication Sabine!
Thinking about the universe hurts my brain and my soul. It's so infinitely beautiful and sad at the same time. The endless mysteries and the fact that we'll never ever scratch the surface of understanding and knowing it.
It doesn't seem fair does it. Not knowing and then you die! Damn the Cosmos! 😊
It will probably be dead simple once we understand it. It wouldn't surprise me if you could easily explain how the universe works to a five year old if you just knew how it worked.
your whole universe is the one you see, little piece of the cosmos! a universe to yourself!!
Though we may never know the answer at least find joy in the fact that we can ask the question.
It´s like your nose. It´s a wonderful miracle in your face and youn don´t see it.
Thanks for this clarification. Brian Cox is not alone in referring to the Reheating following inflation as a Big Bang; IIRC, Ethan Siegel does, too. It is confusing for those of us more accustomed to thinking of inflation following the Big Bang rather than preceding it.
Ethan Siegel (and others) generally refer to this as the "Hot Big Bang". AFAIK this puts constraints on the initial conditions of the early universe w.r.t. size and temperature to explain the lack of certain artifacts (e.g. magnetic monopoles) that would otherwise have to exist, but for which there is no observational evidence
Perhaps he feels lucky.
For a communicator like Brian Cox to use the term Big Bang in a way that's different to the way it's used in everyday life, is positively stupid.
that was the best ad incorporated in a video I have ever seen. She actually showed that she's learned some french. awesome
She's also brilliant, so that makes things easier 😊
Yea her French wasn’t bad, and not to be rude or anything, but her French accent was better than her English accent… in my opinion…
@@mgx2077 Uh ... her English is completely fluent and intelligible.
I suspect Ms Hossenfelder is fluent in French.
@@mgx2077 "Yea"? what version of English are you using?
Catholic priest and theoretical physicist George Lemaitre is the father of the big bang theory and for this concept he let himself guide by the Genesis: Let there be light and there was light. For him the suddenness of the light‘s existence was equal to the suddenness of matter coming into existence.
Every time a watch one of Sabines videos I struggle to keep up, I'm just an average gut trying to learn something new. So for all of you out there that understand all the information, respect !
That was a slam dunk debunk 😂 but seriously, I absolutely love what you do Sabine, I love your no-nonsense style
Thank you for the video.
Sabine is the physics teacher I knew I always needed, and now I get to hear her.... truly a remarkable universe
She is sliding into hack territory, making videos about subjects she does not know about or twisting things people said.
@@JOHNTIM212 My favorite was how we need to allow Lia Thomas to particpate in women's competitions because people with ambiguous body parts exist. You cannot get more "scientific" than that...
@@andreasrumpf9012 That's just common sense. She's 100% correct about it, too. Sport has always been about having genetic unfairness lead the way to victory.
Talking about things that only need a functioning brain doesn't make her a "hack". You're just idiots who had their ideologies touched and are offended about it. Get lost.
You should flip your profile picture so that you appear sad on the outside, and on the inside, well...
Thanks Sabine. I've been trying to nail this down for quite a while without any success. The story keeps changing over time and with different people explaining. It's nice to know that it's not me.
I am just curious. Other than Big Bang, is there any imaginative hypothesis to explain the redshift of Universe?
There's the idea of "tired light" (Google will tell you more)
Yep. Something called "tired photons hypothesis" or something like that.
Tired light is better explained as time dilation.
@@SabineHossenfelder Sabine, i Love your videoes! I have a question for you:
Is it impossible that the gravity we are affected by from sagitarius, could explain the redshift we are observing from objects outside our galaxy cluster? That everything isnt traveling away from us, but that its an effect of being trapped by our own black hole? Im not a physicist, and I realize Im probably provably wrong, but I would love to hear your perspective on this and why It might be wrong.
Thanks
@@SabineHossenfelder (we want you to do a video about it)
Yes, because "The Express" is a reliable source of information 🙃
Super reliable LOL !
Right up there with the New York Post and the National Enquirer.
especially about the weather/'extreme climate events'
it's acid rain all over europe today. i just checked
How long do you think it'll be before the article "What did Princess Diana think about Eternal Inflation Theory?"
Well, not quite as good as Daily Fail...
