There are PROBLEMS with the Big Bang Theory!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- #Cosmology #BigBang #Inflation
The Big Bang model is one of the most spectacularly successful paradigms in all of science. We have robust evidence for a dense, hot, early phase of the universe, ranging from the origin of matter to the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation that I study. But how did the Big Bang itself happen? Why does the Universe have the peculiar features that it does?
The answer, according to many cosmologists, lies in the theory of Inflation. I've pointed out some uncomfortable consequences of inflation, such as the Multiverse, in previous videos. But today's video does a deep dive into Inflation's many successes and points out ways it solves several problems in the Big Bang Model.
An inflation crash course!
Cosmic Microwave Background maps courtesy of NASA’s WMAP and ESA’s Planck
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @drbriankeating
Support the podcast: / drbriankeating
And please join my mailing list to get resources and enter giveaways to win a FREE copy of my book (and more) briankeating.co... 📝
🎥 🎥 Watch my most popular videos🎥 🎥
Frank Wilczek • Nobel Prizewinner Fran...
Weinstein and Wolfram • Stephen Wolfram vs. Er...
Sheldon Glashow: • Sheldon Glashow: The P...
Michael Saylor The Physics of Bitcoin • Michael Saylor: The Ph...
Sir Roger Penrose, Nobel Prize winner: • Nobel Prize in Physics...
Jill Tarter • Jill Tarter: Time to S...
Sara Seager Venus LIfe: • Did Scientists Discove...
Noam Chomsky: • Noam Chomsky: Consciou...
Sabine Hossenfelder: • Sabine Hossenfelder: T...
Sarah Scoles: • Sarah Scoles, Author o...
Stephen Wolfram: • Has Stephen Wolfram di...
🏄♂️ Find me on Twitter at / drbriankeating
🔥 Find me on Instagram at / drbriankeating
📖 Buy my book LOSING THE NOBEL PRIZE: amzn.to/2sa5UpA
🔔 Subscribe for more great content www.youtube.co...
✍️Detailed Blog posts here: briankeating.c...
📧Join my mailing list: briankeating.co...
👪Join my Facebook Group: / losingthenobelprize
🎙️Please subscribe, rate, and review the INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast on iTunes: itunes.apple.c...
🎙️Listen on all other platforms: wavve.link/into
A production of imagination.ucs...
Support the podcast: / drbriankeating
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Plays the Race Card!"
• Neil DeGrasse Tyson Hi...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Are you convinced that inflation is the answer to cosmology's unsolved mysteries?
Definitely part of the answer .
If: ((speed of light/(m_e))N)^-1 = 3.03856333×10^-39 s^3/m^2 Then: solar panel power specific weight, transformer specific weight, & mass per power, are the results from Wolfram|Alpha.
I am really look forward to this. Thank you. Equations, equations, equations please.
Yes, but the part about isotropy might be confusing. The temperature of the CMB is isotropic, then and the temperature of patches of sky today are also isotropic. But, at the largest scales we can observe, there are anisotropic properties like strings, webs and walls in the structure of the distribution of the galaxies. Right? Also, there an infinite theoretical number of positive and negative curvatures, but there cannot be infinite positive or negative curvature. This would imply infinite energy density. There is one observed flat curvature, which may the result of some summation of positive and negative curvature.
@@radical137 I think if you consider the size and amount of any fluction in a particular direction, as a percentage of the overall size of the universe, then from a probability standpoint you find the same probability for the same quantity and sizes of fluctuations in any direction. If you had no coordinate system, there would be no natuarally occuring patern(s) to give you any reason to believe one direction was any different, in any way, to all directions.
I’m not smart enough to know if you’re right or wrong, but I respect you talking about alternate points of view and showing the issues with the things everyone seems to take for granted
"So, the numbers become astronomical."
Hmm, really. The number of astronomical objects becomes astronomical... you don't say 🤔
I see what you did there.
That's why they call it Astron-O'my?
I’m thinking it was tongue in cheek….but you missed the quip.
@@sliglusamelius8578 I don't think they missed it... that's obviously why they made the comment, LOL! 😄
2:12 Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "in the *observable* universe"? The statement, as is, implies that there is a known size of the universe and it exactly corresponds to the optical horizon at our current location and time.
That could even be modified to read "in Earth's current time- and space-adjusted observable universe".
Great presentation. It's great to get this kind of cutting edge content with nice graphics and explanations. Because of you we don't have to wait 7 years for the Discovery Channel to catch up with a poorly explained dumbed down version.
Hi Andrew, Thank you, very much
The flatness problem is easy. The reason that triangles are flat within the universe is that you aren't measuring the surface of the universe. You are measuring three points inside the universe. We do not exist on space. We exist within space.
