Early Universe
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 тра 2024
- This lecture will examine the evidence for and the significance of events that unfolded in the early Universe. “Early” here refers to within the first few seconds after the Hot Big Bang. These very early developments give rise to fundamental characteristics of the nature of the Universe.
A lecture by Katherine Blundell OBE
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website:
www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-an...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
Website: gresham.ac.uk
Twitter: / greshamcollege
Facebook: / greshamcollege
Instagram: / greshamcollege
Thank you very much professor Blundell.
Wonderfully eloquent lecturer. No problem following at 1.5 speed.
Why the focus on WMAP data when the later Planck space telescope gave far more detail and much higher resolution?
*"Titled"
People never run out of "in the beginning" theories.. job security for the esoteric.
Measurement evidence or term MC Measurement catastrophe, is very interesting if it builds it would mean its not isotropic and thats pretty awesome to imagine.
Thank you for review.
To use the word “early” is prejudicial don’t you think? The evidence we have from 13.8 billion light years ish away is more accurate. To use “early” implies a position in a timeframe. Also worthy of mention especially when the CMB comes up is the distortion by gravitational lensing. We can easily see specific examples from galaxies and clusters mostly. How much aberration does the total sum of the entire universe create? Spreads a single photon over the entire surface of space I think, or maybe only 180 deg of it.
The standard model universe = the visible at lowest frequency universe = the Schwartzchild radius of the mass of the universe. Hubble Doppler is artifact of the curvature of spacetime by mass of spacetime. CMB is surface of visible universe but nothing more.
Neutron decay cosmology accounts for expansion, gap, first scintillation, your early universe.
Also shows the process which maintains Lambda at balance. Why protons and not negative mass object in our universe.
Nothing new. I've been hearing the "pidgeon droppings" story hundred of times. I guess nothing new for a year until JWST goes operational.
Generally I find Prof Blundells’ presentations very informative. This presentation not so much. It seems to me that too many concepts were presented without enough background information.
Will the temperature of the background radiation ever cool down to absolute zero? And how much has it cooled down in the last 300K years? Finally, has the cooling down accelerated since the current UK Tory government came to power ;-) ?
See my other posts for this video.
If Space is expanding uniformly in every direction. It concludes that the density of universe is equal in all directions. But, Space is not uniform as we know some galaxies are not moving away but coming closer. There is imbalance of matter across space. So, I disagree that space is homogeneous and isotropic.
The point is that the universe was *very, very nearly* homogenous and isotropic before it spread out and cooled enough to become transparent. The differences were so small that we only detected the perturbations in the cosmic microwave background a few decades after we discovered it existed, because our instruments weren't sensitive enough (those are the patches of red and blue in the CMB photographs from the satellites). And yes, it was those differences that gravity eventually exaggerated into stars and galaxies, and yes, some of those galaxies are locally moving closer together, again because of gravity. But the point stands that the very early universe was remarkably, incredibly uniform and symmetrical.
Neutron decay cosmology. The neutrons which invert at moment of neutron star collapse into black hole are transported via marangoni current to the energy surface of universe, the lowest energy density points in space where they travel 14ish relativistic minutes then decay into amorphous atomic hydrogen. This decay causes a catastrophic volume increase of 10^14 times. This is the expansion. It’s gravity and other binding forces from here on in. The amorphous hydrogen is part of dark matter. Since electrons aren’t bound they can’t scintillate. This is dark gap in early universe. The first gas we detect is already the foam on this sea. Then it follows standard evolution back to neutron star. Continuous evolution.
Time is a compact dimension a single Planck second. The universe is eternal.
A world line kinda begins at neutron decay and ends at repackaging by gravity back into neutron. I have full topology. Best easy model is surface of 2+sin(2theta);theta;2sin(theta)).
The well is towards event horizon, but notice that it becomes the surface of OTHER lobe. Matter at infall of event horizon is inverted and becomes antimatter. But the two membranes, matter and ant, are bound. It’s a dual layer membrane with the vacuum energy/marangoni flow in between. The appearance of an antineutron on antimatter side necessitates a neutron manifesting on this side. It is a single continuous membrane which is both sides.
Red Shift: Consider the following:
a. Current narrative: Space itself is expanding. (Even though science does not fully know yet what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand).
b. But consider: The net effect of solar winds, particles and energy pushing outward from galaxies, (even modern science claims 'em' has momentum), continuously, over a prolonged period of time, with other galaxies doing the same, with nothing to stop them from doing so, would tend to push galaxies away from each other and even potentially allow the cosmic web to form between galaxies.