"According to this theory, out universe is created in a quantum fluctuation in a field called the inflaton." OK, give me a few years to chew that over....
"In the beginning there was nothing, then it blew up"
You ain't supposed to eat the theory! Have a Macdonald's Sir! ❤
Very clear explanation with examples without unnecessary complications, thank you Sabina
THIS IS ONE EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT WOMAN,,,,KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK SABINE !!!!!
I love how she properly writes sponsors into the video script, almost as rare on UA-cam as her honesty
Absolutely. And I think endorsements like these should be far more expensive for those purchasing the ads because they're just so much more effective.
One of my favorite Brian Cox quotes (at least I think it was him) is “Nothing doesn’t like to exist.” (in response to the question of why is there something instead of nothing).
What does a rock dream of?
If nothing existed, it would in fact be something by virtue of existing.
You’re welcome for the bit of sophistry.
"Something" won the coin flip. Metaphysically.
It's the natural curve evolution to shear entropic radiation resonation waves. We know literally everything in the universe has it's paradoxical opposition. The fact that we can make any choice or have distinction between inverse properties.. entropy wants our disorder to permeate and refract into nitrogen jello or plasma without thermodynamics.. but we are here, partially aware of this, evolving everything scope to human existence towards curving our destruction. We are the natural evolution of resonation currents trying to shear the radiation waves they needle cast to phase vibrate through. Just think of the universe as a neutrino ocean and pay attention to fluid mechanics/dynamics.. curvature into spheres is the perfect inverse skirting of resonation pressure attempting to squeeze things into diffraction after loosing their coupling, entanglement, attraction forces/reactions. Because they weave through paradoxical sets in a looped system.. it can only expand to evolve together in Ying yang transference across turbulent exchange into strange attraction. So like the train in the movie "the core" .. no matter how much energy pours in or how much one side jumps to gain relative to the other.. they refraction and bifurcate waves and vertices, Vortex and supernova, fusion and resonation pulsation field coupling to only strengthen eachother. Over a Lorenz strange exchange and paradoxical flips
@skipper2285 naw the opposite. Look up strange attraction and the von Karman Vortex streets. Dynamical systems mean they ebb n flow but any gain diffracts into resonation harmony in Ying yang over paradoxical flip. It's why we are/everything is expanding
1:08 - Why is it considered a singularity??? If the matter is spread homogeneously throughout space (even though very dense) the gradient of the gravitational potential should be small, as well as the curvature of space-time, so no singularity should be present. Please explain.
“Well, that’s no fun!” Is the thought before every physics theory.
And every physics test I've taken.
They have fun at our expense, having to learn it and take tests about it as though it's serious science. When their theories are proven wrong, we don't get a single apology for being jerked around!
"Well, that's no fun!" Is the thought before every tax season knowing they fund garbage like this instead of things to actually improve conditions for people.
The phone should have rung in the first 10 seconds. 😂
Yes!! What has happened to the phone ☎️????!!!!!
@@annecarter5181 Should have been, "Hello, yes Brian, yes, yes, yes, yes, uhuh, uhuh" 🤣
"Hello, this is God I want my universe back."
@@annecarter5181 Sabine said it's been hard to integrate phone calls into the daily news format. It rang once when Elon Musk called.
Over the past year I've noticed a disturbing trend on UA-cam; videos are being put out which appear to be essentially clickbait. The title will include some prominent name (Cox, Musk et. al.) and the content is revealed to be a miasma of speculation, pseudo-scientific nonsense and often with only a brief mention of the headline act. My wife watched one yesterday on Oumuamua which was total rubbish - I heard every word while doing a crossword in another room. I also think some of this stuff is being generated by an AI and I think that particular one was one of them. Point is, one needs to hone one's b.s. detector these days. I now ignore videos which I can readily identify as garbage.
Great video with plausible information, thank you. TS
Great video! Keep up the good work. Also, Babbel only has 14 languages available at the moment :(
Babel And it's about 70 .
If you’re going to Paris, can I suggest you memorise; ‘Excusez-moi, pouvez-vous déplacer votre tracteur’, you may need it!
Thank you. I’m not scientific, but I enjoy listening to you.
I think "Scientific" is a direction - not a state of being.