This is not a critical comment but rather an observation as I find it truly amazing that with all of the brain trust on this planet, no matter what theories are created and explored, none of them can work without injecting theology at some point. They are all cool theories but the truth of it is that something doesn't come from nothing and nothing is something (apply that to before the big bang, what the big bang 'inflated' into and the material to form / explode from the singularity). I encourage you and your colleagues to continue your work without theology. I believe that injecting faith will skew and / or cover up legitimately explainable phenomenon. However, once you have exhausted all of your explanations, the one that is left over, no matter how improvable, will be your answer. I may not be part of the collective post collegiate brain trust however, I already found my answer and I take comfort that it is theologically based.
Two years on, and the JWST keeps throwing up an impossible this, an impossible that, things that "shouldn't exist". It's usually at this point that a theory, when it is no longer backed up by observations, is thrown out.
Loving your nice lists of numbers for all the various properties involved. Really helps me understand many of the major actors that scientist are taking into consideration.
Lets not confuse "improbable" with "impossible". Should someone who wins the lottery forfeit cashing in the prize because he feels his luck is practically impossible? Don't think so. Enjoy your improbable universe and the statistics that made it possible.
I don't know...According to the Christian Science community, if one person wins a race that 100,000 entered, the race must have been rigged because the odds of that one man winning are so incredibly high.
Ok...Maybe that wasn't their exact argument but it was words to that effect. ;)
God did it
Winning the lottery isn't improbable as it happens every week. Where are all your universes?
If I was playing poker and someone, call him Bob. For the last 5 time Bob deals the hand, he get a Royal Flush. Should I marvel about and be happy about the money I lost because I am experiencing a once in a life time improbable event. Or should I use statistics and probability theory to question if I am playing in a fair game?
A delightfully paced and amazingly articulated presentation with erudite backgrounds providing the equations.
One can not presume that this can be bettered.
Thanks so much. I aim to please
Bravo Brian.. A master class of fascinating information. .
Thanks very much bill I appreciate you
Science: Give us a couple miracles, and we'll explain the rest.
"Flat".... then... "more flat"???
Flat implies no fluctuations in any direction. I would prefer they used flat-ish.
Did you say how large the radius of the casual circles are? In km?
What you need is a star that will do two supernovas. The second to run into the first and together form a perfect spherical ball of dust. The first supernova is negatively charged, the second is positively charged.
I'm am pretty sure someone has thought about this before regarding the magnet question when breaking a magnet in half you get two magnets not two separate poles? If you have a strong Bar Magnet then how many times can you cut it lengthwise or cut it shortwise and it still creates two dual pole magnets? At some point does it breakdown at the atomic level or just continue into sub atomics? Is there already a youtube video covering this problem?
IMO, the physics community will have to exhaust itself in its effort to explain away fiat or God-Creator. But after they fail, then we can look at the big bang like a form of engineering, at which point it will make a lot more sense. Only then will we be able to make significant technological progress.
When the cosmos is seen as infinite, then the inflation is different. If there never was a single point to everything, then there is no place to need rapid inflation, as the pressure is created by everything around it, and a constant is being exerted all along the curve, nothing is needed to maintain a difference in outward expansion. Remember that time is also different at this point in the universe, so a set distance does not relate to what it is today. It could be also seen as a "draw" or pull to move outward, not a push. Something always existed, there has always been something, and it has always been everywhere, this is what Roger Penrose is suggesting, a morphing of "stuff", from one Epoch to the next. What we see as the Big Bang is as far back as can see within our Epoch, and is the dividing line between them. The homogeneity of the universe is all about how very large the universe really is to us, infinite in size relative to our vantage point, possibly bigger than what we can even conceive of as infinite. Extremely large scales explain extreme flatness and homogeneity at the same time. Just like time and space are related to the equation of distance and speed, time and distance are also related to averaging the smoothness and homogeneity of the universe. There has been so much time, many epochs for which everything has been averaged into what we are observing, if anything it prooves that there have been more than one epoch before our Big Bang.
There has always been something seem to me to be the unavoidable conclusion from the assumptions of science. Every theory of cosmogenesis posits something(s) along with some mechanics. "There was nothing and then there was something", is a statement not a theory.
@@myothersoul1953 Yes ...and that statement is incorrect, there was never a place that did not share that "infinite density", and it was also never a "single point"... it was everywhere at once, it was its own universe in the Epoch before...
Modern science is based on general relativity, which claims space curves near objects with mass. If the universe is flat, it means it has no mass, because obviously the space around it can only be flat.
I dont think there was a big bang. However , to say something happened a so many billion years ago, is based on our understanding of time as we know it. What was a year before our sun existed?
So what I hear is that we don't really know anything.
Dr Keating,
If big bang started from nothing, then why it's not happening now, within our universe or is it that, big bang can only happens outside our universe, and if so, then is it possible that big bang has been happening outside our universe since the big bang, which made our universe and if so, imagine how many universe have come to existence since our big bang.
Does the principle of Ockam's razor militate against 'inflation'? If the universe bangs into existence large and expanding there does not seem to be a need for any theory of inflation. I have never understood why the universe cannot bang into existence larger than what we can observe.
