What’s Wrong With the Big Bang Theory? | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 бер 2016
- There's a problem with the Big Bang Theory.
Get your own Space Time t-shirt at bit.ly/1QlzoBi
Tweet at us! @pbsspacetime
Facebook: pbsspacetime
Email us! pbsspacetime [at] gmail [dot] com
Comment on Reddit: / pbsspacetime
Support us on Patreon! / pbsspacetime
Help translate our videos! ua-cam.com/users/timedtext_cs_p...
Now that we have a primer on the aspects of the Big Bang Theory that we know definitely happened, let’s look further into what we don’t yet know, and how the theory could progress in the future. Since there is a discrepancy between general relativity and quantum mechanics, we continue to search for a grand unifying theory... one which may finally lead to a description of the actual moment of the Big Bang! On this week's Space Time, Matt describes what specifically needs fixing within the current theory, and the reasons why.
FURTHER READING:
Electroweak Era
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro...
_____________________
COMMENTS:
ElectroMechaCat
• Why the Big Bang Defin...
Kalakashi
• Why the Big Bang Defin...
James Beech
• Why the Big Bang Defin...
______________________
Written and hosted by Matt O’Dowd
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbrown.com)
Can we just take a minute to appreciate the graphic artists and all the work they put into making these episodes so visually beautiful?
Brandon Duncan No, I refuse to do so.
too bad it's all made from a make believe.
@@pharos670 then who made the universe?
No
@@pharos670 I bet youre a real delight.
I know what happened before the Big Bang.
Somebody yelled “DON’T TOUCH THA...”
God said let there be light.
*Does anyone here realise that this video is more of a justification for the big-bang theory than a presentation of arguments against it?*
"What does this botton do?" 😂
@@adrianc3932 It is vary oveaise.
@@adrianc3932 I think the title is supposed to be interpreted as "What does the Big Bang Theory still have to work out."
My main problem with it, is that damn laugh track.
Jesus is King
@@unstoppablegames-everythin5014 go away
*laugh track plays
B E N G H A Z I
Well, no. They actually had a live audience.
I like to hear these words that I can't imagine nor understand. it helps me sleep faster.
Don't say that..
You are reflecting as though all of it is boring. Just try to find the meaning of these words. When you dig down deep in them you would find the real fun.
And then you would not need these words to help you sleep but u would need them to add facination in your everyday life
Note: I don't want you to have insomnia though 😂
You don't understand it because big bang is non sense. It's just some idiots silly idea.
I once dreamed that billions of protons were wizzing about my brain. A very large contingent of electrons
sort of ambushed them to form a dense hydrogen fog. Man alive, the boo that I'd had last night was strong!
these guys know what happened in the first sextillionth second of the universe, meanwhile i dont remember what i had for breakfast this morning
+NLPatatGames You probably had the same thing I had: an arrangement of atoms toasted to perfection in supernova explosions, with a light sprinkling of hydrogen from the first second of cosmic time for flavour. And coffee.
+PBS Space Time I had work for breakfast.
lol nice one
+NLPatatGames "Know!" Golly- it's all pure theory with absolutely no empirical evidence.
Modern gravitational cosmology is a fraud.
+Ethan Kunz o shit im dumb af. i thought you said no evidence. sry lol 😂
I'll tell you what's wrong with big bang theory. they should've stopped after season 6. now it just sucks.
David Lynch lol
Galva Tron every Galaxy had a Big Bang,it's the only logical thing...I have been saying that since I was a boy!
So true...
David Lynch YOWZA!
watch the ricky gervais laughter track played instead of their "studio audience" it killed it
I love how they acknowledge what they don't yet know. And make everything more interesting doing so.
Yet it is taught as absolute truth, even when slipping in words like "we think" or "it is believed."
That's a strange way to put it. The work of scientists doesn't just _acknowledge_ what they don't know, it's almost entirely concerned with what they don't know.
@@thomashemingson2639 huh?
True scientists do not state anything as absolute fact. On the other hand, scientific journalists are not so careful. Global warming being political is a good example.
@@user-nu2it6kf2m if you seriously ask huh after watching this guy say “absolutely know” “are sure” “certain” etc etc, I’m not sure how genuine you are.
On a working class, state institution, govt ran education level… it absolutely IS taught as truth. And to question it is anti-science.
You may be reading journals and research. But that doesn’t represent what the majority populace takes in.
One thing’s for sure. Astronomy will not look the same 100 years in the future.
More like 5 billion years in the future. The next 100 years nothing much will change
ua-cam.com/video/Y969fUR_Vtg/v-deo.html
I feel like they'll be repeating the same things and writing the same books over and over.
the biggest problem I have with the big bang theory is that the characters undergo zero development throughout the series
😂😂
If anything they have negative development, or development that makes no sense for their character.
stop watching it people. Then it will stop
lol
And it's sexist.
If I ever start feeling smart, I just come to this channel. Five minutes in I'm guaranteed to feel like Patrick Star.
I usually come in feeling like Stephen Hawking, but leave feeling like Ray Comfort.
No your stupid duh
lol I hear ya. I had to google Patrick Star. Step one to fixing this is maybe dedicate less time to cartoons. ;)
The best con artists make the idiots they fool feel smart
But did you realise while warching that this video is actually more of a justification for the big-bang theory than a presentation of arguments against it? i bet you were too busy thinking how smart you are getting since you started watching such a fascinating channel and how much more smart you'll be after this video ends
The more we learn, the more mysterious things get.
The more faith it requires.
I disagree.
