We know galaxies are receding from each other because as we look farther away they get closer together. The scope of the Universe is unfathomable as it should be. Infinity is so damn hard to see. We will never know what is beyond what we can see no matter how far we look. It's hard to accept but it is also beautiful.
Priya seems to be a very good explainer, kept everything simple, using easy to understand analogies (potholes, lumps, etc.). The others were good too, but she was especially good. Loved the interactions between Lawrence Krauss and Neil Turok at the end. Even though Krauss was supposedly the impartial moderator of the topic, you could tell he was an equal participant in the topic too, and he and Turok had very different rival theories about Inflation and the Big Bang. Like watching a couple of heavy-weight fighters taking little jabs at each other.
It is amazing how much can change in a short period of time. Based off the discussion of 'No Evidence of Gravitational Waves' @ 43:00, I wonder if there could be a follow up discussion ; not necessarily based off BICEP's observation, but LIGO's findings earlier this year.
hard agree! my mind has been blown a few times watching these vids lol. a few "assumptions" or theories presented on shows like How The Universe Works, etc that i could not understand the leap in logic while watching, start making sense after hearing these brilliant minds explain them a bit more in depth
Actually, they weren't talking about gravitational waves in general, but the gravitational waves after the Big Bang & Inflation specifically. We know gravitational waves exist when it comes to a couple of black holes merging. However, what they hoped to find evidence for was for gravitational waves in the light of the CMBR. That's what the Bicep2 retracted announcement in 2015 was about, they had thought they had discovered the signature of gravitational waves in polarization pattern of the CMBR, but what it turned out to be was that the polarization was caused by dust particles within the Milky Way itself. So they had to retract their claim of discovery. They are now trying to find a way to detect areas of the sky which aren't as heavily affected by galactic dust, and see if polarization still occurs there. If they still find polarization, then it's a discovery of gravitational waves, and therefore a confirmation of Inflation theory; otherwise, it's not a confirmation of Inflation theory, and Neil Turok's alternative theory would come to the forefront.
Funny listening to parts of this now after proving gravitational waves exist..cant imagine what we'll know 10, 20, 50 years from now and think how funny it'll be listening to the things we think we know now
@@SSagan 2 Gravitational waves in the Cosmic Microwave Background have been detected? When did that happen?? I think you are confusing the detection of GW's from blackhole & neutron star mergers by LIGO with GW's potentially produced at the Big Bang as predicted in many inflationary models in the CMB. The later was discussed by the panel when they were talking about the BISON experiment confusing polarization of light in the CMB with polarization of light from dust. Neil was talking about GW's from the Big Bang.
The speed of gravity = c (LIGO) The speed of the electric field = c (speed of electricity) So c is the speed of fields, not the speed of light. So why is the speed of light = c? Because light travels through the Luminiferous Aether which is a magnet medium so the speed of light is actually the speed of the Magnetic field. Thank you.
Excellent! A great panel that clearly presented many of the cutting edge ideas in Astronomy. Thanks! Only thing to add. Follow it with deep drill down presentations on each of the major ideas presented.
Interesting watching the battle with the guy at end - wondering what his response is now with the confirmation of gravity waves only a short time after this interview. But I must admit, I do think like him, and agree that the simplest explanation of nature is usually the correct one, and back in 2015, I would have found his explanations most convincing.
I also wonder what Neil Turok has to say now that gravitational waves have indeed been detected. And - instead of interpreting his statements, I say let them stand on their own. NT didn't say "gravitational waves produced by the big bang or inflation haven't been observed," he said "gravitational waves haven't been observed." NT also implies that because super-symmetric particles and more massive Higgs bosons haven't been discovered in the LHC, they must not exist. But that REALLY only means that they (apparently) don't exist at the energy levels (distances) probed by LHC - NOT that they "don't exist.". "Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence..." as one of the panelists said early on. Look - I truly appreciate informed scientific skeptics and rule breakers. Eratosthenes. Copernicus. Kepler. Galileo. Newton. Maxwell. Planck. Bohr. Einstein. Heisenberg. Dirac. Schrodinger. Hubble. (And MANY more...) They ALL abandoned the current scientific dogma of their times and led us to amazing new truths about our universe. And I get that Neil Turok has a "brain the size of a planet!" But he makes many seemingly unfounded assumptions in his explanation of his personal views... If history is truly our guide, the next scientific revolution will likely be far stranger than anything imagined to date - and THAT'S why I love science!
