Paul Steinhardt - Time to Take the ‘Big Bang’ out of the Big Bang Theory? (May 5, 2021)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 чер 2024
- A wide range of empirical evidence supports the notion that the universe has been expanding and cooling for the last 14 billion years. However, the idea that it began with a bang is pure speculation based on extrapolating back in time, assuming equations remain valid under conditions far beyond where they have been tested. In this talk, Paul Steinhardt will explain why it may be time to jettison the Big Bang. Namely, a series of recent advances strongly suggest that the only way to describe the remarkable homogeneity and isotropy observed on large scales may be if the universe first underwent a period of ultra-slow contraction. In that case, it is essential to replace the bang with a ‘bounce’ - a smooth transition from contraction to a dense, hot universe that proceeds to expand and cool. Among possible implications is a novel kind of cyclic theory of cosmic evolution. More details: www.simonsfoundation.org/even...
- Наука та технологія
Reputable challenges to The Big Bang are very few and far between, but this is certainly one of them. A genuinely excellent and well constructed presentation that made a strong case for itself. It's perhaps quite humbling to think that in another 100-200 years, the idea of the Big Bang may no longer be the predominant and mainstream scientific view, and if nothing else, that tells me we must always walk the fine line between healthy skepticism and the constant seach for better answers to the biggest questions.
no there's lots of them and there always has been, they are just censored.
Thunderbolt Project... Electric universe theory!
@@JerseyLynne The Cosmic Toilet Bowl is another personal favorite that never made it past those pesky censors, who seem to be immutably attached to the Scientific Method.
ONE SUCH QUESTION IS WHY YOUR MOM IS SUCH A DOGGONE SLART
@@axeman2638 censored is rigt
There is a heavy mistake: He first says that 400,000 years after the Big Bang, the first atoms formed (1:36), and then says "even further back", (1:40) the heavy elements were formed. That is a new theory of his own. Big Bang theory doesn't say heavy elements being formed before galaxies. And steady state theories don't propose an "early stage", but an infinite existence.
Every paper and article I read agrees that heavier elements than Li are formed at second generation stars, by no means before galaxies and heavier ones at supernovae. Even people who disagree with Big Bang agree that heavier elements are formed in supernovae.
Heavy elements being formed BEFORE the light ones is something I don't know from where did he get.
Once physicists realize black holes are creating energy, gravity, matter, space and time they'll have to drop the big bang notion all together. They will have to accept there are black holes, massive ones at that, Gods that can't be observed directly, constantly creating energy, gravity, matter, space and time at the heart of every galaxy. There was not one big bang. There are countless points where creation is a continuous process. That is why galaxies move away from each other. That is why when galaxies are stacked up against one another appear to be moving away at an accelerated pace, some faster than the speed of light. Scientists have skewed many of the facts to keep the act of creation out of their equations.
By "heavy nuclei" I suspect he means nuclei that were more massive than simply individual protons.
Cooling usually accompanied by contraction not expansion
But universe is likely contacting and expanding simultaneously. Law of gravity requires this dichotomy, and unified field projections would be consistent with the older parts of the universe contracting and the newer part expanding.
Thank you very much, it's a privilege for me to listen people like you.
I'm only a simple citizen without any degrees and I really enjoy learning what we(human) know about the edge of cosmology.
✌😎👍
I study some cosmology at university and it look very bad in comparison to other branch of physics, like quantum mechanics.
"It's turtles all the way down."
💚
Wow! I've learned so many more things I don't know 😂😂 This looks like a life's work of understanding and being able to put the unfathomable into words is quite remarkable. A big thanks to Paul and everyone else involved!
This is a beautiful idea. Thank you for posting this lecture. This idea replaces the multiverse with a previous universe. That makes me wonder, what caused that previous universe that bounced? Why did it start contracting? Why isn't the universe contracting or at least slowing now?
Why does a pendulum accelerate before it decelerates?
We are very early in the life of the universe. Check back in 300 trillion years and see if there is evidence of contraction then. If not check back in another 300 trillion.
Amazing presentation... I've learned so much. This is how geniuses explain a complex topic so that all could understand. I would surmise that Eric Lerner is in concordance with this... at least the part about the big bang never happening. I don't know if I'm all in on the part about Hannes Alfven's plasma cosmology but this presentation has made me think really hard... and it hurts. Thank you Dr. Steinhardt for a brilliant and enjoyable presentation. Kudos.
@44:00 the super-Hubble radius quantum modes are fine. They have little effect on cosmology because they are power-law distributed (all the energy is in the Planck length modes, negligible energy in the cosmological length sale modes).
Does this have anything to do with the ekpyrotic cyclic cosmological model from Steinhardt and Turok's book?
Great talk. I eagerly wait to hear prof. Carroll's and prof. Tegmark's take on this
I would like to hear what Alan Guth has to say about it. He's been waiting for his call from Stockholm for years, I doubt this will make him very happy.