The less we learn, the stupider we get. This whole 'big bang' idea is a Catholic priest's proto-scientific version of the the book of Genesis, where the 'big bang' is God saying 'let there be light'. His name was George Lameitre. In fact, the Hubble XDF photographed galaxies just like local galaxies 50 billion light years away. There was no big bang. Until this is generally accepted, the ideas and math created to suit big bang theory will keep getting stupider and stupider and the people learning big bang theory will be getting stupider, too.
@@jameso1447 explain the redshift
@@ellistomago3369 It is imaginary. There is no real or empiracle evidence of it.
The concept is based on the idea that all galaxies are white. They're not. Since they're not all white, we cannot judge their distance based on their color. Hubble's Law does not work at all unless all galaxies are white.
But there are blue galaxies. Hubble's law says they are coming right at us. They're not. So astrophysicists claim that galaxies are different temperatures than each other so they can get different colors. That means that they can make any galaxy go any speed just by changing its temperature. They're making everything up when they do that. It's all fiction. Hubble's law is fiction.
The biggest question is what is space (or spacetime if you prefer). Gravity is an attribute of space - space is warped by massive objects, which essentially means that distance (or space if you prefer) is malleable, causing the same distance to be a different distance closer to a massive object than farther from the massive object (if whatever is time can slow or speed, why cannot whatever is space shrink or grow). Distance is a measure of how far apart objects are, but what if that distance is dependent on the state of space between them? You can move objects closer together by moving them closer together, or by leaving them unchanged and changing the state of space between them (Dune's travelling without moving).
This difference in distance (or warping) causes the effect (or force) of gravity - all things flow down the slope of warped space, which explains why things of different mass, are effected by gravity in the same way (both items are falling down the same slope). This difference in the state of space (or distance) explains gravitational lensing and the detection of gravitational waves.
We always focus on "stuff" - the big bang starts with all the stuff being in a grain of sand (because "stuff" is what we experience and think about), but what we should be trying to understand is what is space. At the moment of the big bang, space did not exist - therefore there was no gravity, since gravity is an attribute of space, all the "stuff" being in a grain of sand did not cause any problems, because there was no "space" for all that "stuff" to be in and no gravity existed to cause a ginormous black hole. The big bang began when space came into existence, suddenly creating the conditions where "stuff" needed to be elsewhere. However, if space is just an empty void, how can it come into existence? IMO
Dang
Wait doesn't gravity have to exist before the big bang? Because what is holding all the "stuff" together in the grain of sand? Also instead of expanding into the universe why wouldn't it just become a big star? Isn't the scientific definition or understanding of how stars are created also just like this grain of sand the universe started from? You know a big cloud of gas forming a ball and it's own weight and internal gravitation force the cause of it "turning on"? Doesn't it take the super big stars to create heavier elements? So instead of saying everything came from a grain of sand size element that had all of the known universe in it just say it was a super massive star that exploded. The problem then would still be the same as now, where did the star come from, or in the case of the big bang where did the grain size thing come from?
@@benjaminharris6039 Hi Benjamin - thanks for responding - just so you know, I am an idiot that can't make my music composition software work right. However, in my opinion - space is the medium in which distance exists. Imagine a crowded harbor with boats all floating on the medium of water and suddenly take away the water and all the boats crash to the bottom into a pile together, because there is no medium to support them. That is my opinion of the initial reason for the infinitesmal speck of everything before the big bang - there was no medium to support distance. Everything did not want to be there, but there was no space in which it could exist-it could only exist in a speck of dust even though there was no gravity. The big bang happened when space come into existence and suddenly, distance and gravity existed, because gravity is an attribute of space. Without space means without gravity and without distance, therefor the tiny "grain of sand" had nowhere else it could be until space came into being.
By the way, this also explains the constant C (speed of light) and the double slit experiment. We are never taking into consideration that "space" is a "thing" that makes waves and is displaced by a photon.
@@paulneelon8343 that's a great analysis of everything. I would argue however, that because everything existed in this tiny grain that space did infact exist. It's the fact that there is something in the tiny grain that means there is space. How else would all that stuff exist. The stuff in the grain is made of matter so there would have had to have been space in order for it to have come into existence. And there is the same big problem again, how did all the stuff just all of a sudden form. So I'm saying you can't have all the stuff without space. Just like in your example where you take the water away and all the boats fall down and into each other does not and cannot explain how the boats got there to start with.
@@benjaminharris6039 sounds like you struggle with believing that proteins were formed by chance?
I'm 63, n I've been voraciously devouring science books since I was 27, and no one explains things as concisely, and beautifully as PBS Spacetime. Write a book!
I agree. Often popular physics books are too simplified with analogies, which leaves textbooks. This has the right amount of tech without the math.
+NeonsStyle Same here. It's great to see a science program that presents the real mysteries and limits of current theory.
+Jason Marcinski Absolutely
And then God said "yo Steve, would it be a good idea to microwave this?"
This is how the universe was born.
Lol.
Good one :D
possible lol
Hahah.
Microwave prank gone universal
Phenomenal job breaking this down. Thanks and keep up the good work.
Science doesn't believe in miracles. Time, energy, and matter being created in one nanosecond sounds like a miracle to me.
its incredible how much faith people have without even knowing it....
Well we believe in Einstein’s field equations yes? They explained Mercury’s orbit, the redshift of universes and lots others. If the Big Bang (or similar event) didn’t happen, then the theory of general relativity, which is a pillar of physics today, would be shattered.
Your level of explanation is perfect! I never realized the need for grand unification theory is exclusively applicable to a very specific time/space/temperature of the model. In all the other books I’ve read it’s explained more as of a desire for consensus among scientists as opposed to a demand at a specific spot in the model itself.
Grand unification does not exist. Grand unification will never exist. When you understand the fundamental paradoxes involved, that much is obvious. Anyone relying on either one of those theories is someone who will never report anything worthy of reporting - nothing worthy of the title 'scientific.'