the problem mentioned at 27 minutes has a solution. i found the answer. time is negative. Riess suspected a negative sign problem. the negative sign is missing in his calculation. he speeks of the most distance galaxies moving in real time or current time, evenafter he tells us that these most distance galaxies are next to the most ancient parts of the universe. the high red shift of these most distance galaxies, the high expansion rate of this part of the universe has absolutely nothing to do with what the universe is doing today. the acceleration is not increasing but just the opposite. the early universe expanded faster but slowed as the universe ages and the chart shows the redshift tending to the blue edge of the spectrum as time progresses. hence, no dark energy from this perspective.
If the Universe is expanding and that expansion is accelerating what happens when we run the Universe backwards? Does everything keep slowing down until it stops at the Big Bang?
The observable universe will be ours to master. The unobservable universe is where the fun is. The problem is we have alot of trouble making the math work with what we observe in many cases. So we hold some things constant that are dynamic at the right extremes and the universe is nothing if not full of extremes.
He says (minute 8:03) "We now now - to an accuracy of better than 1% - that the universe is flat". So that leaves 99% of change that the universe is not flat.
I understand that, that's what he means to say. But you can also say the Earth is flat with an error of 0,78% and still it's round. (every 100km Earth curves 0,78km 'downward'). So what does an accuracy of 99% mean? It doesn't prove space is flat. There's still to much 'space' for error.
I like the multiverse theory personally, throw in a little "As above so below" & voila! Blackholes become the gateways to new big bangs where the information is reassembled in a different dimension of spacetime making the cosmos somewhat infinitely large like a fractal where scale & time becomes beyond comprehension of even the most insanely existentialist mathematician.
Muskoka Man Somewhat related: I imagine the physical universe as a kind of Klein bottle - or multiple interconnected Klein bottles (boingboing.net/2013/05/25/triple-nested-klein-bottle.html). Black holes are drain passages and the return valves on the other end are incomprehensibly small. When the pressure from the expansion of the universe forces the huge quantity of information into the drain passages and through the infinitesimal return valves, the result is like opening a fire hose with a tiny bore nozzle set to wide-angle spray. This event would cause an explosion of information ("big bang") into the receptacle(s) - in an infinite cycle.
not from the CMB though.. his comment was misleading implying that gravitational waves would confirm inflation. they do not. only gravitational waves from the early universe/ ie. CMB would suggest that theory of inflation is correct
If there was a little astronomer. a trillion times smaller that an atomic nucleus, gazing out from the core of an apple would he see billions of spherical objects, separated by vast regions of empty space, but which did not appear to behave consistently with their observable mass, as if some dark force were holding them all together?
Exactly! What if there are no irreducible small particles? And if you need smaller particles to hold the already small particles together... And so on and so on..
@Dhyan Jay no, i meant that what if size is all relative and inside every atom here is an entire galaxy or universe of smaller particles that make that universe and inside every atom in THAT universe is another universe of smaller particles... And so on and so on... So that in the end there is no "smallest particle". Kinda like when you see one of the Zoom videos for Mandelbrot's set. There are many on youtube.