Thank you for your presentation and for sharing your thoughts.
However I have a strange feeling on representing something that might be infinite, with such simple diagrams. Distances set up causality frontiers that are not considered in your model and might be important.
Very, Very Impressive lecture. Thank you!
Paul Steinhardt is one of my favorite contemporary scientists, however...
In general, advocates of cosmic inflation speak of "The Big Bang" being when inflation stops. Paul Steinhardt, that I can tell, never addresses this view only mentioning inflation after The Big Bang. Since, he helped formulate early models of cosmic inflation I'm sure he is aware of this. Presumably, this effects his argument (or is only a matter of semantics)? I'm skeptical that he did not mention it, though I may have missed it. I'm also disappointed he did not mention the problem of an early low entropy state that any cyclical model has.
Steinhardt, as an early advocate of cosmic inflation, has since come to reject it for three reasons that I see: 1) He despises the possibility that the universe may have had a "beginning" 2) It simply replaces fine-tuning with a even more mind boggling amount of special pleading for inflation to work and 3) Cosmic inflation is non-falsifiable. Regarding #3 Alan Guth appeals to inference to the best explanation to defend cosmic inflation. In essence whether one accepts, or rejects, cosmic inflation the disagreement is largely philosophical, not scientific (depending on one's philosophical demarcation of science!).
That is unless we observe the predicted primordial gravitational waves that further advances in detection are making possible to achieve.
Also if you're interested, Paul Steinhardt has done amazing work on quasicrystals worthy of a movie as far as I'm concerned. It's a story of another of his crazy, contrarian ideas that has come to fruition including a recent discovery of their formation in the first nuclear test site. He has two similar UA-cam talks on them in addition to the book.
In my opinion, bounce is more plausible. It is still good only as the *approximation*, though, cause there is a preferred reference frame (probably, associated with CMB).
I don't get it. if things went into gentle contraction at the beginning, then how did we end up as we are right now, with greater redshift on radiation for further objects? Wouldn't we need to have a slow contraction first, then somehow have the contraction reverse to become expansion later on?
this is very confusing to me. there may be an explanation here, but doesn't the gentle contraction idea still need to explain inflation - just a different type?
What a wonderful thing to ponder
What a nice profile meme, potman!
Wait till you grab a number with it.
Thankyou! You made this concept easy to understand.
Wouldn't the red shift observed as we look further back in time, be an indicator of a previous state of a less contracted past, because space time is stretched, the wavelength of light is likewise expanded, And the contraction into the present , where lights spectrum is including the blue ? Doesn't this support this argument of a contracting universe?
There is no blue. It is in your head.
Yes, it is impossible to "observe" the Universe before the condensation of stable atoms. "Let there be Light, and there was Light. And it was Good."
There is another factor with removing the big bang that has nothing to do with physics. You have a branding problem. "Big Bang" as a lable has been drummed into the heads of students for decades. It's exquisitely simple, easy to remember, and has massive brand recognition at this point. In order to change this you need to come up with a lable or acronym that is just as simple ,discriptive,and memorable.
You won't be able to overcome the outcry of all the people who have career investments in to it. This is the main problem of current "big-science": careerism.
An excellent and important conversation
I'm excited for the Jim Gates talk! I hope that the error correcting code he discovered comes up. 😊
Dr Keating in the house!
Hello Dr keating. Yes great all their for great conversation. Dont for get breat and your Sun right. sincères amitiés phil
If you thought there was more than one person talking in this "conversation" then you're more crazy than me, my friend 🤷♂️
What I appreciate is those scientists and others who are trying to think outside the box...the current paradigms, and open up new doors and different ways of approaching the fundamental questions.
Thank you for an excellent and informative talk. I do have one question: Is this a truly symmetrical idea? tavi.
@52:00 "gentle bounce"? Hmm... seems to me some parsimony principles are being ignored. Roger Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology does the explanatory job a lot better. I get it that a young postdoc has to push for funding their supervisor's pet project, but I still wish more mainstream physicists were helping out with CCC.
Planck length is O(10^-33 cm) but this does not affect the argument. Maybe confused with Planck time.
The simplicity of refutal.
The universe did not create itself. It did not "expand into nothing".
It did not start itself. "Big bang" is nothing more than another religion.
The age of the universe used to be 13.7 billion years not too long ago, now it's 13.8. Has 100 million years elapsed in the past 30 years?
It appears 148148… or 2222.. and little such wiggles keep peoples looking for the right treadmeal. Lol. Heck if I know. 😂
@@brendawilliams8062 Are you replying to my comment because I have no idea what you’re talking about? lol
unless that’s the point
@@johnjeffreys6440 it was a reply to my own interest. You I feel sure are most capable of your own calculations and equations. Your specific interest is unknown to me. None the less I do wish the best for you in that pursuit.
Universe has to be over 100 billion years old to explain 3 billion light year across megastructures of galaxies.