@@jameso1447 Oh the irony; neither will working in absolutes.
@@skateboardingjesus4006 you just used an absolute. I’m confused
Best grand unification theory I've ever heard: Dark Matter, Missing planets by Tom Van Flandern.
I wish I could understand what he’s talking about. It sounds very interesting.
It's physics and astronomy. Two not so easy things to understand but when you do, it makes sense.
I was 17 when i fpund this channel, now i am 22 i now understand it, not 100% but certainly fair bit of it, like 90+ %
Till now, nobody on earth understands the fundamentals or how it comes, from nothing to something... they guess, but we simply don't know... so, no problem with not understanding...
@@PainfulRenegade Exactly. It's all just theoretical pseudoscience supported by other theories. They claim to "know" exactly what happened, but it is based on equations plus speculations. It may look good on paper, but that doesn't mean that's how it happened. In truth, the structure of everything in existence, even down to atoms, is too complex to just have happened by chance...
@@cltheman1960 by not knowing and understanding, i'm not claiming it can't happend by chance... with the rest of your comment i can do identify... cheers
Explained nicely, as always, and just like I like it. Good job. Respect. Always good to listen to you and get a daily dose of Physics ;)
The expansion of space is time. We are like a roller skate on a treadmill
I just love PBS space time.
Sometimes I get curious about stuff, but I can’t find information about them. And what turns out? Matt explains about them better than what I found out from my research.
Like in the electroweak force in this episode
Great video as usual.
As usual
As usual
As usual
Que?
Jo eh
When say that cosmic microwave background (CMB) was smooth, does that mean the temperature being within 1 / 100,000 part, or is something else being referred to?
I do not know why the scientists keep repeating that the universe was with the size of a golf ball or a sand particle, when this comparison as absolutely nonsensical. If you are hypothetically inside this golf ball it may look infinite to you. This is the entire universe and there is nothing to compare with.
I swear one sentence he sounds Aussie the next he sounds British the next he sounds American and the next Irish.
dem likes do
Lol idunno what country you're from but im from the UK and to me he never sounds English, American or Irish. Just sounds like am educated Aussie to me.
It's a known condition, called "variable accent syndrome". Stefan Molyneauoeiaeaux has it too.
That weird lady in "what the bleep do we know" had it in a special way.
He is an Australian.
well I'm not even English and I glad to understand all of them and not notice the difference xd
I'm Australian and he never sounds anything other than Australian to me...
Why didn't the Universe collapse into a black hole, if it was so dense and massive?
.
+yojimboe But as he said in the video, 400.000 years after hat messy second, the universe started to form atoms. So at that point it should have had mass in it. Which means gravity. And our whole observable universe compacted into space the size of a grain of sand. Take all that mass and energy and you got yourself a monstrous black hole. Why? Schwarzschild radius. Compress our earth into something the size of a peanut and a black hole will form, so at that point 400.000 years after the "big bang" a black hole SHOULD have formed.
Good question. It all started from a singularity, like a black hole. Except God decided to hit the rewind button for whatever reason. We call that the cosmological constant
+Jason Marcinski What's a god? Can I eat that?
He has explained it, but simply put black holes are due to extreme differences in density, not only mass concentration. It's not due to God.
PBS: “What is wrong with the Big Bang Theory?”
Me: “Umm, the 12th season?”
anything beyond say season 3. milking milking milking.
7 years too late, but thank you! your clear explanation + some previous Physics know-how means I understood what you were so beautifully explaining.
The 3 answers this video presents concerning the question of the video : *What's Wrong With the Big Bang Theory?*
*#1* 0:48 - 4:00 The Big Bang Theory is unable to describe what happened at the origin of the observable universe. Descriptions of the observable universe before 10 to the power of -32 of the first second are questionable because we cannot test those conditions (yet).
*#2* 4:00 - 4:45 The Big Bang Theory relies on speculation when describing the observable universe being as small (or smaller) as the Planck length within the first second. Why is it speculation? Because it might be impossible for anything to be as small (or smaller) as the Planck length. The length of a Planck length to the width of a human hair is the same as the width of a human hair is to the length of the observable universe.
*#3* 4:58 - 8:44 The Big Bang Theory cannot account for the uniform temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation throughout the observable universe due to the Horizon Problem. So the idea of Inflation was created in an attempt to explain this characteristic of the CMB temperature, but there is no evidence to support Inflation's existence in history. This is a problem.
✨ 🌟✨ 🌟✨ 🌟✨ 🌟✨ 🌟✨ 🌟 Below are 3 more things wrong with the Big Bang Theory found in this video : ua-cam.com/video/dbm3M9Bz4RE/v-deo.html
#4 Missing Magnetic Monopoles
The models used in supercomputers to figure out what happened during the Big Bang predict we should have Magnetic Monopoles everywhere in our universe, but we have never found one. A magnetic monopole is a hypothetical elementary particle that is an isolated magnet with only one magnetic pole (a north pole without a south pole or vice versa).
#5 The Flatness Problem
Space-time in our current observable universe is extremely flat. It has just a slight curve to it, but in a 14 billion year old universe that started from a single point this is theoretically impossible. A universe that's been expanding around 14 billion years will be completely flat or massively curved since any curvature deviation at the beginning will expand with the universe's expansion. It's the small difference in the initial conditions that can make a huge difference much further in time, yet the universe barely has any curvature.
#6 The Clumpiness Issue
The observable universe is fairly clumpy at the greatest scale. We can see clumps and filaments of galaxy clusters leaving giant voids of nothingness. When seen all together they resemble a massive sponge. We are told the universe went through an explosive beginning, but the clumpiness we see throughout the observable universe contradicts this. The models of the universe scientists use predicted the matter to be distributed more smoothly and evenly throughout the observable universe so the idea of dark matter was introduced in an attempt to explain this clumpiness, but we have no proof of any dark matter. This is a problem.