New sub. Sabine led me here. Excellent presentation 👍
Does inflation help to explain the OOL? ;)
Great video. Something coming from nothing is incomprehensible to me. Is something wrong with me?
Maybe the universe is a super great big massive galaxy that spins and that's why so flat just as everything does
The Universe without any doubt is Infinite, and therefore doesn't have a end or a beginning. As far as the Bing Bang theory goes it is nothing but a theory and is irrelevant when it comes to Infinity. There were probably a infinite number of Big Bangs in the past and there could be a infinite number in the future , but no single event can start Infinity, nothing can.
Very simple...God thought about it first....then spoke it into existence. We are made in His image and do the very same thing...only not as well.
in thru my right ear...out thru my left ear...😊😊😊
as a physics student in germany such things always blow my mind. existence is really mindblowing.
Agreed.
Its so fragile and we take it for granted.
@@notallowed337 I’m convinced the universe conspired to exist just to screw me.
@@chriswinchell1570 🤣🤣🤣
i agree
these days I fall asleep watching TV or movies but get up dancing like a weirdo when I learn something incredible about our amazing world
Yes it is but you can see the macro cosmic geometric currvititure shape of our void in the universe that is the right energy/entropy state it is....
We can study inflation in real time as we print endless supplies of money to chase limited goods and services. They must have been doing it at the beginning as well.
I'll go further: The Big Bang Never happened.
2:58 "Inflationary cosmology is a paradigm that predicts an early, ultra fast, exponential expansion of space-time itself"
I'm wondering how the past can be "predicted" ?? Inflationary cosmology is a potential explanation, but NOT a prediction of the origins of the universe as we know it.
You would need a particle collider the size of the universe to test inflation, I'm not sure we will ever have certainty, thankfully we don't require certainty. I'll be interested in testable prediction review.
More excellent content, these videos make a great addition to your interviews. Thanks as always Brian, your work here is much appreciated
My pleasure!
Thank you so very much for creating these videos. After listening to many different theoretical Physicists explain the same thing, I can finally take my first step into understanding. You explain why the Inflation Theory makes sense. I’m a little wary of the Multiverse idea simply because something with a number of 10 to the 500th power of “Verses” seems excessive, especially with no way to test the theory. Penrose’s idea is more within the realm of what I can grasp, but still seems untestable. Still, being a believer in Jesus, none of these ideas is outside of what is possible or believable according to the Bible simply because the Bible says so very little about such things. On the other hand, what it does say extends beyond what can be said about either a 4 Dimension Universe or a single Universe. After all, what can a “Heaven” be unless it is another Universe, something existing in extra dimensions, or something else we can’t even grasp at. I do understand a Physicists dilemma in wanting to have a Condition of Physics to NOT be by fiat. We all want to know HOW it all works. We also want to know Why, but they are separate issues, perhaps.
Douglas Rundell....Yes, trying to wrap our un-trained physicist minds ( at least my mind ) around the math and explanations in this video is, as the saying goes: "mind boggling". You said that the idea of 10 to the 500th power of multiverses seems "excessive". Yep, that's a big number, but an estimated 500,000,000 galaxies in the known Universe, with each of those 1/2 Trillion galaxies having about 1/2 Trillion stars in it....is also a huge and almost incomprehensible number..!! And how far past our 'known' universe does the entire Universe extend?
Can you imagine that just in our own Milky Way Galaxy, how many of those 1/2 Trillion stars has it's own type of solar system and in those untold numbers of solar systems there are the right conditions for intelligent and sentient life? This is also mind boggling.
And I agree with you, I am a Christian and I see no conflict with science and the 'why 'and 'how' math and theories of our universe. You are correct, there is very little written in our Bible about how the universe began. In Genesis 1:1 it says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." Okay, but it doesn't say HOW LONG that beginning lasted. And which beginning...the beginning of the universe, or perhaps the beginning of our Solar System and the forming of Earth? We are not told.
The estimated age of the Universe is, what, about 12-14 billion years. And geology puts the age of Earth at about 4 1/2 billion years. So...Earth wasn't formed until about 8 billion years after the universe began. So...once again I ask: which beginning? There is no conflict here. The conflict is with Christians who try and make Genesis a perfect, chronologically accurate time-table of events...."in the beginning". Genesis was not written to be that and was never intended to be that.
Neutron decay cosmology
The physical process, path of least action solution to black hole paradoxes, dark energy, dark matter and critical density maintenance
Neutrons/matter which eventually contact/cross event horizon horizons become the vacuum energy for one Planck second then re-emerge in lowest density points of space where they decay into amorphous atomic hydrogen.