@Dhyan Jay thats based on measurements of the visible light spectrum... There are other "light" wavelengths that have other properties- gamma, X, infrared, etc... And these are just the frequencies we can measure with technology, otherwise we wouldn't even know it existed. We already know physics behaves different in macrocosms(celestial bodies, black holes, galaxies) than the physics at our scale, just as physics behaves differently at the quantum scale... Who's to say physics doesn't begin to behave differently, once again, beyond the quantum scale? We don't even fully understand all of physics- gravity, black holes, magnetism, quantum entanglement, etc, etc... As far as i can tell there is no definitive proof that size isn't relative. Our vision and senses are very limited in our current conscious state. Large scale maps of galaxies show similarities between galactic systems and our own nervous systems. We could seriously be just living on a speck inside someone's massive brain- which to them would be "normal" size. Ever see "horton hears a who"? Very similar concept. We cant be so naive to believe that there is nothing beyond our understanding or grasp. This universe is much larger and much smaller than we realize...
Dan Marron absolutely correct we are arrogant in the belief that what we observe is what exists. We only possess 5 senses and a very limited spectrum of observation even with our instruments.
One question that I've never had answered since my Cosmo studies...If we can detect accelerating expansion, why is a point of origin undetectable? It seems strangely similar to geo-centric thinking. Anyone with information would be appreciated.
If the CMB picture is correct the universe is an oblate sphere.if we can see the same distance in every direction that also infers a spherical shape. So locally it’s flat but on the biggest scale it’s round. Yet why does the cosmic web have no particular shape.
Question: These 2D oval background radiation maps are (Aitoff?) projections of the 3D night sky right? 38:38 Why is this projection chosen over an equal area method? Is it because gravitational lensing messes up the proportions anyway? Second question: Is saying that the geometry of the universe is flat, the same as to say that 4D space-time has itself 0 curvature?
what is world science festival? i been following all videos ! i feel these things we my discovery ,, but was dissapointed as its already in discussion... good lead ppl..
We didn't know what we were doing? We specifically were trying to measure q0, and we had been studying supernovae since 1986 to measure distances. We determined how to use Type Ia SNe to measure distances between 1989-96. The value of q0 was surprising, but to say we didn't know what we were doing is not what happened Lawrence.
The videos of the World Science Festival are among the most insightful and entertaining science material I found over the internet so far, but I'd like to make you a question. If you cannot subtitle the videos by some reason, why just aren't allowed the automatic subtitles? If it could help people like me who just did not born in a country where people speak your language around me, can you imagine how could help people who are just by instance, deaf? Science has to be done by far more people. In a time when skepticism is becoming less and less popular, if we scientists don't step down from this pedestals, we are accepting the risk of having us all the destiny of Hypatia. And no one is gonna stand up for us.
Krauss finally touched on the essence of the discussion, at about 1 hour he starts to compare today's rate of expansion to that of the early universe and then passes off to Reiss who quickly muddles through without any real numbers. after being interrupted the discussion degrades to predictions of planets in the solar system. i wanted to hear the actual current acceleration and recorded red shift as seen between some close local galaxy and the milkyway. Hubble was a lawyer, so i can understand why he missed the point that the farther out you look the more ancient the data. but Krauss should have understood that the early universe expanded rapidly and as it gained age, time coming forward the galaxies movement away slowed. the farther away the higher the red shift. you view time in the negative, when looking into the past.
+Mootez Elhosni as i stated: in the video conducted by Krauss et al he stated the need to compare current and ancient rates of expansion of the universe. so tell Krauss of "no need for CURRENT acceleration and recorded red shift." the expansion is not exponential. it is as stated by space.com "expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years)" this is a mere 0.007% per million years. very slow acceleration. but this is irrelevant because i believe there is a mistake in the calculations.
The problem in your 180ﾟ and a triangle is when, said triangle doesn't account for A 180ﾟ but either smaller or larger; at that point you no longer dealing with 3 Straight lines.
When the rate of expansion becomes faster than light, then entropy will reverse itself and everything will begin happening again in reverse order. This suggests an infinitely oscillating universe. I just wonder if the oscillations are symmetrical. They would have to be if we are to believe mainstream theories. Unless Hawking was correct about information loss. Black holes are the one variable which could have broken the symmetry of an oscillating universe. In fact, I wouldn't consider this a paradox at all, rather a necessity, so long as a black hole's impact on an oscillation can be quantized through any effected world-lines. Determine this, and you may have a unifying theory. Patterns of oscillations could contain enough information to describe a system of higher order or the very system it contains.