Here is a video where Alan Guth tries to explain how Inflation solves the problems of : the Horizon Problem, the Flatness Problem, and the Clumpiness Issue (without bringing in dark matter) ua-cam.com/video/LqHb1Z5Fm84/v-deo.html You'll see he mentions magnetic monopoles, but the host does not want him to discuss them.
🌟
@Bosco Brindle the greek gods make no sense, the most logical god is the god of the bible but that god and the creation story given with him do not match up with evolution and maybe even the big bang...
Bosco Brindle did i say the god of the bible is mine? no. did i say i haven’t researched other gods? no. did you ask for the research on other gods and their creation stories? no. so how about you stop making me seem ignorant thank you. as i stated, and this is obviously a subjective not objective opinion, of the mainstream religions i’ve researched the creation story of the bible makes the most sense and is the best thought out. muslims agree.
@Bosco Brindle The bible is the truth i can show you so many examples of how Christians can have wonders
@Bosco Brindle i don't have to research those other stories because i know that the biblical one is true
Bosco Brindle I’m pretty sure he’s just trolling you lol
The only problem with the Big Bang Theory is that no one tells us why it banged.
Ioannis Kazlaris there is no reason "why" space is random
Think again.
Ioannis Kazlaris
If it didn't happen you wouldn't be asking this, so you could say that it happened just for you to ask this question.
"If it didn't happen you wouldn't be asking this, so you could say that it happened just for you to ask this question."
This is the most ridiculous argument. That may be evidence that something occurred, but it does not in any way address the question at hand.
If it was highly compressed (which it wasn't), what caused the sudden release and expansion? Also, what overcame our existing natural laws and slowed all of this rapidly expanding matter and energy back down?
Existence has no obligation to us to give us a reason for anything. Unless there is some intelligent creator asking why is pointless.
"thank you for uploading these videos. Even if I'm having a hard night, I just put a relaxing astronomy video on and listen. It always makes my nights go much easier.
Thank you!!!"
in other words, ultimately, we dont have a clue XD
We aren't intelligent enough; complex, but not intelligent. Look around - there's empty housing everywhere but growing homelessness problem, a problem that HAS ONLY BEEN GROWING since it was first documented beginning of the 20th century.
This is not a sign of an intelligent lifeform. These humans were brought into existence through no choice of their own yet are being punished by choices they cannot simply opt out of (for example: doing drugs and being destructive criminal are choices; the experiences and ultimately death from thirst, hunger, exposure, are not)
If the observable universe was compacted into the size of a grain of sand then how did it not turn into a black hole? I thought when matter was that dense a black hole was inevitable.
It was a singularity.
Jason Messinger white holes could be an explanation as to what’s at the centre as well as black holes imploding or merging with another, another explanation could be 2 neutron stars both small singularities and the gravitational pull forces them to explode. Another way could be antimatter and matter as 2 singularities
This is a problem with Einstein's general relativity. If we try to apply general relativity to any length smaller than 10^-35 meters, we get a paradox. Any energy or mass that exists at a scale smaller than that would bend the space it takes up so much that it would cause a black hole. Obviously, we know this isn't true, otherwise no matter or energy could exist in the universe. Your question is fundamentally unanswerable because our model for gravity falls apart at such minuscule scales. Until we find an answer to how gravity works at the quantum scale, we are largely in the dark about how singularities work.
Neil Degrasse Tyson once said that our entire universe could be inside a black hole. So maybe it did make a black hole and sucked the grain of sand in and blasted it out the other side.
The thing that stops regular massive stars from becoming black holes, is the outward pressure from the fusion reactions at their cores. There were no fusion reactions back then, but the massive energy of the particles wouldn't let even atoms (with electrons) form until the universe was about 400,000 years old.
What do u call a hydrocarbon that tells fart jokes? Crude oil
stop
+Hamna Sahi AHAHAHAAA omg made my day xD!
... No! This is a place of science! 😖
+Hamna Sahi Definitely not an aromatic hydrocarbon.
+Hamna Sahi What do you call a hippy in a labcoat?
... an organic chemist
Before watching this video I didn't know what was wrong with the big bang theory and after watching this video, I still don't.
The big bang is the definition of how god power’s work
"In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded." He was most likely quoting Terry Pratchett. It isn't necessarily a criticism of the Big Bang Theory.
yeah more like
"in the begining there was no shit at all, and suddenly
"Electron Akbar!!!!!!!!"(or more like Atomic Akbar)
BOOOOOM
then came the universe"
-The Bible of Universe and Everything Part 42
Drink Cyanide Electron akabar LMFAO
We seem to be fixated on the observable universe and how it must have been infinitely small at the Big Bang. This is just an arbitrary boundary. Wouldn't you think that part of the explanation for what might have happened would have something to do with the universe that is beyond that which is observable? This would be like trying to explain the origin of WW2 by what happened in any given fox hole.
I wonder if you understand that when you use the term "we" you are referring to yourself thus every single "we" in what you wrote you are actually saying "I", and that is because the word "we" means the user of the term - that is*you* sunshine, and his immediate interlocutor, and since you have no immediate interlocutor, that just leaves you yes *You*, and nobody but you, so why are* you* - yes *you* fixated as you suggest, and what you mean by "universe"?
You have not the faintest idea? - This you are about to demonstrate by signally failing to define "universe"
There is no "we" you are entirely on your own.