The decay process from neutron to proton, electron and neutrino (hydrogen) is a transition from near point particle to one cubic meter A volume increase of 10⁴⁵ times Expansion. Dark energy
The decay product, amorphous atomic hydrogen, doesn't have stable orbital electron so can't emit or absorb photons
Dark matter
In time the hydrogen stabilizes and follows usual evolution pathway from gas to filament to proto star to star until in the distant future it is again about to contact an event horizon
The universe is steady state but constantly locally evolving A continuous flow down the gravity hill
Event horizons acting as one way energy pressure release valves venting from highest energy pressure conditions to lowest
From aggregated singularity to dispersed distributed diffuse
Neutron decay cosmology
Think it through
It's inevitable
Also have you done a good segment on the electric universe. I have seen some debunking videos that appear, to me, to fail to attempt to steelman some of the ideas. So for instance, some will say - oh electric universe proponents think gravity doesn't do anything - which is of course ridiculous and untrue.
In particular - what do you think about the idea that perhaps we are misinterpreting redshift - that perhaps the redshift-distance correlation we see is from something other than expansion?
False premises from the outset:
"Cosmic Genesis"- That's an assumption- not an established fact.
"Why do we need it" (Cosmic Inflation)- We don't, except to justify the earlier assumption.
"Why is inflation successful"- It isn't. It's a poor hypothesis built upon scant evidence.
I really enjoy your teaching Dr.Keating and I’m fascinated by physics and cosmology, but I have no education at all. I get that the universe is flat and the observable universe is 93 million light years across, and all the same temperature, but how deep is it top to bottom?
I think black holes are simply super dense spheres of mass (not unlike neutron stars or white dwarfs, just more dense) that have become dense enough that their event horizon diameter exceeds the sphere’s diameter, going black from our view. If a neutron star is neutrons touching neutrons with no apparent motion, I think black holes with their next level of gravity and density have the quarks and gluons pressed together with no remaining apparent motion or vibrations at all.
I think Einstein's wrong, that time is constant and that dark matter is the limiting factor to the speed of light. I think it’s not 'space-time' bending but rather gravitational and dark matter density variations.
Sabine sent me, and im not disappointed, in fact very impressed!
Welcome, you should check out the interviews. The Wolfram/Weinstein interview is pretty interesting if you're looking for something fun. :)
I'm here from Sabine too. Having a look round. See what it's like.
Hope you stay. I have my second conversation with Sabine coming up this month.
If the universe sits on a flat sheet of space, then according to present science it means it has no mass at all. This proves that: 1. the universe does not exist
2. scientists live in a paralel universe.
It's not plausible that everything came from nowhere. It's more likely that the limited measurable quantities of matter, time and distance, that we see, came from an infinite unending source. The logic is that you can't have anything without having everything. Try charging your phone from an equal or lesser amount of charge. It has to be a greater charge.... from a greater charge... from a greater charge... ✨ Anything proves everything. It's called contingency. At some point there has to be an infinite source for every limited physical thing.
It would seem to me that if flatness is a strong as presented here going back to the earliest intents of the universe then at the classical level (GR) in the FLRW solutions we are in a k=0 case which is inherently Euclidean. When we go far back we will get into quantum gravity regions which would be over come classical GR. Could the possibility of us being in a k=0 universe be the explanation of flatness? This has the implication that the universe was infinite from the start. That is it didn't start from a point or rather a region a Plank Length in size but it was infinite at t=0. Any thoughts about that? The k=1 would seem ruled out as it would be more curved the further back you go and topological different. K= -1 is also always infinite as well.
So if I have this correct, the big bang happened, from nothing, in a place that did not exist before the big bang? Perhaps a much more plausible explanation is, at some point, something did not have to have a beginning. I will take one impossibility over two impossibilities all day long. Am I wrong?
How exactly can one imagine space being other than flat is mind bending. Just because you assume space can bend somehow, or draw some imaginary curves on a paper doesnt make it plausible. Space alone cannot take the surface of a sphere, or any geometrical object. Space cannot be spherical, cubical etc. Those are geometric figures that can only exist inside a flat 3d space. I dare you to draw a sphere inside the surface of a sphere.
We might never know how we came to be as well matter but sure it would be a need to know how systems work: say sub atoms, atoms, cells, organs, our body, planets, stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies etc.
Scientists have the data on the most red shifted Galaxies from the Hubble telescope the Ninties. They could collect new data.
The difference between the data would prove the expansion of the Universe or not?
More stuff is being added to the Universe all the time , and there is a lot more energy in the Cosmos now than there was billions of years ago that could not come from a Big Bang Theory, and the Universe has expansion contraction cycles that sciences haven’t figured out yet and their stuck on the expansion only Theory and the Bang that started it, so science is still in the box about a lot of things
The most informative and well-presented video ever on the topic! Thank you Brian!
Thanks so much ! Means the Multiverse to me
Keep up the videos, loving your content!
Thank you, soooo much
Can't the CMB temperature be caused by energy coming from another dimension or even more likely, a scalar variable that represents the real universe in which the observable universe is being spread into?