I'm confused (not surprised) but if the theory of universes inside a black hole, which was what the last guy was talking about, is correct then surely the information of the universe would be constant? And if so doesn't that go against entropy? Don't think I really understood what he was getting at. Can anyone give a better explanation please?
mbk3986 Maybe the entropy in our universe has nothing to do with another universe. The laws about thermodynamics are about our universe. But I am even much more confused (maybe I am missing something): Turok is strongly against the multiverse, but he advocates universes trough a black hole. Since we think there are many many black holes, that makes a multverse.....
Objects are moving far from each other as the space is expanding and accelerating and space w.r.t us beyond a certain distance moving at a speed greater than the speed of light. How is this even comprehensible logically? Space expanding.. what does it even mean? Is it an object? what is expanding out of what? now, if it's so, what space is?
In regards to dark energy * In the video " reality since einstein hosted by Brian Greene @ 36:05 he states that pressure yields gravity. I beleive the extra gravity we are measuring is due to pressure of empty space-time its self, the energy of a vacuum. When space time is warped, the curve is filled with space, the energy of the space should have pressure added with greater depth. This is why we cannot see the gravitional sources, this would also explain why we measure it to be evenly dispersed. This would also explain the expansion of the universe. Like bubbles growing in size and accelerating in speed when rising under the pressure of water, so does matter, when under the affects of the pressure of a vacuum. The reason our predictions of calculation the mass caused by the energy of a vacuum is too high is because we're basing our predictions on what we see in matter. The mass caused by the energy of a vacuum in a confined particle under all four fundimental forces will be much higher than in a vacuum outside of matter.
Negative mass is possible if we are talking about relativistic mass. If the gravitational force caused by pressure of energy in a vacuum exceeds the gravitational attractions of matter, then we would have a negative number. That negative number would imply a rapidly accelerating universe, too rapid to hold matter together.
I just don't know why Lawrence has to be so condescending. He has a real thing against Americans, yet he lives here. He clearly is intelligent and has much to teach, but he doesn't have to make us feel stupid. Just damn.
If the relative velocity of very remote ( ie long ago ) regions of the universe is higher than linearly proportional to the distance ( in space and time ) , then these very old regions are moving *faster* than the younger / closer ones , so expansion isn't speeding up but down , or am i dumb ?
Furthermore : at that stage of the Universe's Life Cycle , its Mass was way more concentrated , resulting in larger Red Shift of emitted Light . If these two would cancel eachother out , the Universe would still be flat . I guess i'm dumb .
9 років тому
Curious the "branding" detail: the folding screens (set decor) like windows/Microsoft's logo, while he's holding the Apple's bitten apple... that he ends up throwing away.
My novel hypothesis that dark matter is just distortions in spactime by which the curvature alone is the cause of the gravity. Spactime has been observed to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating waves. These properties have been proven with observations of gravitational lensing, frame dragging, and recently gravitational waves. Fabrics can be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of deformation losing elasticity. Such extreme conditions were all present during inflation, so it is plausible that spacetime’s elastic nature hit its yield point and deformed. Therefore, if gravity is the direct result of warped spactime, and fabrics can be deformed, then a deformation of spacetime could create a gravitational effect independent of mass. Dark matter may simply be a particle of the spacetime’s structure, instead an exotic particle sitting in spacetime causing the warped geodesics.
👍🏽🙏🏽 Spacetime being flexible witout mass introduces the variable you have described! Unique configurations of matter may enable the bending and twisting of spacetime, no positive or negative real mass needed.
Interesting discussions. So many theories & ideas but sad to say, no final & definite conclusion. Not in my many lifetimes. Question is, why the Big Bang? Not how, but why it start; began,? Assuming to be true.