You can directly immediately personally experience nothing of the experience of anyone else, nor can anyone else directly immediately experience anything of your experiences which is easily demonstrated by the fact that if it were otherwise every time another had a headache, you would have a headache and vice versa and since that is not the case, you are entirely on your own, whether appeals to your functions or not, whether you like it or not - liking and disliking wanting and not wanting are merely a mechanical reactions of one of your functions over which you have no control whatsoever- the function reacts like or not like want or not want and there is absolutely *nothing* that you can do about it; like, not like want, not want, happy, not happy, all of them entirely mechanical which means choiceless, reactions, which leave you with the question whether or not you are no more than the sum of your functions or I am no more than the sum of my functions, unless there is something else which both you and I are completely unaware or as they say unconscious, but then since you and I live our lives as no more than a series of mechanical or choiceless reactions combined with choiceless random associations of the associatiative apparatus or what you might call mind, which also generates associations at random without Whatever you might be having any say in it exactly as you have no say in your dreams because the random associations that take place mechanically choicelessly in your associative apparatus do so without any element of whatever you might suppose yourself to be, but perhaps it is no more than the sum of whatever is aware of the functions be they associative, physical, emotional, or whatever else they may or might be, Which makes the so-called "free will" fantasy obviously no more than a fantasy since you cannot choose the reactions that take place in your various functions and you have how many of those? - One does liking and disliking, wanting and not wanting, which we could call emotions another does associating, and yet another governs or controls the body, breathing heartbeat, the nervous system et cetera, all of which are functions none of which require any element whatsoever of whatever you might be, and you have no idea what you are, do you? You might perhaps you describe yourself as some sort of awareness of the functions with absolutely no control over these functions whatsoever, but you may take a different view what you are which is impossible to discover as a mirror cannot reflect itself
@@vhawk1951kl exactly how high are you?
@@nickwilcox3648 all children are inquisitive and you are no exception, but I don't waste my time on the witless and my inferiors which you have just demonstrated yourself to be.. That is the last you will hear from me or I you thanks to the wonders of gmail filters which sadly cannot filter out impertinent and unoriginal children
Now re-arrange the following words into a well-known phrase or saying:- off
byeee.
@@vhawk1951kl nice copypasta thanks buuuud
I might be too late, but the observable universe is the only thing we've got. But yeah, since there's a lot of things that we don't know, we should be more careful how we phrase our conclusions and always stress that they're tentative.
Everybody knew it was bigger than a breadbox; what we are understanding is how much bigger. It is amazing that I can stuff the whole thing (sorta) inside my head.
Nice video. Philochrony is the theory that describes the nature of time and demonstrates its existence. Time is magnitive: objective, Imperceptible (intervals) and measurable.
An interesting story regarding the question at 12:06:
"By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[19][20] When Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He persuaded the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[21] While a devout Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion,[22] though he also was of the opinion that these two fields of human experience were not in conflict.[23]"
Source: Wikipedia.
He was a prudent man, a man of faith and a scrupulous scientist.
And Pope Urban II started the crusades... what an AH... lapsed catholic
LeMaitre is one of my favorites and I didn't even know that about him!! What a dude.
Such a great video! It kinda reminds me those documentary scenes in Mr. Nobody where Jared Leto is talking about entropy :D Love it!
I always had two questions about the Big Bang Theory. My first question is, what came before the Big Bang and what caused whatever there was before it to bang? Was it like what we think formed our solar system?
My second question is, how did Amy not give up on Sheldon?
What came before the big bang was the little bang and Amy figured Sheldon was her only shot....
The first question maybe answerable in the near future. The second not so sure
God came before, ate a bunch of beans, and BAM, Big Bang. Might be why the universe smells like rotten eggs.
@@Justaguy10723 answerable how?
@@alexv1190 There's a reason I said in near future. Do I look like a time traveller to you to tell you when or how. I do know that science evolves and doesn't so backwords so it only makes sense to say it will evolve as it always has been in the recorded history.
Why is the universe being homogenous an issue? Wouldn’t the initial distribution of matter/energy have been effectively smooth in the first place?
"in the beginning there was nothing which exploded" is a Terry Pratchett quote
"Science says give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest." T. McKenna
@@RickDelmonico I was trained as a scientist and believe in scientific approaches to understanding - - I am not a Creationist. But try explaining Consciousness without a magical creation ex nihilo (labelled as 'emergence' and obfuscated with references to 'complexity') and see this video on the probabilities involved in standard Darwinian model of the origin of Life:
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
@@sutapasbhattacharya9471 That video was made by Intelligent Design believers, which you can check for yourself, and they use their own calculations to make it seem impossible for a protein to spontaneously form. Here's one of them. www.grisda.org/tim-standish The only people that link to their research are other god-bothering life passengers and so can be ignored, they contribute fuck all to the real self-reinforcing framework of knowledge which we call science as they already have a biased opinion. Fraudulent if anything.
I came here for that, it was never a scientific statement and I strongly doubt it was meant to deride science. Just poke some innocent fun maybe.
(Also, what's up with the bizarro unrelated convo here?)
@@siwilson1437 I realised as I watched the video that it must be sponsored by Intelligent Design researchers - I am actually the man who has undermined Theism by identifying the physical correlate of the Divine Light or 'Godhead'- with the brainwaves of the Reticular Activating System; my acquaintance the physicist Milo Wolff has also put forward holonomic models of the electron which begin to explain the self-organizing origin of physical laws and constants [ID Creationists use these lacunae to argue for their god-of-the-gaps]- see below.
But, as someone trained in Molecular Biology, even though their particular calculations may be exaggerated, the problem still exists as, even if the probabilities are lower, you still need a lot of different macromolecules for a minimal living system. I know the arguments for simpler steps involving self-replicating RNA systems etc. but these are still a million miles away from constituting a minimal living cell.