Don't forget we are all made of stars! :)
no, i am scientific and i know what he's talking about @@DeclanMBrennan
sorry to say but if you boil a kettle at all you're a scientist. cooking is science and i don't mean domestic science i mean actual science, you conduct an experiment and if you're lucky you get dinner out of it. you are an artist too, if you can make a mark you're an artist - don't ever exclude yourself from the human race. we are all journalists too - check out the first amendment.
@@DeclanMBrennan boiling a kettle is literally doing science. it just takes longer with a bunsen burner.
I am glad Dr Hossenflelder and her team, are here to put things in perspective. We just don't know, a refreshing disclosure. However that is no reason not to come up with alternatives and theories, which Dr Hossenfelder mentions.
As soon as I saw that the headline was from The Express I knew where this was going 😉
I love the way the analogy of the water drop was used, where the drop tapers to infinity, yet the actual source, the tap, is in plain sight. 🤣
I think she said the tube of water doesnt become infinitely thin because quantum mechanics trumps fluid dynamics.
@@deltalima6703 My point was the source of the water drop... the tap.
To my understanding the analogy, implies that we are living in a universe that dripped off of something, and we'll never know of what ...
@@stefaandondeyne Agreed... maybe there was a source, but we can only see as far as the single point where it was launched.
what is this meant to mean, it's an analogy for singularities not the universe. And the tap just moves water from one place to another so what does that imply. huh
Well, part of the problem is that 'Big Bang' is a terrible name. At best, it was a super tiny event and there was no 'bang' because there is no air in space. Also, the theory doesn’t adequately explain certain aspects. Why 'Big'? How did the 'Bang' happen? It's like naming a theory 'apple theorem' and then discussing orange juice. Moreover, what kind of theory requires adding 95% of unknown substances to make it work? That's a 20-fold error. It's akin to a child claiming to have two PHDs after the first year of school (the additional 19 being 'dark education'). So, rightfully, people question if the theory's name is wrong, what else could be? If you need to add (fake it to make it ) 95% material to fit observations, it's not science; it's prophecy.That's exactly it. This is precisely why a Priest read the Bible and formulated the Big Bang theory. Just like other observations, such as everything appearing to orbit around us, leading to the belief that we are at the center of the universe.. It's astonishing that people still refer to observations as facts, much like those who claim the Earth is flat because, based on limited observations, the horizon appears flat. The Big Bang theorists are, at best, like divorce scientists who conclude the main reason for divorce is marriage based on observations alone. Without mathematics, it's not science; it's philosophical speculation. Mathematics clearly shows that 5 does not equal 100, and it's time to abandon such religious-like beliefs and seek better theories.
The problem is, we don't really have any data on the time around the supposed 'Big Bang'. It's like an impenetrable wall for our observations, because the Universe was really different back then. So, any hypotheses are just that - hypotheses.
Was that correct: 0:33
1. we observe universe expanding
2. we use GR equations
...and conclude that there was a big bang
Is that really correct as I understand the expansion is not fitting the GR equations (why we have to invent dark energy).
Is it not more correct:
1. we observe universe expanding
Rolling back this expansion brings us to every close to each other, apply GR to this state and we find there should be a singularity.
For the role back we don't really need GR, just assume we can reverse the motion we see to understand the state we came from.
Sabine, I have not understood why you say that eternal inflation must also have had a beginning at some finite time in the past. My understanding of this theory is quite limited, but what I get is that it should, on large scales (much larger than any individual universes), more or less resemble a de Sitter model (spatially flat with Omega_Lambda = 1). Under these conditions the expansion law is a pure and simple exponential, it does not admit any beginning or singularity and more in general there is nothing special about any point in time.
"We don't know." So much more satisfying than, "Your question has no meaning," which I have heard supposed experts say.
I am sure that refers to asking "what happened before time?", which has no meaning. It's like asking what is at 91 degrees north. It's beyond the scale, and so the question has no meaning.
To ask what is outside space-time may be such a question. Saying you don't know is also a good answer, but there are a lot of examples of meaningless questions that include an impossible premise for example.
Questions only have no meaning if they are obviously self-answering.