And then, when we here in our galaxy, look at far away galaxies, with other galaxies in between, the net effect of all those galactic interactions would have galaxies furthest from ours move away faster the further those galaxies were from us, including us perceiving a red shift of energy.
c. Now, utilizing the scientific principal of Occam's razor, which way is more probably correct? What the current narrative is ('a' above), or 'b' utilizing known physics?
SPACE IS FINITE AND TIME IS INFINITE:
('Space' being energy itself, 'Time' being the flow of energy):
Consider the following, utilizing modern science and logic and reason:
a. Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong.
b. An 'absolute somethingness' cannot come from 'absolute nothingness', 'absolute nothingness' just being a concept from a conscious entity in 'absolute somethingness'. Hence, an 'absolute somethingness' truly eternally existed throughout all of eternity past, exists today, and will most probably exist throughout all of future eternity. That eternally existent 'absolute somethingness' most probably being energy itself.
c. The universe ALWAYS existed in some form, NEVER had a beginning, will most probably ALWAYS exist in some form, and possibly NEVER have an end. Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, have been replaced by actual reality. No Creator needed.
d. And for me, 'space' is energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. They are one and the same thing. And 'time' is the flow of energy. Hence 'spacetime' being 'energy and it's flow'. 'Spacetime' had no beginning and will possibly have no end.
Red Shift: Consider the following:
a. Current narrative: Space itself is expanding. (Even though science does not fully know yet what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand).
b. But consider: The net effect of solar winds, particles and energy pushing outward from galaxies, (even modern science claims 'em' has momentum), continuously, over a prolonged period of time, with other galaxies doing the same, with nothing to stop them from doing so, would tend to push galaxies away from each other and even potentially allow the cosmic web to form between galaxies.
And then, when we here in our galaxy, look at far away galaxies, with other galaxies in between, the net effect of all those galactic interactions would have galaxies furthest from ours move away faster the further those galaxies were from us, including us perceiving a red shift of energy.
c. Now, utilizing the scientific principal of Occam's razor, which way is more probably correct? What the current narrative is ('a' above), or 'b' utilizing known physics?
There is no time in space it's all relative. It's always been and never ends on one theory. What is the Red shift? Recently this year it was reported a bluish or green haze was observed coming from 3 blackholes in our Solar System which previous reports said, solar systems only have 1 blackhole. So much confusion
@@natashanonnattive4818 Consider this copy and paste from my files:
And for those who claim 'space' and 'time' do not actually exist except for as concepts, then:
Consider the 'speed of light':
a. 'Speed' is distance divided by time.
b. 'Distance' is two points in space with space between those two points.
c. If 'space' and/or 'time' did not exist in actual existent reality, except for as concepts, then 'speed' could not exist in actual existent reality, except for as a concept.
d. If 'speed' exists in actual existent reality, then 'space' and 'time' both have to have some sort of actual existent reality.
e. Likewise, 'light' which is currently considered as 'em' also has to have an actual existent reality, in addition to being a concept, for 'light' to exist in actual existent reality, in addition to being a concept.
f. So, if the 'speed of light' actually exists in existent reality, then 'space', 'time', 'speed' and 'light' ('em'), all also have to actually exist in existent reality, otherwise, the 'speed of light' could not actually exist in existent reality, other than just as a concept, (which would put a major kink in a lot of physics formulas).
Nothing created stuff and that stuff created life. A sharp English accent can't make that theory sound even a little scientific.
See my other posts for this video.
Well, nobody ever said that nothing created something.
You did not understand.
Nothing can not, logically, create something.
Nothing can not even exist, logically.
If nothing existed, it would automatically be something.
And, we don't know anything beyond the CMB.
We do not know, period.
🧬
@@Dadas0560 And hence also:
a. Modern science claims energy cannot be created nor destroyed, hence energy is eternally existent.
b. An absolute somethingness cannot come from an absolute nothingness, so an absolute somethingness always existed, most probably being energy itself.
c. Universe ALWAYS existed in some form and NEVER had a beginning, No Creator Needed.
'a' is true, is it not? 'b' is true, is it not? If 'a' and 'b' are true, then no creator is needed in 'c'.
@@charlesbrightman4237 Well, my answer is:
We don't know.
I susspect there are questions we don't know how to ask.
And, a creator is also illogical.
It would have to be that this creator created out of nothing - that's one option.
Otherwise, this creator must have had created out of things that already had existed. Which still takes us into the infinite regress.
And, if we assume that the creator is the exception, the uncaused cause, then we have another conundrum - the idea of creation must have been eternal in the mind of the creator, already, thus must have been eternal, thus the creation also must have been eternal, always existed.
I bet there are, simply, questions which we don't know how to ask...