@@eleventy-seven I believe it’s something like 130 billion light years across
Thanks for this talk! Can we please call this "The Big Boing" ?
How about the Big Bong Theory?
Ya man, pass the big bong
You are absolutely mistaking about the Big bang needing to go! Accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by dark matter neutrinos have been recently discovered to contain Mass light has mass therefore anything that exists within the third dimension or higher contains Mass because you cannot give something volume without giving it weight! Light maintains its speed by slowly dimming out and fading away in space shutting all of its microscopic fractions of a penny weight into the dark matter which absorbs this energy and expands its density creating an illusion of accelerating expansion of the universe and from the singular spot or observation point in space time it is impossible to understand what is happening in places that are unexplored... The dark matter is everywhere it's around our solar system the more our sun lets out energy the more it increases its density just as it is in every single star around every solar system and our entire galaxy and every galaxy in the entire universe! This was the reason why I started my channel and some of the first content that I made! I'm telling you that that you are absolutely wrong accelerating expansion is wrong it is an illusion caused by exponential growth of dark matter AKA dark energy... A dark matter particle does not exist because it is not composed of the fundamental building blocks that make up you and me and therefore we cannot view it in these bodies it is not composed of strings... It is hooks, Because of this we cannot view a dark matter particle and we will never find one. We are treating this accelerating expansion like it is royalty amongst the scientific community when it is a relatively newly learned thing that no one has been able to figure out well I have figured it out! My system brings together everything it also belittles are measurement measurement systems but these are the facts and we must go forth with the facts not Bullshit just to maintain the status quo!
@@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler "My system brings together everything" - Except punctuation.
I'd be interested to know Roger Penrose view on this compared to CCC.
I'm only 20 minute through, but so far, the video seems to assume the universe is curved and has to be stretched to flatten. But if the universe has always been infinite in extent, then that problem goes away, right?
@41:00 but we only observe smoothness and flatness in the CMB in a UNI-verse. We cannot observe the highly non-smooth eternal inflation multiverse. I want to know what Steinhardt's students' models show for a single universe horizon, is it _locally_ smooth and flat? It should be so otherwise it's inconsistent with empirical reality. But then that means "big bang inflation" is explicable not as an exact description, but only as a local approximation (and the inflaton field is spurious, a fiction? a result of not using the complete picture). I think Lenny Susskind would say something along the same lines.
Yes, the universe is flat in the sense that g_ij is approximately equal to \delta_ij.
Wonderful presentation. I think we we're misinterpreting past and ongoing neutron decay lensed by the universe for this singular moment of decoupling.
It's difficult because when the neutrons decay inside the lens they reflect back, making a cosmological mirror, then the decoupling means the mirror disintegrates and the cosmologist that observed it gets seven years bad luck.
Very persuasive and compelling talk. Let us wait for the results of further search for B mode polarization, which would be evidence for "random shears" in the Universe. So far the evidence is zilch, nada, which supports the bounce theory.
Have they reached the sensor sensitivity necessary for b mode detection?
Typo: The Planck length is on the order of 10^-33 cm.
The exit of a toroidal field nucleus would fit. Expansion, equalization and then compression back into the core path.
The only way to proof non expanding universe is to find a way to demonstrate that Doppler shift has two effects, (1) expanding and (2) non expanding, coexist.
I'd welcome some input on this comment: If we want to understand the state of the universe now we should be looking at what is happening in our "immediate" vicinity. If we want to understand what happened a long time ago, we would be looking at signals from the era we are interested in. So to deduce what the universe is doing now, examining signals from the era of the postulated big bang would be invalid. ? And a further thought: if the light reaching us is postulated to have been traveling for 14 billion years (give or take), where are the objects that emitted that light now i.e. how "distant" would they be now (according to our local time)?
Please call it the Big Bounce Up.
It didn't seem strange at all when I first came across the big bang as a child, a little later I was able to read and understand physics a little more, hawking, Guth, Einstein to name but a few, all helping form my knowledge of the universe.
Now I'm convinced that we are living inside a onion.
The Onion.
Some of us certainly are
Concur
*an onion
4D torus
The main evidence proving the big bang theory are the red shifts of Hydrogen emission lines from distant galaxies. First measured by Hubble, they were interpreted according to the Doppler effect and translated into distances. However, modern measurements show that the red shifts of galaxies, and also of supernovas, are isotropic. This means that the big bang had to have occurred at the position of the observer. Otherwise, from the relative motion of the galaxies, it would be possible to determine the location of the origin, or starting point of the big bang. Galaxies on the opposite side of the origin point would be moving away from us, while galaxies on the same side would be moving in the same direction as us. It has never been possible to determine the location of "ground zero," though, because the observed red shifts are isotropic.
The big bang theory had to adapt to explain this inherent contradiction. So, instead of an explosion long ago and far away, now the big bang was said to have happened everywhere at once. There was no ground zero, or location where the big bang occurred. According to this version, ever since, space itself has been expanding uniformly, like the surface of a balloon.