Some questions have inherent assumptions built into them. Examples of such questions that are NOT meaningless include leading and loaded questions. Other times, the bult-in assumption simply makes no sense. "How many angles can fit on the head of a pin?" depends on if an angel occupies a finite amount of physical space and, if so, how large a head of a pin really is in comparison (do we take a statistical average all pins in the world?)
Just because a question is meaningless doesn't mean it can't have any value. "What is the sound of 1 hand clapping?" is a well known *koan*, used in Zen Buddhism to challenge rational thought.
@@LiveFreeOrDieDH Single handed clapping is possible, by whipping the four non-thumb fingers around so they slap the palm hard enough to make a sound. It sounds like two-handed clapping done by someone who has only barely learned to do so: weak and irregular. Anyway, I hope this doesn't ruin Zen Buddhism ;)
@@Antares2 Well, time's a funny one. Either it's infinite in both directions, or has a "start" or an "end". But for time to "start" is a pretty weird notion. And I don't blame anybody who'd ask what happened before the "start" of time. I mean, "start of time" is circular, as far as I can tell.
1:40 I've never before heard anyone explain the big bang using this equation before, that's great
also water drop example!
Thanks!
I DO think that Brian Cox did say something wrong. He presented an unprovable or disprovable theory in far stronger terms than is warranted. And this is a MAJOR problem in science, and it is often the scientists themselves who are overstating their claims in order to gain attention/funding. This happens all the time in origin of life research, but I see this trend across many fields. It is rarely (if ever) presented to the public as “here’s one possibility of what may have happened, but we just don’t know.” It is presented as “1.3 trillion years ago, X, Y, and Z HAPPENED.”
A few years back I commented on a video regarding a similar topic and said that from what I can observe, everything around us is some sort of oscillation or waveform. So why shouldn't what we call universe be a cyclic expansion and collapse? I got laughed at and I still can't explain why I think that other than my observations of daily life.
There is some that think that theory is one of the explanations, they call it the big crunch when it contracts. And if people laugh of that they are just idiots...
But as it is now parts of the universe we can observe is moving away from us and is already moving away faster then light speed can cover the distance and it is lost for us forever (that is called the particle horizon). So for now it seems that this universe we live in will not be able to contract ever again.
The latest observations suggest that it is likely that the universe will eventually contract.
Philosophical intuition and logic tells me the same thing as it tells you, but experimental evidence is needed.
What is expected is that the dimensions can only be those that we observe since they are an abstraction of the orthogonal directions from a point, from that reasoning and knowing that nothing can arise from absolute nothing, what can be deduced is that space-time has always existed and will always exist, with local Big Bounce cycles probably.
I am of the opinion that what we call the Big Bang can be described as a white hole and what we call the Big Crunch can be described as the maximum density black hole that is incapable of further curving space and undergoes a transition towards a new white hole, or Big Bang.
Search up Conformal Cyclic Cosmology
It's not at all a new idea, the Hindu idea of the "days and nights" of Brahma goes back thousands of years
of all the theories for what happened before the big bang, eternal inflation is the most pleasing to my brain. Would be interesting to know if it could ever be verified through observation?
I believe there is a certain type of polarization in the CMB, B mode that if detected would make inflation more likely and rule out alternative theories such as the cyclic models.
Eternal Inflation is eternal into the future, but presumably finite into the past. That's why Sabine said the Eternal Inflation multiverse had a beginning at a finite time in the past.
Oh yes, a very useful phrase in French. "Excuse me, what is the age of the Universe?" LOL
There's no explaining the dream while you're still in it, kid.
?
Oh, thanks for the reminder. Keep forgetting that
But often we know we are in a dream
I've always liked the comparison of "asking what was before the big bang is like asking what's north of the north pole." It might not be right if there's all these theories out there about what came before, but I think it gets you in the right mindset to think about time and space as intrinsically connected. There's all sorts of interesting questions that come out of it, like how do you build a frame of reference that doesn't consist of space or time? What is the universe expanding into? Does that question even make sense? Mind boggling stuff to think about and it's kind of amazing that us pink meat apes can even begin to think about it.