As mentioned above I have identified, the physical correlate of the Inner (Divine) Light (a.k.a. Godhead, Pure Consciousness, Stream of Consciousness etc.) - see evidence page on www.Sutapas.com for the evidence confirming this. As I stated above, Science does believe in magic when it comes to the existence of Consciousness and I dare you to challenge this assertion. You may not be aware that the likes of Ernst Mach [who inspired Einstein and Heisenberg to challenge conventional assumptions], Max Planck, Arthur Eddington, Erwin Schrodinger amongst others understood Consciousness as the Ultimate Reality - even mystic Isaac Newton suggested that all space may be the sensorium of the Divine. I mention these names should you do the usual Western-indoctrinated knee-jerk recoil to non-Western knowledge as if it is of no value. Note that Prof. J.H.M. Whiteman who praised my 1999 book (he died before my 2015 book) taught the New Physics, discussed these things with Paul Dirac and Heisenberg [whose close friend astrophysicist Carl von Weiszacker started an Institute for Western Science and Eastern Philosophy inter-relations], and had personally experienced enlightenment and mystical union and said much the same things as myself in his works.
Matt presents the best Physics scenarios in the best way for anyone interested in "knowing stuff". Thank you.
He has one of the best deliveries of any scientist I've heard speak. I really hope he stays in education. While we need to continue research, even more so, we need to expand education.
Much like an expanding universe a lot more people doing a little research each will get us farther in the end than a few people doing a lot of research each.
6:51 I really like this "Horizon Problem" Illustration of the early Universe.
By the way, that picture (graph?) with all the spirals and exploding lines and whatnot, can you get that on a wallpaper? Would be nice. Veeeerrryyyy nice.
Electro week sounds like a vacation to Ibiza.
Just a question, how do we know that universe isn't just oscillating and we aren't just in the expansionary stage of this oscillation?
We don't...but why would it be oscillating?
why not? If we aren't certain then, it shouldn't be ruled out and also one way to possibly explain accelerating nature of expansion we observe?
+CoolJL Explained by dark energy, etc...basically we don't know. I don't think anyone has ruled it out, but what force would make it oscillate? It just gets into more stuff we can't solve right now...it's possible but it just sounds like a random guess of what could happen when we don't know why it would ever happen
Dark energy isn't radom? That is as radom of an addition as it gets, so is the dark energy :D
What could make it oscillate? I don't know, one probably needs get into the nature od spacetime itself, but then what could have made universe to suddenly explode into existance?
+CoolJL No, I mean thinking that it would oscillate is random
Thank you so much for uploading this video. It is helping me get through the pandemic!
Could quantum entanglement have something to do with the even heat distribution?
I don't care for the laugh track
you could have a sign in the corner that tells you what to feel. that way you don't have to think at all
@@jaysonsk think about what?
jerome dragun exactly
These guys are so kind to critics.
And you get the feeling that he genuinely wants people to learn.
The image of the galaxies approaching when the universe is shown going back in time is misleading because, by going back in time, the galaxies disappear, they were formed later and therefore also the mass of stars, planets disappear.
does the empty space in the atom increase with the expansion of the universe ie:- are they more tightly packed so smaller in the early universe
I can never understand a thing you're talking about in any video, but you explain the unfathomable subjects so well, with such grace and confidence, that I can't help but watch. And the writing/presentation of complex subjects is brilliant!
Every time I think about conflicting theories in physics, I just imagine the standoff scene in Anchorman.
Also a huge thanks to you and all the other people who worked on this show. It's an absolute delight.
1:02 In some of the PBS videos it is stated that the universe could well be infinite and at the very least, based on curvature estimates, it is much larger than the universe currently visible to us. On that basis, would it be correct to say that although the currently observable universe was around the size of a grain of sand at 10E32 seconds, it was probably part of a much larger object at that time, which could have been the size of our sun, our galaxy, or even the size of the currently visible universe?
That's a really interesting thought to me!
One of the best CMB explanations I've ever heard thank you
he actually goes into it in more detail in the episode about sound waves from the beginning of the universe.
They give a terrible explanation. 99.98% of the CMB data is EXCLUDED from the CMB maps. That's because ALL STARS AND GALAXIES EMIT 'CMB'. Microwave energy. All known galaxies and stars are intentionally omitted from the CMB maps. They didn't mention that, did they? Guess where 'CMB' really comes from?
Now it all makes sense, billions of galaxies, stars, planets all come from a tiny particle that happened to explode by itself.
Every time I see a video about space I become a philosopher, then I go watch cartoons eating chocolate.
+AM3 Lol, same haha
Rather get religion!
gives you some time to reflect.
@Amine Why would you care?
Can cartoons even DO that?
...
What? Was it something I said?
Now I will never look at a cup of coffee the same way !!
thank you. I like your explanations. I was working on a M.S. in Astronomy (from your country (online)), but ran out of money. At any rate. Good job.
"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded" is a quote by Terry Pratchett and isn't meant to deride the Big Bang Theory but rather it's just a humorous way of putting it.
+Kahandran Then the likes of Kent Hovind took it and ran!
Physicist: *mentions the big bang theory*
Everyone else: You have entered the comedy area.
The comedy area expands at a rate faster than the speed of the interwebs, then cools down until the next physicist opens his big mouth.
No self respecting cosmologist firmly believes in the theory developed by a Catholic priest.
there is no beginning & theres no ending , one eternal round , no big bang, the more you look the more galaxies you`ll find
Hi, this episode is pretty old, but still asking, just in case. Around 7:30, you say that for many regions of space to have the same temperature, they have to have been causally connected at some points. But is there no possibility that the universe started completely uniform (including temperature) from the beginning, across it's entirety, no matter if its parts were completely causally connected or not ? Is there a fundamental reason that would forbid this ?