The new version has its own problems, though. First, the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the existence of an aether. "Space itself" cannot expand, because there is nothing there to expand. Electromagnetic waves don't interact with empty space, which doesn't act as a medium for light the way water does for ocean waves. If there is an underlying medium in empty space, it has always defied measurement, beginning with Michelson and Morley. All the "expanding space" advocates are doing is allowing their frame of reference to expand, which is something imaginary with no phyisical existence.
The Michelson-Morley experiment was one of the most important in the history of physics, and has been repeated and validated all across the EM spectrum. Physical space and time may be interrelated by relativity, but an expanding empty space is just an expanding - and imaginary - coordinate system.
The cosmic microwave background is almost isotropic as well. Look at the famous map they've made of it. At first it looks like an ink blot, but if you look at the scale, you'll see it's a map of tiny variations and is almost isotropic. Why are the microwaves also isotropic, instead of all heading away from the starting point of the big bang? Because the big bang didn't happen anywhere in space. It happened everywhere at once.
Another unexplainable aspect of the big bang theory is called the matter-antimatter asymmetry problem. In the laboratory, matter and antimatter particles are always produced in pairs. If they come into contact, they annihilate each other, leaving only energy. The observed universe is made almost entirely of matter. If all matter was created from energy in a big bang, by what mechanism was it created, that did not result in the creation of an equal amount of antimatter? There is no explanation, and no known mechanism.
Cosmology is the insistence that the universe was created, despite all evidence showing it's in a steady-state. Creationists believe that the universe was created by God and this is a big part of that theory.
Just to your first point, if space is “flat” which it seems to be or very close to, and if we consider each arbitrary volume of space in our observable universe expands at the same rate then regardless of the observer position red shifts etc will appear isotopic. So you cannot determine the location of any origin even if that is a meaningful thing.
The redshifts you mentioned were, in fact, first noticed by Georges Lemaître two years before Hubble and he also noticed the redshift-distance correlation. Lemaître was the first person to produce any estimate at all of what we call Hubble's constant (it is sometimes referred to as the Hubble-Lemaître constant).
Lemaître's data was not so good as Hubble's data but he published first, just not in English.
I love how physicist nowadays just invent some mathematical trick to patch an already actually disproved pet theory, and then proclaim that anyone should just shut up because first he has to show sufficient proficiency in understanding the trick. Space itself expanding... This is such an obvious logical BS that one shouldn't even wonder that those theories turn out to be even already mathematically inconsistent all the time.
Who and what is the Simon Foundation? And who is the speaker and what are his qualifications?
Steinhardt is the Albert Einstein Professor in Science at Princeton University. He
received his B.S. in physics from Caltech and his Ph.D. from Harvard
University. He was a physics professor at the University of
Pennsylvania from 1981 until 1998, when he joined the physics and
astrophysics departments at Princeton. His research spans diverse
fields, including cosmology, high-energy physics, condensed matter
physics and geoscience. He is a fellow of the American Physical Society
and the National Academy of Sciences.
@@JCO2002 That was nice of you to inform the OP about something they could have looked up easily themselves.
@@paulcooper8818 At first, I wondered about the same thing myself. Checked, clicked on the link, copied and pasted. No big deal.
Food for thought... ☺️
Is gravity not the slow contraction?
Mediated to center of everything is the longitudinal Inertial plane/Counterspace.
About time for a BB alternative. But does it explain the "dust"?
The entire video (until the end) I was wondering if this had been shared with Penrose. Fascinating stuff. Thank you for sharing
In Road to Reality Penrose throws shade at Inflation - the first time I’d seen anyone do so.
What about redshift, though? Doesn’t seem at all compatible with contraction.
@@enterprisesoftwarearchitect If 'a meter' was longer long ago, then the frequencies will seem longer from that long ago. Contraction and inflation must be compared to something and could be one and the same thing seen from different perspective.
You are absolutely mistaking about the Big bang needing to go! Accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by dark matter neutrinos have been recently discovered to contain Mass light has mass therefore anything that exists within the third dimension or higher contains Mass because you cannot give something volume without giving it weight! Light maintains its speed by slowly dimming out and fading away in space shutting all of its microscopic fractions of a penny weight into the dark matter which absorbs this energy and expands its density creating an illusion of accelerating expansion of the universe and from the singular spot or observation point in space time it is impossible to understand what is happening in places that are unexplored... The dark matter is everywhere it's around our solar system the more our sun lets out energy the more it increases its density just as it is in every single star around every solar system and our entire galaxy and every galaxy in the entire universe! This was the reason why I started my channel and some of the first content that I made! I'm telling you that that you are absolutely wrong accelerating expansion is wrong it is an illusion caused by exponential growth of dark matter AKA dark energy... A dark matter particle does not exist because it is not composed of the fundamental building blocks that make up you and me and therefore we cannot view it in these bodies it is not composed of strings... It is hooks, Because of this we cannot view a dark matter particle and we will never find one. We are treating this accelerating expansion like it is royalty amongst the scientific community when it is a relatively newly learned thing that no one has been able to figure out well I have figured it out! My system brings together everything it also belittles are measurement measurement systems but these are the facts and we must go forth with the facts not Bullshit just to maintain the status quo!