Yes I remember a physics teacher saying the universe is only expanding in our 3D world and contracting in a higher dimension, I'm not really qualified to know if that makes sense either,just his theory I suppose
The only thing that detracts from this video is the obnoxious set of the compulsive, obsessive hustle culture's sales ads which limit the universe to how can I jack off for money in my little microcosm.
That’s because we are not just “pink meat apes” that just stumbled on fire and electricity by accident, our consciousness is also not generated by our brains rather a receiver, that’s why we can even ask such questions. I doubt that “animated matter” with chemical reactions(which is what we are portrayed as being) can think such mind melting topics especially when this gets mixed with theology( btw theology and science are both asking the same questions just in a different was like 2 different sides of the same coin)
@@Jack-r2v9b I'd be lying if I said I understood it any better but to me that explanation falls under the "push it up the chain" category that Sabine was talking about. If there's a higher dimension then where did that come from? How can it contract if it doesn't also have some dimension that represents time or space?
It's mind boggling, the more I think about it the less sense it makes. Clearly "Something Happened," and we're all here today, but the idea of "Something Happening" without time or space existing doesn't make any sense, let alone "everything happening all at once."
Who needs to quote Brian Cox out of context when thinking about the reality is enough to destroy my brain...
Before big bang there was small atomic universe which expanded to our current universe which cooled down now we have Earth habitable planet
I would like to hear Sabine's thoughts on Pernrose' cyclic conformal universe.
She already made a video about that
ua-cam.com/video/Jl-iyuSw9KM/v-deo.htmlsi=EGnAHFNlEA9Ai2KB
She already made a video about that:
ua-cam.com/video/Jl-iyuSw9KM/v-deo.htmlsi=iidqb3WdhQaAKkkq
I would guess pretty much what she also says here about eternal inflation: we don't know. Interesting theory that we haven't proven wrong - which you can say about just about any of the early universe/before it theories, because we just don't have any data to speak of.
She already made a very good video about that:
ua-cam.com/video/Jl-iyuSw9KM/v-deo.htmlsi=Of1tvfR2zLUe5vQy
ua-cam.com/video/Jl-iyuSw9KM/v-deo.htmlsi=Of1tvfR2zLUe5vQy
wonderfully clear explanation, thank you
"infinitely lame"
i can't stop laughing!!!
Very interesting Sabine. A quick question: As space expands into the universe, could there be galaxies that are so far away from us, so their light would never reach us?
I'n not Sabine, but i can answer that. The answer is yes. There is a limit on how far away we can see, because the speed of expansion becomes faster than the speed of light after a certain point. That's not in contradiction with general relativity because nothing (i.e., matter and energy) is moving faster than the speed of light in their own frames of reference. The set of all things we can see is called the observable universe: it's a sphere of 45.7 billion light-years radius centered on us (of course, if there are alien astronomers in another place of the universe, their observable universe would be also centered on them)
@@juanausensi499 that's just the maximum rendering volume of the Universe's engine for a single instance of a game, they'll patch it at some point, at least Will Wright said so... 😂 Jokes a side, such a fascinating concept, thanks for explaining, and yes i think our unjverse its basically Spore's videogame server, every intelligent species is a different run of the game, and no one will convince me otherwise. 😂
Brian Cox has this air of mysticism that really, really made me appreciate UA-cam and the regular scientists communicating on there.
Telling everyone how full of shit he is.
An air of mysticism? He looks like the epitome of a nerd... If that is your air, you can find it easily near any university.
Some small energy ya got friend!@@ozymandiasultor9480
@@ozymandiasultor9480 Nah, I agree with Fjord. The problem is these long form documentaries where he has to travel to India and Egypt (using Orientalist type tropes) or South America where he writes in the sand, spending tens of thousands on their production budget, when he could have stood with a blackboard behind him and said more in two minutes than in the entire 45 minute show.
Oh come on. This reminds me of some historians going on amazon trashing a popular science history book.
Cox makes these programs for the masses and people like me have learned a great deal from him and enjoyed doing so. If you want more, there's other sources, but for most people Cox will do just fine and it should be shown on TV regularly.
Some difficult, but interesting theories to ponder. Humans may never completely understand many ideas. Worthwhile to search, investigate, & discuss. Artists’ “renderings” of complex theories often very entertaining & imaginative.