These new style of direct teaching focused lessons are great and will bring in a whole new audience, tip that algorithm in your favour and bring in those big numbers you deserve, here's to 50k before the end of the year! Keep up the good fight Dr Brian!!
amazing to hear! Thank you, Sebastian Have a great weekend!
Brilliant lecture Dr Keating! I really enjoyed this. So many "unsolved mysteries" out there that still need to be solved...
Indeed. Thanks so much Ron!
Great video! I'm looking forward to the following ones.
I have but one question: how does one go about measuring angles of a triangle on the cosmological scale?
There seems to be a fundamental contradiction with big bang cosmology. If the entire universe was condensed into a point in the beginning then it should have remained a black hole, from which nothing can escape. Big bang cosmology implies that there is a mass limit for black holes beyond which they will explode into a new universes.
no matter/energy can escape because nothing can move through spacetime faster than c. But nothing limits the expansion of spacetime itself, hence hyperinflation.
Really killing it with these presentation style videos Brian! Keep up the good shit!
Thanks my friend. Many more to come.
i never like the idea of the bigbang since it became popular. it makes no sense there was a "beginning", thats semi-religious bullshit. Most likely the universe always existed.
Could be!
Not 'God of the gaps', but, 'materialism of the chasms'...
I don't think anybody is stuffing their beliefs into those chasms. Unlike religion
@@Joshua-dc4un Materialists do it all the time - Your comment is so clichéd. No thinking Christian accepts blindly. It is based on all sorts of evidence, argumentation and historicity. I would point out that materialists have no explanation for the big bang, the extreme fine tuning of the universe that makes life possible, the actual origin of life on earth from dumb and random chemical processes, or the origin of information at the centre of all biology that is encoded in dna... to say nothing of the fact that 'natural selection acting on random mutations' is increasingly coming under fire as woefully inadequate to explain anything other than the breaking of genes.The rhetoric is empty. MATERIALISM CAN'T EXPLAIN ANY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. Starting with those mentioned above. Chasms indeed.
@@damienroberts934 I see you just want to spout borrowed arguments. There's a difference between not knowing and not knowing therefore X (god, which is what christians do)
@@Joshua-dc4un What is 'borrowed'? They are mainstream scientific facts. Materialists by definition believe in materialist causes. If they haven't been found or proven yet, they have 'faith' that materialist truths will be found in the future - that is not in the spirit of 'not knowing'. I say again - materialism of the chasms.
@@damienroberts934 so what materialist beliefs are you referring to
My personal opinion is that the "big bang" never ends or begins.
As stuff is thrown out from the center it expands away from it, releasing energy as it goes.
As it reaches the outer limits of the actual, (not known), universe, it loses that energy and begins falling back toward the center.
Also, when someone say, "god did it", the correct response is, "yes but how".
And if they then say, "its not for us to know", the response should be, "then why did God give me a mind desiring to know".
From the 14:50 to the 15:10 mark, Professor Keating begins to say that the only explanation for this fine tuning of the universe is that it was placed there by Hand, and that scientists reject this because they don’t want to impose the notion (or fiat theory) that there was a MIND behind the creation of our universe. These topics even existing within the scientific community is a somewhat nuanced approach to admitting that faith in God is not by any means unscientific.
I am shocked at how stubborn us humans can be. We will take any alternative explanation for our existence as long as it doesn’t involve God.
The whole thing about the Big Bang Theory does not make any sense about a pinpoint of everything explodes into everything. First, the energy to take everything to a pinpoint requires it be outside the pinpoint to hold it there so that violates the pinpoint. Second, if it's a self-crushing pinpoint of everything how is that even possible. Third, the size of the Universe by just known distances is insane to a factor of infinity so the time to Bang and Crunch the Universe is prohibitive. Conclusion, the Universe always was, always is and always will be. The Big Bang or Big Crunch is just a cheap trick to credit a God who is Banging and Crunching. The Universe is only answered by "Existence Exists." by Philosopher Ayn Rand.
_"physicists hate 'God'... how can we get rid of that idea"_ is your *BIGGEST problem!*
The bible tells us _"the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom"_ that is the ability to discern *truth.*
When you ask the question _"Where did all this stuff come from?"_ it is imperative you define what you mean by _"stuff"_
Thermodynamics requires us to describe _"stuff"_ by its _"momentum"_ and _"position"_ ie divide it into ENERGY and MATTER because they behave very differently over time or history as described by the *only* measurement that distinguishes past from future. ENTROPY.