Penrose rejected the idea of a Big Crunch. He said that the crunch would not result in the uniformity and low entropy that characterized the Big Bang.
Maybe time begins in the middle and it's always now. Every point is the centre in space and time from its own perspective. The assumption that consciousness is excluded from this is a huge one.
Thankyou
30:32 Steinhardt literally says: "... it's important that when we finally get to the slow contraction phase, that the slow contraction is very fast." WTF!? Then why does he call it "slow contraction" and not 'very fast contraction'? I'm lost ... or could it be that his explanation of this 'theory', or even the 'theory' itself, is flawed? By the way, the notion of a cyclical universe infinitely going through phases of contraction alternating with phases of expansion is far from novel. Einstein considered it in the 1920s.
I think b/b is true but what comes before b/b is essential to model. In that direction I would advocate a biological analogy. It allows H in this video to be imaginary and negative as well as positive within a total boundary value math for entropy signs.
My view is about universe before, that there exists a preuniverse reality. The Why! The roles of supersymmetries and strings. This has to have some larger maybe fractal dimensional before spacetime exists.
The comments and feedback are as important as the video itself.
Yes. People really embrace thinking. It’s nice to find company on your interstate.
The problem is we’re observing and expanding universe isn’t that the case?
There is absolutely no evidence for actual expansion when looking between galaxies. It's only a theoretical concept fitting some large scale observations.
This is not a new idea. I have always favoured the bounce theory and it's nice to see it gain some supporting calculations.
His explanation seems to defy what’s being observed, I may not be correct of course, but that’s how I see it.
all these explanations like the one given here aren't really descriptions of the external world....they are instead descriptions of the consistency of symbolic mathematical 'logic' that is happening inside the human brain, consistent with whatever 'sophistication' the mathematics of today (or yesterday or tomorrow) represents. When Euclid of ancient Greece was the standard of sophistication of the mathematics of that era the geometric sphere was the accepted description of the fundamental nature of the universe and the stars were oil lamps hung on the celestial sphere using special hooks of some olympian kind......later, the standard description of the universe made it 'obvious' that the earth was at the center of the universe and the earth was that around which everything else moved in concentric circles nested inside each other.....today we have the epsilon factor and dark matter and the argument about expansion and contraction that is said to be 'observable' and 'based on evidence' of things like the doppler effect.....in the medium term future all these present day concepts will be discarded as an unrevealing series of dead ends and replaced by newer mathematics and newer assumptions which will, in their turn, claim to be describing the external world while in fact they will be merely describing the internal necessarily defective mathematical logic of an even more sophisticated set of number theory concepts linked by another idea and piled one on top of another into a huge edifice of symbols that then require a chief priest resembling a new Paul Steinhardt to interpret to us........all these explanations about inflation and bangs and energy resemble a parable, any parable, spoken by Christ in the New Testament of the bible...the parable is just a fairytale geared to an illiterate 7 year old mind and its up to the various subsequent clergymen to attach whatever concrete meaning they think it means and give that to the congregation. Thus Mr. Steinhardt addresses the scientifically illiterate minds of modern men with his interpretation of symbolic mathematical parables called equations, all generated by talented storytellers and bearing quite elegant but completely unprovable unverifiable relationships to the conclusions they purport to render. Nobody knows the true nature of the universe or where it came from or where it will go, but you never hear a physicist make statements of that kind.
I wonder if there might be another way to view all of this. Say a universe of infinite age, where galaxies are always recycling material that ends up re-emitted and somehow taken up to form new matter. Maybe the emission of neutrinos from black holes/plasmoids followed by neutrino capture in cosmic objects? I don't have anywhere near the expertise in math to be able to render a hypothesis like this mathematically.
What you are describing is exactly what Dewey Larson has proposed in his Reciprocal System. I believe :arson is correct but his work is qualitative not quantitative and so is ignored.
I have been having this thought since I was a child. If we see the same thing in every direction from our telescopes, how could we ever assume the big bang sent everything in a direction, or happened for that matter? And it just can't account for so much of what we see. I think in terms of the universe, the simplest explanation is that "existence is the default", I don't know why, or even if that's true, but it seems the simplest explanation to me, the thought of a creator seems even less probabilistic.
Existence is most likely the default. The goal of science is to study how the system evolves and possibly how it began. Only I think that there is gonna be a limit to how much we can know. Scientists gonna come up with unfalsifiable ideas.