Of course there was a "before" before the big bang, another one in fact, even larger. The Rolling Stones said so with their "Bigger Bang" album, and everyone knows those guys predate the universe by far.
I love Brian Cox, he was amazing in Succession! 😜
You should see Stella Cox, she has a lot of movies.
Sure, but he knows almost nothing about astrophysics...I mean that iteration of Brian Cox, the old dude from Succession.
Oh, and in Oppenheimer!
@@fredrik241 haven't watched Oppenheimer yet, does he play the bomb?
@@synystera no, the warheads got together and signed a petition complaining he would make them look small.
My theory: Before the universe, there was Nothing... and then Chuck Norris roundhouse-kicked Nothing in the face and told it to get a job.
Gold nunya!
Hey Sabine, that part you said about singularity arises because we assume space to be smooth and not discrete??? Yeah... that's kinda what Stephen Wolfram has illustrated for us quite elegantly with his method of quantizing space using hypergraphs. He's onto something that turn-of-the-century physicists all assumed to be true (but didn't have the tools to probe).
Her seamless merging into the sponsored content always impressed me.
I love watching Sabine and her humour cracks me up!
Yes, esp when she said "infinitely slow bang...infinitely lame."
To correct you on a point Sabine: Since we don't know what happened before the big bang (if there was one), we also don't know if it is connected to us.
Half true. Yes, it might have determined a lot of the matter or energy that went into "our" big bang, but she was clearly referring to it from a physics calculation standpoint where it would be 100% impossible to determine what there was before because of the singularity status of the event itself.
@@StevXtreme Thank you for your thoughts. I maintain my stance, noting that our understanding of singularities, like that at the Big Bang, is limited by the current framework of mathematics, which breaks down under such extreme conditions. This limitation echoes historical shifts in scientific understanding, akin to Newton inventing calculus for previously unsolvable problems. Hence, while it's a plausible hypothesis that pre-Big Bang conditions are unconnected to our universe, as per Sabine Hossenfelder's statement, it's important to remember that scientific and mathematical advancements could potentially unveil new connections. Asserting a categorical disconnection, given our evolving comprehension, might be somewhat premature.
@@goodlookinouthomie1757 Just because it appears to make logical sense doesn't mean it's correct. Also, I still react negatively to the word "before", as it implies the passage of time, but as time is a direct property of the universe itself it may not make any sense. Maybe there's another form of "time" that exists outside time, but good luck proving that.
@@goodlookinouthomie1757 Once again, it makes logical sense, but isn't necessarily correct.
You are describing a temporal event; going from non-existence to existence. This change of state would appear to require the passing of time, no matter how miniscule... but how can anything "happen" when time doesn't exist "yet".
Any verb you choose to describe this... event or... thing.... necessitates the passage of time, yet it also had to be the cause of time.
Our language simply doesn't cover the concept of non-spacetime or a situation where time and space doesn't exist.
The absence of time and space is truly "nothing".
As inhabitants of the four-dimensional (that we know of) spacetime, we have no way of detecting anything outside it or knowing if there "is" anything outside it.
The phrase "before time" goes against the very definition of "time".
I am not saying that there is nothing outside of spacetime, but we have absolutely no way of telling... at all.
So making any assumptions about the nature of "beyond spacetime", the cause, lack of cause of our spacetime is purely speculation.
Even if you manage to prove some kind of "super-universe" beyond ours where our spacetime is just another "bubble" in it and they have their own kind of "time" that lets universes like ours pop into existence, it still doesn't explain the how or why. Nor does it explain the origin of that super-universe or multiverse, so you've just moved the question to the next level.
Maybe our universe is eternal in the way that time passed infinitely slow in the beginning. Seen from us, it happened 13.8 billion years ago, but if you could travel back in time, you would never 100% reach the "beginning" of time. Or maybe not, nobody knows.
Hearing Sabine speak French with German and English accent at the same time... C'est incroyable. Danke, Frau Hossenfelder, YMMD! Célestin
😂❤😉
In one of the Dr Who audio plays the Big Bang was simply a misfire of an alien spaceship firing up its engines creating our universe.
Seems more likely than the singularity
Goofy piece of writing, that.