The simplest result from doing this is to run the video of the universe back in time from now. ENERGY as known from the CMBR can go back to a point we call the Big Bang but matter in the form of highly ordered stars and galaxies cannot. They must get bigger and more ordered as energy flows back in and is converted back into matter until they reach a point of maximum fuel, maximum order and minimum entropy. There is a simple proof of this:
Mass of the universe = 1e80 protons
Mass of a proton = 1.67e-27 Kg
Mass of universe = 1.67e53 Kg
Escape velocity v = square root (2GM/r)
Rearrange to show radius for given M and v, r = 2GM/v^2
Now if v = speed of light (3e8 m/s) then the mass M will collapse into a black hole if contained within that radius
Plugging in M = 1.67e53 and v = 3e8 m/s we get r = 2.48e26 m
*That is if the mass of the universe was ever smaller than a diameter of 52.5 billion light years it would collapse into a black hole!!*
Since also there is no experimental evidence that matter can be formed from collision of high energy photons (energy) without an equal antimatter particle the theory of the hot Big Bang producing all the matter in the very early hot stage of expansion is wrong. The result is all the *stuff* of the universe ie matter could only be created after the very rapid expansion of space and time. This is exactly the model given in the bible in Genesis about 6000 years ago:
Day 1 God said _"let there be light"_ (wave energy which could be collapsed by a mind into particles with a very long history)
Day 4 God _"made the stars also"_ (after the rapid expansion of space God collapses some of the wave to make the stars)
QED.
So because these particular scientists simply "do not believe", they reject the evidence of a Creator. If the evidence for a creator was not substantial or was far fetched, the issue would have never arisen.
The universe is definitely finite, according to Genesis 1:1, when one accepts the hypothesis that the word earth in English Bible Scripture, specifically the King James Version Bible, is a homonym that sometimes means the planet earth, Luke 18:8, and other times the word earth means the universe, i.e. Genesis 1:1, 2:1, Job 1:7, Isaiah 40:22, 66:1, Matthew 6:10, Revelation 12:9, and beyond this finite universe/earth which, by the way, is totally encapsulated in a water curtain and or barrier called the firmament, there is the infinite expanse of, up until now, unaccounted for antimatter that we who are of the Christian household of faith call the kingdom of heaven (Genesis 1:1). Just so you know.
Don't Forget the Law of Large Numbers: A Statistical Perspective on the Uniformity of Universal Temperature"
When exploring the mysteries of our universe, it's easy to get lost in the grandeur of cosmological theories. The Big Bang, cosmic inflation, and the steady state theory all provide fascinating frameworks to understand our cosmic origins. Yet, as we delve into these theories, it's crucial not to overlook a fundamental principle of probability and statistics that silently underpins our understanding of the universe: the Law of Large Numbers.
The Law of Large Numbers states that as the sample size increases, the sample mean tends to converge to the true population mean. This principle applies universally, whether we're flipping coins or observing cosmic microwave background radiation.
In the context of cosmology, we can consider each observable point in the universe as a 'sample' of universal temperature. Given the sheer scale of the universe, these samples number in the billions upon billions. According to the Law of Large Numbers, such a large sample size should result in a sample mean that closely approximates the true mean temperature of the universe.
Importantly, this predictive power is not contingent on any specific cosmological origin story. Whether the universe began with a Big Bang, evolved slowly over time, or has always existed in a steady state, the Law of Large Numbers predicts that a sufficiently large sample will converge towards a uniform mean temperature. This is because the law is driven by the scale of the data, rather than any specific physical or cosmological processes.
However, there are potential pitfalls to this approach. The Law of Large Numbers could potentially obscure significant temperature variations across the universe. In such a vast sample size, there could be large regions of the universe with vastly different temperatures that might be overlooked when focusing on the mean.
Moreover, the law assumes that the samples being drawn are independent and identically distributed. This might not always be the case in cosmology due to factors like gravitational effects or dark matter. Additionally, there are practical limits to how much of the universe we can observe. In some regions, we might lack sufficient data to draw robust conclusions.
Despite these challenges, the Law of Large Numbers provides a valuable predictive tool. It offers statistical reassurance that the uniformity we observe is not just a coincidence or a result of our particular vantage point, but a characteristic of the universe as a whole.
Yet, we must remember that while this uniformity supports the Law of Large Numbers, it doesn't necessarily validate any specific cosmological theory about the universe's origin. Since the sample size is so large, the mean temperature of the universe cannot be used conclusively to back up any particular theory about how the universe began. This uniformity mainly substantiates the predictive power of the Law of Large Numbers, not any particular cosmological origin story.
In conclusion, the Law of Large Numbers is a crucial lens through which to view the uniformity of the universe's temperature. While it offers a powerful tool for predicting and affirming this uniformity, it's important to remember its limitations and its agnosticism towards any specific cosmological theory. As we continue to explore the universe, this principle of probability and statistics will remain an essential companion, reminding us of the power and potential pitfalls of large numbers.
Cause & effect....and it's not just physics where you trip on this one.
A case of "first mover's" advantage...if ever there was one.
...and it's missing...that's a problem...not something you can sweep under the carpet.
Yes, ya can speculate to your heart's content...but you can never "know", like never.
...any possible answers lie outside our frame of reference...permanently outside.
The causeless effect. Im amazed how far its gone. Dark materials we cannot see dark energy we can't detect, billions of years you cant imagine, and now this.
Multiverse.