What goes up must come down hasn't been true since we achieved 'escape velocity'. We left a lot of stuff on the moon, which proves that it went up, but it did not come back down.
13:55 Empty space is not truly empty. I know this holds true perhaps in the deep vacuum of space. But I do know for sure that there are a handful of people I know who have truly empty space where a brain should be.
A flat universe would go against everything else we observe. Virtually everything that's formed (not a piece of something else) in the universe is in the form of a sphere. Why should the universe be any different? The universe is mostly likely an immense curved sphere that's so big we could never observe or measure the curve itself.
The currently accepted theory that our universe is an expanding [emergent] hypersphere at the speed of light, mine is that there is a super massive black hole at the center of our universe instead, and all matter in our universe is entangled with it making the universe steady state. I treat matter-energy differently then electromagnetic energy. The electromagnetic spacetime continuum is an open universe that coexists with a closed mass-energy universe in a close by, but separate [bran] gravitational spacetime continuum. Certain vibrational frequencies of the gravitational spacetime continuum form harmonics where entanglement occurs. The fourth harmonic is where gravity [so-called dark matter] occurs in the presence of matter. The tenth harmonic is where anti-gravity[so-called dark energy] occurs, where there is an absence of matter. My hypothesis is that protons [holes in the semiconductor junction] in all forms of matter and their presence in our location in the universe, this is the source of the attractive force of gravity in the vicinity of matter. My discovery is at 100nm distance away the force of gravity is magnified and can be harnessed to produce gravitomagnetic induction with my invention, the mass spin-valve or gravitational rectifier, due to this gravity large extra dimension. The other novel thing I discovered in the absence of matter produces a repulsive anti-gravity force that is much weaker then the gravity force and balloon like. Electrons however do not contribute enough mass to really effect gravitation in any significant way. While bound in electron orbital in the solid, hole mobility is limited and much slower then electron mobility in the semiconductor crystal My assumption, based on semiconductor theory for holes, that speed of light doesn't apply to holes, making quantum entanglement, and superconductivity possible in solids. Magnetism is a property of electromagnetism produced by electron states in matter; gravity is produced by the mass of the matter which mass comes from the mass of the neutrons and protons of the element of matter as described in the periodic table of the elements of matter. Particle Name.............Mass proton.............1.6726 x 10^-27 kg neutron...........1.6749 x 10^-27 kg electron..........0.00091x10^-27 kg Holes are the mechanism for quantum tunneling in the semiconductor; as well as superconductivity. To understand how "holes" work it is useful to examine the Hall effect in semiconductors. The Hall effect is due to the nature of the current in a conductor. Current consists of the movement of many small charge carriers, typically electrons, holes, what are called mobile ions or all three. When a magnetic field is present that is not parallel to the direction of motion of moving charges, these charges experience a force, called the Lorentz force. When such a magnetic field is absent, the charges follow approximately straight, 'line of sight' paths between collisions with impurities, phonons, etc. However, when a magnetic field with a perpendicular component is applied, their paths between collisions are curved so that moving charges accumulate on one face of the material. This leaves equal and opposite charges exposed on the other face, where there is a scarcity ofmobile charges. The result is an asymmetric distribution of charge density across the Hall element that is perpendicular to both the 'line of sight' path and the applied magnetic field. The separation of charge establishes an electric field that opposes the migration of further charge, so a steady electrical potential is established for as long as the charge is flowing. Both forms of gravitation experience time dilation and that's because they are time dependent forces. Electromagnetism EM or light has none of these properties except for anti-gravity and light are both mass-less. Light is mass-less because it is time independent and that's why speed of light is constant irrespective of the frame of reference you are in. Anti-gravity is mass-less because the force is produced by the absence of matter. So if you want to use the photon particle wave analogy graviton is a time dependent massive particle wave; anti-graviton is a time dependent mass-less particle wave, and photon is a time independent mass-less particle wave. The time difference between gravitational energy and electromagnetic energy is what I refer to as the non-renormalizability of Time and this is property that is caused by gravitational frame dragging. Your thoughts are welcomed.