I must say that a lot of scientists sure do use the Big Bang Theory as the Origin of the Universe....but as you said, it's not meant to do that. Why do most teachers give the impression it is then?
+David “Spacedave2000” L It's a simplification, an easy way out. It stops hard questions like 'Then what was before our universe'?
Cite one of these "scientists." (Only physicists please).
.
Teachers do it because they aren't scientists, and they aren't up to date. They might be 50 years behind. Our culture as a whole still thinks in classical terms!
If space and time are relative how come they never came to my birthday parties?
It is always good to make science fun.
Actually, they did, and your standing on them.
Knee shlaap
good one
They did come
There was space and time at the place you had your party
Layman: what are we doing here
Philosophers: why are we here
Physicists: how are we here
Wat software was uused for graphics
I freaking love this episode and topic. Shows the humbleness of the scientific method. Thanks for bringing this to a wider audience guys. Uncle Sagen would be proud!
How can you call it hydrogen-plasma, if the atoms were yet to be created?
you can consider a proton to be just the nucleus of a hydrogen atom, it's what chemistry does, so a plasma of hydrogen means electrons and protons floating around
giannisniper96 that would mean that hydrogen-plasma could leave the plasmatic state as helium. And some of it did just that.
Just seems wrong to call it hydrogen-plasma when it has never been hydrogen before.
Maybe because hydrogen is the simplest atom? Dunno, just saying, I seriously have no idea
If you turned a bunch of hydrogen into an ionized plasma you get protons and electrons.
A hydrogen _atom_ is comprised of a nucleus (just a proton in the case of protium (hydrogen-1), or a proton and one or two neutrons in the case of deuterium (hydrogen-2) and tritium (hydrogen-3)) and an electron. A hydrogen _ion_ is comprised either of a nucleus and more than one electron (a hydrogen anion) or a bare nucleus (a hydrogen cation, which you don't normally see very often in terrestrial conditions). A hydrogen _molecule_ is two hydrogen atoms covalently bound.
The state of matter described in this case is comprised mainly of free protons and electrons, along with some deuterons, alpha particles, lots of neutrinos, tons of photons, and several other particles. But the ones he is focusing on are the protons and electrons. An equal mixture of protons and electrons is exactly what you get if you take a hydrogen gas and ionize all the hydrogen molecules, stripping them of their electrons which will then fly freely. A highly ionized gas is exactly the definition of a plasma. So a mixture of protons and electrons is literally a hydrogen plasma. This kind of plasma is still quite common in the universe today.
A bare proton can be called an "atom" in a very loose sense in some contexts, but generally it is not, and in this context even larger ions are considered distinct from atoms. So in that sense, any plasma (even on Earth) is not comprised entirely of atoms, but contains at least some ions.
regards to explosions or big bangs , the normal outcome isn't just ever widening matter but circling whirling material as well as expansion and this is expressed in the observable universe.
Light was first. Everything is an offshoot of light. And there is many types of light yet to be discovered
I didn’t realize that the Big Bang Theory did not describe the origin of the observable universe. Makes much more sense now, thanks.
it really does make more sense in the modern form
to be fair, I'm sure LeMaitre knew infinite density was as issue
@Kisa Vorobianinov Thanks for trying to reassure me.
I think I’ll put my trust in the lineage of renowned geniuses that have created our physics knowledge over several centuries.
Rather than some internet dude.
@Kisa Vorobianinov Thanks. I’m ok with people holding views different from mine too.
Space and it’s many universes seems like something designed it’s beauty. From a chance not likely. I feel just don’t want to add a god or being to the picture. It takes a creative mind make such beautiful places
Wonderful, a critique of the Big Bang theory that doesn't have overt religious bias. Astrophysics, quantum theory, etc. are hard for me to wrap my head around, but the explanations certainly helped.
+HockeyPwnsBaseball They did try and shamelessly push string theory though. tsk tsk
@@MrTripcore No he didn't, he only said it's name. "push it through" lmao.
.
@@nmarbletoe8210 That was meant as a joke, I think
The universe has always existed, in one state or another. No beginning, no end, no creator, but our minds don't like that idea.
Because it makes no sense. It's a wild assumption with less reason than the assumption there sa creator.. You find it difficult to believe there are powers greater than the human mind. Probably because such a power could communicate with us but doesn't. That is a mystery. Although you won't believe me, I had an outer body experience due to loss of oxygen, but oddly I was about 2 feet above my own body, I had no form just the save consciousness from a different point of view. I dunt rule out that imagined due to deprivation of oxygen to the brain but who knows, I testify that it happened. I imagine my death will be a very similar experience hopefully peacefully and although sometimes that thought fills me with a deep fear of never existing again for infinite time as you call it, when I think about my experienced, this world, love and evil, I believe there is a benevolent creator. Yes that could be a coping mechanism but it's also my true belief.
We all have fundamental issue with size. We aren't capable of comprehending what the size is yet, it seems. "Smaller than a grain of sand" ... It's more probable that space itself is expanding, and not the distance between objects in some static space.
I think Sheldon is the worst part of The Big Bang Theory. He was funny at first but now its just old.
Lol
+Mote of Dust The Big Bang Theory is just black face for nerds anyway.
The show sucks ass
+Mote of Dust Lmao
+vleesevlons I never got why people even smile, much less laugh... it's a lame-ass show, not funny at all, canned laughter doesn't help at all either...
I am early.Just wanted to thank you guys at Pbs space time for make these awesome videos and expanding our knowledge about the universe 😁
Am I the only one that feels dumber every time I watch them😂
+alok dangi According to the Dunning -Kruger effect, that's a good thing.
+alok dangi Nope.