@@MugenTJ I think there is likely a causally closed lowest layer we can never get access to.-Josha Bach I tend to agree with that statement of Josha's he's a philosopher/cognitive science guy. Should check him out. He's got some podcasts with lex fridman and curt jamung
@@thomasbarrack1384 thanks
You are absolutely mistaking about the Big bang needing to go! Accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by dark matter neutrinos have been recently discovered to contain Mass light has mass therefore anything that exists within the third dimension or higher contains Mass because you cannot give something volume without giving it weight! Light maintains its speed by slowly dimming out and fading away in space shutting all of its microscopic fractions of a penny weight into the dark matter which absorbs this energy and expands its density creating an illusion of accelerating expansion of the universe and from the singular spot or observation point in space time it is impossible to understand what is happening in places that are unexplored... The dark matter is everywhere it's around our solar system the more our sun lets out energy the more it increases its density just as it is in every single star around every solar system and our entire galaxy and every galaxy in the entire universe! This was the reason why I started my channel and some of the first content that I made! I'm telling you that that you are absolutely wrong accelerating expansion is wrong it is an illusion caused by exponential growth of dark matter AKA dark energy... A dark matter particle does not exist because it is not composed of the fundamental building blocks that make up you and me and therefore we cannot view it in these bodies it is not composed of strings... It is hooks, Because of this we cannot view a dark matter particle and we will never find one. We are treating this accelerating expansion like it is royalty amongst the scientific community when it is a relatively newly learned thing that no one has been able to figure out well I have figured it out! My system brings together everything it also belittles are measurement measurement systems but these are the facts and we must go forth with the facts not Bullshit just to maintain the status quo!
@@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler space doesn't have mass, so how do you parse that fact alone?
It's hard to believe that Jim Simons tied his reputation to thus talk. WTF?
Thx
It's INFINITY
Think of it like a fish ever reproduce and eat it self again and again,or like a sock being flipped over from within over and over.
The 'Big Bang' has troubled me for a while, in that why should a singularity reverse? Then, fom Sir Roger, how do you account for the 'thermalisation' of the CMB? Looking forward to ongoing development of this. Of interest to other viewers might be Steve Wolfram's work on 'A New Physics' if you haven't seen any of that. Very interesting.
Well, inflation solves that. The issue is what "happened" right at the beginning.
Glad your looking for a better explanation. Please read Eric Lerners The Big Bang Never Happened. Or Tired Light by Lyndon Ashmore along with Big Bang blasted. It explains formulas included the improved theory Dicke, Zwicky and others expected all along. The universe can be explained without Dark Matter or energy.
“The problem with these explanations is they are wrong”.
Wow. Compelling argument.
He immediately explains why they are wrong.
Try and keep up.
@Sean g 137 Were you high when you made that video containing your nonsensical word salad?
You are absolutely mistaking about the Big bang needing to go! Accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by dark matter neutrinos have been recently discovered to contain Mass light has mass therefore anything that exists within the third dimension or higher contains Mass because you cannot give something volume without giving it weight! Light maintains its speed by slowly dimming out and fading away in space shutting all of its microscopic fractions of a penny weight into the dark matter which absorbs this energy and expands its density creating an illusion of accelerating expansion of the universe and from the singular spot or observation point in space time it is impossible to understand what is happening in places that are unexplored... The dark matter is everywhere it's around our solar system the more our sun lets out energy the more it increases its density just as it is in every single star around every solar system and our entire galaxy and every galaxy in the entire universe! This was the reason why I started my channel and some of the first content that I made! I'm telling you that that you are absolutely wrong accelerating expansion is wrong it is an illusion caused by exponential growth of dark matter AKA dark energy... A dark matter particle does not exist because it is not composed of the fundamental building blocks that make up you and me and therefore we cannot view it in these bodies it is not composed of strings... It is hooks, Because of this we cannot view a dark matter particle and we will never find one. We are treating this accelerating expansion like it is royalty amongst the scientific community when it is a relatively newly learned thing that no one has been able to figure out well I have figured it out! My system brings together everything it also belittles are measurement measurement systems but these are the facts and we must go forth with the facts not Bullshit just to maintain the status quo!
@@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler Are you serious, or making a joke? This is Poe's Law in action. I seriously cannot tell.
It makes as much sense to believe that the universe has all ways been as believing it came from nothing.
Eric Lerner is analyzing JWST photos to disprove BB theory on UA-cam.
So - rather than an infinite multiverse we may have infinite universes going back in time. In each case, I believe, each universe may have different physical constants, so some will be capable of supporting life.
Either way as far as I can see is a totality where everything that is possible must occur and indeed likely repeats infinitely. This resembles the concept of quantum immortality.
i always felt cyclic cosmology made more sense
They should call creation 'The Fizzle Pop'
Calvin, from the cartoon strip Calvin and Hobbes, once called the Big Bang "the tremendous space kablooie".