Michael E Boyd Great hypothesis about the universe as a steady state. Your perspective seems to be somewhat dependent on particle theory as an imposition of gravity on matter which is then defined as mass. I believe that particles are not a real event, but only our observations of a space/time conjunction of wave behavior. It is our limited abilities of perception that describe particles. For example, a coalescence of light observed within a certain time frame is labelled a "photon" whereas you say "Light is mass-less", and I agree with you on that point. However, I believe that principle applies equally throughout the observable universe. Particles are not constants. When observed, particles would actually be only phases of wave motion; momentary states of observable wave behavior like eddies in fluid dynamics. Particles and their mass measurement is then an issue of observation. I also believe that the universe is not a steady state field. The analogy I proposed previously to Muskoka Man, is to imagine the physical universe as a kind of Klein bottle - or multiple interconnected Klein bottles (boingboing.net/2013/05/25/triple-nested-klein-bottle.html). Black holes are relief valves (drain passages) and the return valves on the other end are incomprehensibly small. When the pressure from the expansion of the universe forces huge quantities of information into the relief valves and through the infinitesimal return valves, the result is like opening a fire hose with a tiny bore nozzle set to wide-angle spray. This event would cause an explosion of information ("big bang") into the receptacle (fire hose reservoir) - in an infinite cycle. Thoughts?
brandex2011 The important thing is that you have to remember to produce frequencies that have equal number of odd and even harmonics so that when you produce harmonic progression by creating two of these special shaped frequencies you will produce a Plasmon wave at the eighth harmonic. Plasmon waves are carriers of energy and have the ability to travel resistance free." That's not inconsistent with my theory that the "spontaneous absorption and emission of light" is a by product of properties of gravitation produced by matter's [hole states] in two of the Fibonacci sequences that are quantum entangled on both sides of the super massive black hole at the center of the universe. When I was studying dislocation in the semiconductor crystal I noticed that in most crystal matrix the spontaneous appearance of interstitial screw type dislocations appear in the crystal lattice over time. I hypothesis these appear due to the emergent nature of gravitational space and time [i.e. space-time] from the super massive black hole at the center of our universe. Because we are constantly in motion there are characteristic plasmon waves, where these wave states act as carriers of energy [quasi-particles] and have the ability to travel resistance free [superconductivity]....but they also have the ability through the superposition of states [harmonics] to act as a power amplifier too. It is closed convergent gravity which is time dependent [massive graviton quasi particle], an open time independent divergent electromagnetism [massless photon quasi particle], superimposing to produce divergent antigravity, which is also time dependent in the same time domain as gravity is [i.e. massless anti-graviton quasi particle]. GR is built on gravitational time dependance [i.e., frame dragging] while EM and SR is not. That's why speed of EM is independent from your frame of reference; it's time independent. SR [linear space time] is a special case of GR [non-linear spacetime] after all. Recent research conducted in Europe proved that the node points at the zero-point when three harmonics each of the eighth in a state of Quantum Spin produces gravity. That is if the gravitational spin is spiralling at the standard direction of that particular hemisphere and this depends on the standard effect of Nature to step harmonics from a lower frequency up to a higher frequency. To make Nature run the opposite way then the harmonics travels from a higher frequency like 32’768 Hz down to 4096 Hz then the spin spirals in the opposite direction producing at the node points anti-gravity. This is actually the spin state of a graviton and anti-graviton respectively, where a graviton is produced by the presence of matter's nucleus, nano-bumps, and the anti-graviton is produced by the absence of matter's nucleus, nano-pits. Please See www.calfree.com/FiguresGravityRectifierPZTvGMRpit&bump.pdf for the measured effects of geometry, on gravitational fields and time. The geometry of matter, or lack there of, causes a force field to be produced that I could measure. The first page shows the 3-D atomic force microscope (AFM) rendering of the 10um x 10um square nano-bump that produced the ringing PZT readback signal on lower left of a strong pulling force. The readback signal on the lower right is the associated gravitomagnetic induction [graviton] signal the nano-bump produced which is also a negative amplitude voltage gravitomagnetic induction signal. The second page shows the 3-D AFM rendering of the 10um x 10um square nano-pit that produced the damped PZT readback signal on lower left of a 84% weaker push force. The readback signal on the lower right is the associated gravitomagnetic induction [anti-graviton] signal the nano-pit produced which is also a positive amplitude voltage gravitomagnetic induction signal. I calibrated this gravitomagnetic induction signal output voltages of these nano-features to a calibration pit using a magnetic force microscope to measure force magnitude converting recorded volts to nanoNewtons force. It's pretty much 1Volt=1nNewtons force for calculation purposes. The third page takes the gravitomagnetic induction readback signal from the same 10um x 10um square nano-bump on page 1 to show how this calculation works, and the fourth page does this calculation of the measured force strength, for a 40um x 40um square nano-pit.