@@BalBurghit's Doctor Who. That's a requirement, lol! After all, one of the 5th Doctor's stories (the one where Adric died, for Whovian timeline clarity) had a spaceship crash into the Earth, about... 65 or so mya. Not that pesky asteroid that left the big hole in the Yucatan about that time that got such a bad rap. 😂
City of Death? Mysterious link with Sabine learning französich, eh?
That's really stupid
We can’t know. Our brains are amazing but they’re finite and limited. Is it hard to imagine that there’s stuff we can’t know?
You're generally right, there's probably some complexities that we will probably never comprehend, but i believe that the creation of the universe isn't one of those things. The main issue isn't a limitation of our brains but a limitation of access to data. We'll probably never know how the universe came to be because either that information just doesn't exist or is completely unattainable. However, I'm open to being surprised by future scientists.
@@skorpiongod
It is impossible for the question 'What was there before the creation of universe' to be proven or discovered by science in any ways, this is literally a extremely hard limitation. It is a hard limitation simply because even if we HAD the data about what came before the big bang (for example), the question "and what came before that" would still be open, and we know that we don't have any ways to have so any response to these questions would turn to be metaphysical, either by God or by some god scientists believe in (like "eternal existence" or "the static universe").
@diadetediotedio6918 the hard limitation is access to the information. I just dont believe creation is beyond our comprehension, just beyond our ability to know for certain.
@@skorpiongod
Bro, I literally argued to you why information is not the problem, it is literally an impossible problem that requires , and this also turns to be a metaphysical problem.
@@diadetediotedio6918 okay
"Take a super simple example of a singularity". No, I don't think I will. Not with my brain.
The singularity, is when your equation says you have to divide by zero to get your answer.
We did not invent all this. We did not cause the “big bang”. Thus I surmise that there is a before the Big Bang and that it was not to nice, that is there was much disagreement & turmoil. What brought about order, authority and thus the need for some to go into separation (the big bang) was the discovery of the Power that over rules all other power. Now this new Power is not what we think of as power, we as humans think of power as that which makes others do things.
This new Power invites us to do particular things. Yet there is no force to back this up. There is the reasoning that doing what we are invited to do leads to harmony among all while choosing to not do as invited leaves us in an ostracized position. Re-stated; we did not do what was best for all and a particular situation thus we did not exhibit concern for all. This puts us, those who choose to not do the invited action, on the outside.
Wait this is prior to the Big Bang, there is no outside.
Well bang! There it is and doing the wrong thing lands you there.
I hate the fact a lot of people still think that the bing bang is a theory of origin (people think the same way of evolution). And then most of them get frustrated at the answer "we don't know."
Well really don't know, and that is really frustrating.
Why is it frustrating?@@p.bckman2997
Biology isn't falling apart unlike physics though. Evolution is really hard to disprove when we we have been able to observe it happening in the past hundred years.
I think it's ironic how people accuse scientists of thinking they know everything, then get upset when scientists say they don't know everything.
This kind of answer can´t be used do trample old moral dogmas when you want create a whole new political system though
Translation : all the time and money and work spent and we still know sh*t
Wouldn’t it throw a great spanner in the works if it turns out Red Shift can’t be relied upon to determine relative velocity? Then we’d find out what happens after The Big Bang.
The redshift can't be used to determine relative velocity unless you assume that time dilation is either negligible or non-existent... The minute time dilation occurs, you can't really say anything about the relative velocity. You can however still say something about the relative velocity time coupling... Which is a distance.
@@Unmannedair that was helpful.
@@Unmannedair what if the Red Shift doesn’t have much to do with Doppler
@@abighairyspider maybe the "dark matter" has a light shifting property.... (No i have not thought this through)
@@abighairyspiderI‘m not sure if doppler effect is the precise terminology here, since it relates to a source of waves that travels itself with a velocity reasonably close to the velocity of the propagating wavefront.
1. Redshift is not caused by a moving source, rather by expansion of the propagating medium (Space itself).
2. Light travels at c for All observers, even for an observer travelling at 99% of speed of light from your point of reference (relativity)
Most speculations about natural history in the natural sciences depend on philosophical naturalism. If you assume only natural processes are responsible for everything that exists whether biological or cosmological, then this has to be true for any speculations to give an answer. Actually it is impossible to figure out how the universe was created, we don't know.