You will never get to see the evidence, they are running out of places to hide and probably some of them are hiding discovery that demolishes probabilities.
@@jacobostapowicz8188 Wether you are a person of "belief" or not...the fact is you live in an incredible place and time...
There is so much more to existence than "meets the eye" and that's not just a Cliché ...if you are no "awestruck" you are seriously missing something.
Now an "ours is not to reason why...ours is just to do and die " approach is fine for many...but for the "seekers" out there, no with their last breath they will "wonder"...
In the end the though "questions" tells you infinitely more than any answer can...
But we are limited by our reality...there are dimensions we can never "know" even with what ever new technology we may in time developed...
But we are (well some of us) nosey little monkeies that never "know our place" and some of us like it that way.
The natural first assumption for any physics student to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle while also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from electrons to solar systems are in orbit with something else pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space, and given that we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, is that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel where the speed of their orbit determines the wavelength and the diameter is the amplitude which would explain the double slit, uncertainty, etc. No?
Great analysis of the big cosmogenesis issues which inflation purports to resolve. Can't wait for the analysis of inflation and the critiques, possibly fatal, of the theory. Speaking of fatal critiques, I understand there's a mathematician from Google who's offered a pretty devastating one of Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity theory. Given all the air time you've showered on EW and GU, isn't it, perhaps, time to offer some airtime to his critic, if not actually arrange for a debate.
@Paul Wolf I think creationist believe it because it’s the simplest most unassuming logical answer that still allows scientist to study all its intracacys .... matter didnt create itself nor is it eternal and evolution does not account for all of life on this planet that literaly of itself produces every thing humans need to survive ... Hugh Ross is a cosmologist who believes in creation , he has some very interesting thoughts on this subject ... didn’t mean to disturb you friend nor can I match intelligence with your understanding so please don’t slay me 🙏
There currently could be a earth like planet with intelligent life 25 billion light years from us. They would detect the CMB from all directions 13.7 billion years in the past also?
How big was the universe 13.7 billion years in the past? Or how much bigger is the current universe compared to the universe at the time of the CMB.
5:28: "Can understand processes going all the way from when the universe was 1 second old until today, 13.8 Gyr later!" -- But what exactly does "1 second old" mean if spacetime is rapidly expanding? The quoted text seems to implicitly treat a second is a second is a second, but that can't be true.
The first Big Bang creating Universes is not the answer it was more by zHarmonics
The String Theory was
nearly right it should be The Strumming theory The plucking of the Strings.
Perhaps created zmusic creates a New Universe.
MBraithwaite Yorkshire Viking
Who knows maybe 4% visible matter we see ( including Earth) is just flying in the space between universes, stuff 13,7 billion light years traveling with almost speed of light is being pulled by neighborhood universe?.
If you invited all the people in the world to this food event, it would seem like everybody brought rice, just the sheer number number of people eating rice would drown out the rest of the worlds cuisine, the main impression would be that everyone on Earth eats rice, the size of the sample, the sheer size of the sample can give a false narrative by drowning out the variance that the example used in this video of everybody or I mean the 40,000 and bringing the same disgusting dish wouldn’t be accurate, it would be more accurate to say that every Bradley brought something and the dishes closely resembled of this disgusting dish, so everything looks like this disgusting dish and it would contain rice
BIG PROBLEM! If as we are told the rate of expansion of the universe is continually increasing and the galaxies we can see way back near the start of cosmological time are receding at near the speed of light away from us and the matter we are now made of no matter its form or distribution was also travelling at the same speed way back then, how fast are we now travelling?
I hate to be dense amongst the brilliant but I don't understand something about the "smoothness" problem of the CMB. If you expand a gas doesn't it cool off asymptotically toward zero as the expansion continues? And isn't that phenomenon the same everywhere not requiring the two gases to communicate to equalize with each other? So if you start off with a large expanding explosion shouldn't all the areas of that explosion cool off essentially the same way over time, not because they're equalizing with each other but because everything tends towards absolute zero over time? Shouldn't the non-actively star heat centers all cool off like an expanding gas everywhere in the universe? In other words, if they all approach the same low temperature over time, why do they have to "equalize" with each other? After awhile they're all independently going toward the same near zero temperature no?
If we assume that the assumptions being made that produce infinitely various topographies (curvatures) of space-time are correct, with a flat space-time being one possibility, then all that is required of nature, if you will, is to provide infinite change (aka: time) to vary that topography until the one or more states, flat or otherwise, able to produce you and me arise, enabling us to ask the question; Why is this space-time flat?
With first issue (Flatness) you have not mentioned that there are also could be many (possible) universes /(M-Theorie) but there is only one in which a species / physics like we are / experience would emerge. So we do live in the only "possible" universe from the standpoint of our existence.
Dr. Keating, you are a great father... Focus on that.. If the size of the image determines your might then perhaps you should nominate yourself .. How unlikely.. I really don't want to hear this.. You are just a nice person and you are wrong about almost everything you say.. And, I can prove it.. take care of your family... but not at the expense of science...