Michael E Boyd By steady state I mean the universe is in a constant state of creation and annihilation of matter energy [a closed steady state universe], while the electromagnetic signature of that universe [an open universe] propagates at 3x10^8 m/sec everywhere. So our universe is steady state in the same way that atoms making up matter at the nano-scale are steady state [not]. But I thought stable matter lasted for ever, and only radioactive matter was unstable? In Cartography of the Local Cosmos the authors' examine what is called "The Great Attractor" in the Centaurus A Cluster. The video can be found here: vimeo.com/64868713 My hypothesis is that this video and the article Cartography of the Local Cosmos support the theory that there is a super massive black hole at the center of our universe; instead of the currently accepted theory that it is an expanding [emergent] hypersphere instead. But you really have to take the time to watch this carefully at around twelve minutes in until around fifteen minutes. If you look closely you will find [as i have] that we exist in the jet of this super massive black hole [follow the vector arrows directions near the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies]. Also you should note that the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are entangled together too, due to some time in the past the two galaxies embracing....maybe that's what produces the gravitomagnetic fields....i.e., the gravitational bran. So thanks for your thoughts as always.
Michael E Boyd Thanks for clarifying steady state as constant state. Now it makes sense. Are Plasmon waves carriers of energy in that they convey packets? Or are they only a manifestation of observable energy? Obviously, I’m a believer in waves as the constant state of the universe. I think fluid dynamics of cosmology has it right. Also, do you believe a super massive black hole at the center of the universe is the prime mover of all spin/motion/energy? Would you consider that to be the engine of the universe? If so, what causes the spin of the black hole itself? All of this is for discussion, so thanks for your response and input. Many posters think I’m trolling when I’m actually sincerely asking for a dialog, so thanks again.
brandex2011 Are Plasmon waves carriers of energy in that they convey packets? Or are they only a manifestation of observable energy? [There are two sides to the plasmon wave , one you can observe, the other you can not...since it's also on other side of blackhole you don't see. In the silicon crystal in a PV solar cell for example you can use ultrasonics to create a plasmon state that will increase the solar cell's quantum efficiency from 8% to 83%, that's the mode that use the equal number of odd and even harmonics so that when you produce harmonic progression by creating two of these special shaped frequencies you will produce a Plasmon wave at the eighth harmonic. This plasmon wave makes energy production more efficient.] Obviously, I’m a believer in waves as the constant state of the universe. I think fluid dynamics of cosmology has it right. [Close, but it's not really moving [so not fluid] it's like all the protons[holes] inside the black hole are dancing the same way, and all the other protons in the universe swing to the same tune...] Also, do you believe a super massive black hole at the center of the universe is the prime mover of all spin/motion/energy? Would you consider that to be the engine of the universe? If so, what causes the spin of the black hole itself? [Yes...and I don't know what is the cause....yet. I'm still working on it.]
Turok’s insistence that gravitational waves don’t exist must be making him feel a little foolish these days, along with most of his theories falling flat as well.