My dad was a very intelligent fellow. His mind was well beyond his education and he often got a huge amount of disrespect from well educated idiots. (Yes. I'm bitter.)
One day I told him that I figured out what came in the moments before 'The Big Bang.'
'The Big Click'
My best explanation as a teenager right into the birds and bees was "When a mommy universe and a daddy universe really love each other...."
He`s saying that Quantum Fields ALREADY existed? That would mean that the universe and it`s laws already existed and always did......
Isn't there a distinction between quantum physics and those of our macro universe?
@@user-gs4oi1fm4l
Nah, the distinction is more abstract than concrete, we know for sure that they are intrinsically connected because macro objects can have what we call quantum phenomena (like superfluids or superconductors).
No, not our universe. Maybe time is a property our spacetime universe has, but the field from which it emerged has not (it might not even have space as it seems to be bound to time). Then any question of before, beginning, end, eternity etc. were indeed meaningless.
what kind of psychedelics do cosmologists recommend.?
Learning. One of the strongest, but not all have the patience or ability to ingest that psychedelic.
NERRRRRRD
The one Brian Cox uses regularly. It won't make you smarter, but it'll make your mundane existence a darn sight more colorful. 😂
@@fenceyhen4249 Oh, a nice compliment.
Want better than a photo of the Mandelbrot set? Must be greedy!
So what happened before there was a before? (time). What?
That clip of Brian Cox sounds like an editing mistake, since there is a long pause between voice lines. Someone at the BBC probably took a clip of Brian Cox saying "the Big Bang" from some other context, then threw it at the end of the pretty graphics because they thought it would sound good.
That's just the normal timing one would use saying that sentence in that context. It's a simple dramatic effect. No reason to speculate about editing mistakes, in my opinion.
@@freyc1the BBC is an incompetent institution so it's not past the realm of possibility
Anything in the Daily Express should be regarded with deep suspicion, or dismissed immediately.
I am not a physicist and my mind boggles at the complexity of it that it takes years of thinking to even grasp it. That said, the big bang seemed so off and childlike to me when I first heard it explained. I think that the divide line of science/religion will have to be combined to proceed forward. As a child I played D&D and no one ever wanted to play the cleric and so I took the mantle and made it to the point of being kool to be the hybrid priest/fighter within my group. Instead now though it will be a priest/scientist character
I'm studying for a physics degree at the moment.
I do have to admit that a lot of theories of creation require homogeneous (omnipresent), inviolable (~omnipotent) laws of nature that exist outside of time.
What exactly were the hairless apes making fun of the other hairless apes for believing in again? A higher purpose or something not backed by data?
Who explained it to you? Anyone can make anything sound stupid, particularly by misrepresenting it.
@@jeschinstad because we grew up with God and the universe being infinite. Suddenly theirs a TV show called.....wait for it....the big bang theory and then I looked into it and found what I felt was just ideas thrown out of crazy people. Now I do know a lot of thought went into this idea and even the math kinda pointed to this as it might be true....but just a gut feeling it was way off. It was created by people who cant accept a higher power. Like with quantum science and how scientists are baffled by the conscious mind of the observer controlling the outcome. To me its simply God controlling us by making the next step in evolution of our species a major hurdle....like when I devised a new lock to keep my hamster in its cage and woke up to find the dam creature somehow figured it out and escaped.
@@matthewrayner571 exactly....I think I agree with you but words can sometimes be misconstrued.
How did the "universe" get there in which this Big Bang happened? How did the "before" even get there? How can a universe "begin" unless there was "space" in which it can happen? So how did "space" in which this expansion get there? That is the work: not what happened before the Big Bang but how a place for anything to happen got there.
Was it Eddington who said, "Something unknown is doing we don't know what."?
Meanwhile the guy with the controller pad running our Universe simulation is watching all this and laughing into his beard...
Agreed Georg
The universe isn't a fucking simulation
"Speculation in the absence of data is a capital mistake." Conan Doyle, through Sherlock Holmes.
Brilliant paraphrasing of complex ideas for the interested lay person... The analogy of a drop of water splitting from the surface of water in a tap was really helpful. Thanks!