Only the side of the UNIVERSE that we see
It amazes me how many "smart" people think bing bang is even possible. It's probably the dumbest bad idea in the history of physics
Okay, I dosed off and will have to watch it all again. It’s well done. Not your fault. Just a careless meditation sleep-drift into parallel time line. Here’s the thing. I am more inclined to rely on the answers derived from listening to my favorite channelers and mystics. Hold on, hear me out. A valid dimension is the spiritual dimension. I follow a half dozen brilliant channelers. I look for patterns where they seem to all be saying the same thing and what they channel aligns with my own intuition. They have as a group answered some scientific questions. I must say they seem to all say that the Big Bang is a nonevent in an infinite universe which does not have a beginning. They all say the problem to understanding is the human confusion with the concept of time. I’m typing as I listen and you are now hitting on quantum gravity. We each create our own timeline. You are on your time line, I am on mine. What’s more, it is thereby possible to create your own future by reimagining past events as happening differently. Start with the meditation “I am!” If you drift off that thought, come back to it. Just “I am!” Do that for a few moments, then allow yourself to reimagine a past event that you want to change and create a new now. This works in the relationships between people. There are other directions to go with this including traveling by changing your consciousness. Summarizing: (1) our universe is consciousness, (2) Everything turns…everything. (3) Turning is required for consciousness to occur. (4) All things, right down to every cell in your body has consciousness and emotions. (5) Changing your level of consciousness will lead you to know “I am.” If you want to know if the universe is flat or curved listen closely to the responses to the question posed to your favorite channelers…. It’s becoming the thing to do again.
Gag me with a new age spoon.
Honestly, I still think from what I have heard, a big bang is the simplest and most logical theory. And if it happened here, why not infinitely everywhere else in "space". I feel the simplest of answers is logically more likely to be correct.
Your logic in believing over simplified version is interesting. Years ago the simple idea that earth was the centre and the sun revolved around ot. Even simpler is the flat earth. Take your pick.
The problem with big bang is simply it is not feasible and does not explain what's outside the visible universe.
In a side note that diagram they project of the evolution of the universe is only a projection as we are not able to, not will ever be able to, see the universe in real time. We not even sure what is happening to those galaxies that we are observing now as they were ages ago.
It has just been patched too often by ad-hoc magical additions to fit actual observational contradictions, to be truly still taken too seriously.
The simplest theory that matches observations is a almost static universe with little or no expansion. The red shift measurements are misinterpreted. Zwicky himself told Hubble he questioned it.
@@Idontwantahandle3 You're given an example and you use it to avoid serious debate
Typical of scientism adepts. Dishonesty is your most common characteristic
@@Idontwantahandle3 I don't do parties with scientism cannon fodder. They're all dishonest and corrupt
Get yourself some honesty from drugstore and answer the point simplicity is NOT the be all/end all of science
Everything ''leaked out'' from elsewhere but through a small area.
Sound is non substantial form of energy which exsisted before birth of elements such as H , He , Li , O , C.... Etc...
Different sound waves exchanged energy in non-substantial form and hence given birth to Light energy , heat energy , speed , inertia , resistance, flow, motion etc and many such properties & characterstics of different sort....
The problem with the BBT is that it is just that...theory. It can therefore never be proven. Another problem is that it is treated as scientific canon. The universe exploded out of nothing into everything at no time, at no place and for no reason. What is the basic difference in believing that and believing in magic?
The difference is that the BBT is a result of following known physical laws backwards in time. The problem is at the extreme conditions of a big bang it is not known what laws will apply in the form known today. The magic is not in the known laws - it is in the unknown laws.
How did they know when the first atoms were formed?
Recombination- the orange glowing hydrogen plasma cooled down enough for the electrons and protons to pair up making hydrogen gas, which is transparent to light (except at a few wavelengths). That’s what the cosmic microwave background is. It’s the time when space becomes transparent rather than being a glowing fog that you can’t see through.
Either that, or by first “atoms” they are referring to the first twenty minutes after inflation or the singularity or whatever, when everywhere in the universe was as hot and dense as the core of the sun, and (ionized) hydrogen (that is, a bunch of individual protons and electrons hanging out in the same area, but not bound together in any way) was hot and dense enough to undergo nuclear fusion into helium (nuclei) and even some lithium.... which only happened for just under about twenty minutes. After that, it was to cold for fusion to happen any more (until stars form millions of years later). We know that this only happened for a few minutes because the ratios of hydrogen, helium and lithium in the universe are exactly what you get if you do fusion for about twenty minutes and no longer. (Because the lithium gets broken down by more fusion... so it had to be short... and it’s not long enough to make carbon.)
Fiat lux🦢🦢🦢
Nice try, Professor. Stuff that old Hawking tried to introduce a while ago. But Lehners and colleagues (Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics) brought that „no-boundaries-hypothesis“ to a fall. So I think you‘re wrong.
There is new evidence to suggest the Universe is a torus donut shaped. That would give you those right angles. Also, with distances large enough you wouldn't be able to tell. So while I like a flat universe, it seems there is evidence for both a positive and negative universe.
Non substantial form of energy such as SOUND have the tendency to make different formations. Its different formations represents different sort of energetic strength.