15:30 why do physicists or cosmologists presume that the universe could even in theory have taken some shape other than completely flat? Why is it such a so called unlikely “setting”. If flatness is so unlikely, isn’t it more likely that that “setting” is “greyed out”? Rather than it being exactly set to 0 curvature?
Try as you may, the beginning of the universe will never make sense. Some can believe God is eternal but if he had the energy to create the universe then He had to be the universe and therefor the universe is eternal. No matter how you imagine the universe, magic or not, it always comes out eternal. We have really only two choices, the universe is eternal or it doesn't exist. I coose exist, infinite and eternal. The most fundamental law of physics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, is violated by anything but an eternal universe. Speculate all else as you please, you won't ever fool me. By the way, just like individual electrons move slowly in a wire, is it not likely that individual photons move slowly in space or any medium, and the light wave propagates at what we call light speed? So much for Doppler effect redshift and universal expansion. Also it would be impossible for an infinite universe to expand.
Couple of problems:
It’s not the number of little fingernails in the night sky; it’s the number within the entire radius of the circle drawn by your entire hand at full stretch. And how long is your arm? 😆
How can you decide on half a trillion galaxies if Hubble can’t see to the very end of the universe?
We’re missing something, Brian. Something really, really basic / fundamental / simple “thing/s” that would bind all the beautiful sciences, minds and people together
Some ‘structural DNA’. The Cosmos is an incredible reflection of abstract delight.
Cheers
It's interesting how many times you use the phrase 'what we would like'. I think Richard Feynman would roll his eyes at that.
More interesting to me, what is the initial fine tuning of the universe in so many parameters - in defiance of all statistical expectations - pointing towards?
Everything in the Universe is shrinking, that's why they appear to be moving apart. It's not complicated, it's relative. All the stuff that you see is just gravity spinning in holes. When gravity spins in a hole we call that a particle. We don't fall towards the Earth we are rebuilt towards the Earth particle, by particle as gravity moves down, and spins in holes. Then those holes have a scale determined by spin, and so the Universe shrinks all that down at the same speed.
Imagine inviting 40,000 friends and asking them to bring a dish, any dish. If the temperature of all the dishes is exactly the same, will you still suspect that they conspired?
What if the solution to the horizon problem is a little like explaining how pendulum clocks hanging on a shared wall will naturally fall into synch? All galaxies share the same fabric of space, so what if that shared nature allows some kind of balancing of “temperature” to occur, even at distant points. There has to be a more elegant solution than such an inconsistent and seemingly artificial inflationary model.
I do really think you would work out well in economics.. God already gave us a space ship called Earth.. WTF ever.. It happens.. Im just another jack..
How about a Big Bang (unimaginably humongous cataclysmic event) in a preexisting, maybe infinite, universe? Do we then still need an inflationary interval?
I wait fondly, for the time I knowingly hear on YT the term “deep dive” for the last time! That’ll be a “real game changer”. Uh no uh wait
😎
Is the flatness really improbable? The universe might be infinite. In an infinite universe universe flatness is the most probable outcome.
For example, if you blow up a balloon infinitely big, it will be flat locally.
A trillionth, trillionth, trillionth of a second of the big bang you say. Given the mass of that locality, which is likely a billion, billion, billion times the mass of the nearest black hole, how long - exactly - was that second? What the second a billion years long? . It certainly wasn’t as long as one of our seconds.
Mere chalk on the board.
And the Horizon problem as I have already explained always will be in the past, because the microwave radiation from the reality today for the very far objects will come to us after few billion years of time. Good lack then.
Very interesting. Dr. Keating states that physicists don't like to invoke a "mind at work" to explain initial conditions. But the scientific method is about making observations in the natural world and then drawing conclusions from those observations; in this case, the observations lead to a Supreme Being setting the initial conditions. Why are scientists so reluctant to accept this conclusion?
"we can tell what happened 1 second after the big bang". after that "maybe, perhaps, probably"
"triangles add up to 180* therefore the universe is flat."
I have seen analysis that claims that magnetism is just a relativistic illusion generated by electrons moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light. Have you heard of this and what is right/wrong about this notion? (speaking to the magnetic monopole question).
"Where did this stuff come from" is a great question, to which "A Magic Sky Daddy" is a really poor answer.
Why? Could be someone writing code misinterpreted as a deity. Same difference
@@bigdefense777 Yes, because that is a really poor answer as well.
@@cygnusustus doubt
@@bigdefense777
foolishness
@@cygnusustus the funny part is neither you or I know
But you’re very impressive. Keep telling yourself such.
i have a feeling that the assumptions and calculations around distances might be leading of track... cant express my thoughts good enough, first this is not my language and second i have no physics degree, so everything i come up with might be bullshit at all... but i feel like the concepts of time and distances are made up by humans which might not suit the reality of our universe.