+Soham Shah i see what you did there :D
+Soham Shah INFLATING our knowledge about the universe :D
So the singularity includes what we call space which is no longer thought of as empty. How do we describe what was around the singularity?
What is wrong with the Big Bang Theory is that the show just ran out of steam and had pretty much run its course by the beginning of the second to last season.
What about E8 quasicrystal theory? I saw some documentaries on that earlier tonight and it seemed relatively interesting. Of course, those were made by the proponents, so it may have serious difficulties. But it seems like something it would be good for Space Time to cover.
that would be awesome
Hurry up and figure it out will you. The anticipation is killing me. I’ve only got one lifetime.
Where will u take all that knowlege after death ? To god... telling him, oh god i was ur best student ... lol
I don’t adhere to Fatalism. Drink from that cup if you want. It’s juices are all bitter.
@@crookedpaths6612 How do you know you only have one lifetime?
Well if I had any previous ones, they didn’t seem to teach me anything that I remember. Might as well make use of the one you’ve got right here and now, don’t you think?
@@crookedpaths6612 How do you make the most out of it?
The most truthful words said in this video are "...we don't actually know...".
When Matt coughed it sounded like he had an American accent
Hahaha love the “*ahem* String theory....another time” xD
Too much dark matter in my brain for me to comprehend this.
Dark matter / dark energy beings only care about the significant part of the universe, and not about the 4% that muddles around whimsically in the light.
If I had just been listening and not reading along, I would have thought we were talking about the electroweak error.
So if all these forces break down at a point can we even say they are fundamental?
Good choice with the Milky Way background for this video I use that pic as my PC wallpaper. :)
+InMaTeofDeath i had been for a while as well but brighter. Now i got a star citizen wallpaper i just compiled a few days ago
To be able to rewind time to 10 -32 seconds, to where the universe was the size of a spec of rice just boggles my mind... because somehow that 'can' be explained. Somehow all this matter out there in our observable universe can mathematically be explained how it all could fit into the size of a spec of rice. Damn, love this show! My brain just had a mini-orgasm.
I think i understand it so let me explain it. Science has the theory of general relativity created by Einstein. This theory is always right in every experiment we ever tried. So far, general relativity is never wrong. So when we plug in values into general relativity about the beginning, general relativity tells us what happened. General relativity could be wrong, but it hasn't been wrong about anything else. And there is even some evidence to support what general relativity tells us.
But general relativity stops working inside black hole singularities and at a certain time near the very beginning.
There is no reason for it to not fit into a spec of rice! You are simply used to falsely believing certain things have to have certain sizes.
"Size is an illusion." - Madeleine L'Engle, A Wind in the Door
--Dave, "Where doesn't matter.", ibid.
Not real god made the universe and world hasnt beeen here for billions of years only a few thousand and yah thats it
It blows my mind as well but it seems that the state of the matter that makes up everything we see changes when it's compacted and heated up.
Does matter somehow work as a space time glue that keeps it from expanding? i.e. Is there anything stopping space time from expanding within a galaxy or solar system?
Ofc, it's gravity, kinda roughly said but it simply is just the gravitational force of the mass
Interesting things to think about. My thoughts are we really know very little. The more we learn, the more we realize how little we know. Theories come and go but the facts remain. We just don't know many of the facts, we can only guess. Better to say this is what we think rather than this is definitely what happened or something is.
(1) The redshift might not be from the Universe expanding.
(2) The Cosmic Microwave Background might be local, around our galaxy, or cause by something other than what it is currently thought to be.
(3) We have never witnessed time and space NOT existing.
(4) We know many mathematical models of physical reality only work over a particular range and outside that range the model breaks down, sometimes in extremely dramatic ways. Going to the beginning or end of the Universe is definitely going to the far extremes of the mathematical models we have and the Universe beginning in a Big Bang before which time and space did not exist or the Universe ending in a Big Crunch or Big Freeze or Tearing itself into nothing are all extreme results.
(1) Did he mention the redshift? I must have missed it. The only thing I remember him saying about evidence of expansion, was that, because the horizon problem is resolved by the Inflation theory, it is seen as an indication that expansion.
(2) Cosmic microwave background radiation might be caused by something else, but it is not local. CMBR has been detected at both ends of the observable Universe. Until a better potential explanation comes along, The Big Bang theory is out best scientific guess.
(3) I'm a little slow on the uptake, at times. Why mention that we haven't witnessed time and space not existing, is that relevant to the Big Bang?
(4) "the Universe beginning in a Big Bang before which time and space did not exist", would definitely be considered an extreme result, but the Big Bang Theory does not describe how the universe began. The Big Bang Theory describes a series of events that happened to the Universe, following it's existence, in a hot dense state, it does not describe the Universe as beginning in a big bang.
@Donald Kasper Are you saying the universe isn't expanding or that, if it was, we wouldn't know?
@Donald Kasper
So, we don't really know what the Universe is doing?
@Donald Kasper This is interesting. I thought dark matter could only be detected indirectly and could only interact with matter indirectly, through it's effect on gravity.
Thank you for engaging and attempting to explain things to a layman
@Donald Kasper
How was it received or has anyone responded since it was published?
what is temperature in the early stages of the universe? Is it still a measurement of the kinetic energy, even though the fundamental forces of nature weren't the same?
yes i believe the concept is the same, although the objects with kinetic energy would not be the same sorts of ojbects we see today. even a field itself can have KE I think
Lol Lol I love the part os 1:02 when you say hypothetical size.
Science relies in some manner and to some extent on "uniformity of nature." What this means becomes problematic as soon as you start looking at it closely. But the principle is always presupposed in some way. It has to be. The less things were "like they are now," the less you can say with any certainty about what they were like. The scientific description of the "singularity" is at this point in the eye of the beholder.