Before substances came into play in universal time line , non-substantial form of energies were in exsistense in form of NOTHINGNESS.
The universe is expanding not contracting!
What happens when they find galaxys that are older than 13 and a half billion years?
They don’t.
There is no beguining
Damn it, we’re the mirror universe of the people going forward in time.
Most likely a stop gap in front of you and one behind you too.
WHY DO YUR SPHERES THAT SHOW CONTRACTION HAVE POLES IN NORTH AND SOUTH...WHERE DO THOSE COME IN?
It's time to take the big bang out of the Flat Earth theory also
Better modelling? 29:48 "universe going backwards in time" ?? Maybe unfortunate expression but I know for sure Mr.Penrose in the calculation does not see the difference between "configuration space"( a pure math's model) and physical space-time. Here, only use of "entropy" without any explanation but what It means in such models as different from the classical definition and use in thermodynamics? Remember these folks cannot understand even the time parameter in Einstein's theory and hence, so-called Clock/Twin paradox aliveness - if one uses a term and its symbol one must know also physically how to measure it! It is not the case in Theory because the "clock" is not defined but...only indirectly one can conclude (using the reductive inference) what type it must be! Mr.M.Sachs tried to correct it but not perfectly yet; A.Einstein has "smelled" finally sth fishy in it but died in ...darkness (R.Schlegel reporting his conversion in AD 1952);S. Carroll, B.Greeen, S.Hawking,.R.Feynman-the same! I looks like the consequence of Original Sin work perfectly in the physicists' community in the last 110 years since P.Langevin's lecture in AD 1911 (or even Einsten's 1905 "peculiar consequences"). Kids study better both Aristotle, philosophy and theology: the concept and term of "creation"; if this proposed model is not another numerical fiction then we have a return of Aristotle's idea of eternal Universe (also accepted by St.Thomas Aquinas)
what
Did I miss the part where he explains red-shifting within the parameters of his contraction theory? Because without that I'm not sure I can take it seriously.
iF i LVED IN A SYMMETRICALLY SCALED UIVERSE i WOULDNT SEE LINEAR GRAPHS, BUT CONCENTRIC CIRCLES AND i WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THAT SOMEONE DIMISHING AT A GREAT SPEED FROM A HIGH TEMP DENSE UNIVERSE WOULD EXPERIENCE COOLING AND A VASTNESS OF EXPANDING SPACE, YET i HAVE YET TO HEAR ANYONE UTTER ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE TO THAT...AS THO THINGS ONLY MOVE IN ONE DIRECTION AND SCALE DOESNT EXIST. (THE BIG SILENCE IMPLOSION THEORY)
Talking about beginning first thing every one needs to know that initially NOTHINGNESS exsisted.
Though dimensions of nothingness did had certain properties and characterstics. When there was no substantial exsistense of elements only thing which exsisted with nothingness was SOUND. Waves of SOUND is what which had given birth to formations of different sort and phenomenon of action & reaction started.
I understand that I don't understand
Finally, a comment that I can understand.
Do you imply that gravity is a force?
Objective and Scientific .There may be hope for original thinkers in the future.
As technology advances the evidence will mount against 'BBT' and then what?
Atoms keep forming everywhere
Inflation is the condensation of matter INTO ITSELF and the filling of the vacuum left behind with recycled neutrons from black hole infall.
Klein bottle topology. Self regulating.
You absolutely have to respect those who devote their lives to trying to answer these deeper questions. While most people take life for granted and wake up each day living their routine lives....we have experts trying to give us answers to questions that have been asked for millenia. 💯💯
A priest by any other name.
Right, brother?
@@josephjones5070 This @alpetkiewicz6805 would give those "experts" his firstborn any day of week and twice on sunday
the universe is a doughnut.....:)
I like this idea - something to chew over :)
You have to crown it with something.
UNIVERSE c'ant collapse being infinity !!!?
First atoms formed at 400,000 years ....just how do we know that? Where did the matter come from to form these atoms? Was it from nothing as we a told. That is an absurd notion. Where did the heat come from to form these atoms? Heat requires an energy source. The laws of thermodynamics come into play.
My compliments for such in-deep insights of yours!
Big Bang theory is not wrong per se; I just believe the various events follows a more convoluted path with many unaccounted non-linear feedbacks going in both directions. You're fully right when you say the entropy of the Universe could be much smaller than what we believe at the moment. "Let there be light' could well be a state rather than an event...
Ok then IF the Big Bang is true then what do,you think will happen 14 billion years from now? 🤔you REALLY think the entire cosmos is only 14.billion years old? Yea sure 😑we say it’s flat it could be infinite meaning no end or beginning 😐and even if it die have a beginning their is no way the cosmos is only 14:billion years old 😑we would have no idea that this planet would ever form in the first place 😑Beacuse we were all ready dead 😑your mind can’t remember multiple lives it only remembers only one or this current one 😐