The obvious question is how can galaxies be reliable measurement points for mapping dark matter when they can’t be used to reliably measure acceleration
In relation to the black hole theory, I couldnt agree more that the birth of a black hole is related to the process we know in our instance as the big bang. However, I struggle with the ongoing consumption of mass that a black hole and how that would manifest itself within its child universe. mm Secondly, when 2 black holes merge, what would happen to each child universe (and grandchildren universes)? Would the two child universes subsequently merge to form a new universe? So what would it mean to us if our parent black hole merged with another one tomorrow? Will this "black hole to big bang" process repeat itself for infinity?
+PhamNet Well, the so-called "Big Bang" would constitute a "White Hole" - that is, a super-dense object (probably a singularity) blasting all it's mass outwards (instead of sucking matter in) I don't know what you mean by "child universe". What I can say is that Roger Penrose devised "Penrose diagrams" to show, for instance, what happens when two black holes collide. Any "gateways" that the two BH's had, in terms of possible gateways into different _Universes,_ merge into one set of new gateways.
I don't understand what you are saying there. Are you referring to the accelerating expansion of the universe (part of the Lambda-CDM Standard Model?) Thanks. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
Adam Mangler "This theory posits that, when the universe grew exponentially in the first tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, some parts of space-time expanded more quickly than others. This could have created "bubbles" of space-time that then developed into other universes." www.space.com/25100-multiverse-cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves.html
At 6:01 Krauss says "Becuase no information can travel faster than light." Shouldn't he have said, "Because the only information we are able to discern cannot travel faster than light."
Joshua Richardson Einstein says there is _no_ information we cannot discern? Born says there _may be_ information we cannot discern? If an event occurs that we cannot discern, we will have no knowledge of it. I would appreciate a reference to support Einstein's "no" and Born's "maybe". Neither of those assumptions make sense to me. Thanks.
brandex2011 I guess some people don't like jokes. In imitation of Kraus' joke, lock the doors as a discussion of physics is about to start, and we don't want the biologists to run away. It's called Quantum Entanglement, it was originally developed to disprove quantum mechanics. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen created a paradox of two particles becoming entangled and sharing the same spin, no matter the distance between them. If the spin on one entangled particle changed, the spin on the other particle would also change in response. This was in violation of relativity, as the information could travel at faster than light speeds. Look up EPR paradox to get the full story. Einstein called this "spooky action at a distance". However, the people on the other side of the debate, the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics, said that in fact, sub-atomic particles could in fact become entangled, and change their spin in violation of relativity. Since relativity is the most consistent theory in science (both then and today), and quantum entanglement is in violation of it, there must be something wrong with quantum mechanics. However, we've done experiments showing that quantum entanglement actually works. Two entangled particles will share spin, simultaneously, regardless of distance. This means the two most consistent theories in physics, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, are in violation with one another. Both work, and both predict the universe correctly, but they predict things that are in violation of the laws of the other theory. This leads to the Bohr-Einstein debate. It basically went like this... Einstein: God does not play dice with the universe. Dirac: Einstein, stop telling god what to do! I'm paraphrasing there, but it's the gist of the debate. Einstein first wrote this (god does not play dice) in response to a letter by Max Born. It would be Bohr, the leader of the Copenhagen school, who would respond, saying that it was in fact possible, if very unlikely given the technology of the day. This didn't make Einstein happy (nor Schrodinger, another quantum critic) as he helped create EPR theory to disprove Quantum Mechanics, and instead the most famous scientists in QM had embraced it, along with the randomness he so hated. So the very Quantum Physics that Einstein helped give birth to (with Max Planck's help) with his theory on light's wave-particle duality (the paper that won him a Nobel prize) and suggestion of the photon as the force-carrying particle of magnetism, was now predicting things that were in violation of the other child of his, Relativity. He spent the rest of his life looking for a was to resolve the issue, which he called unified field theory. Okay, that should be enough. You can unlock the doors and let the biologists get a breath of fresh air. If you want, I can also give a lecture on how Heisenberg proved that lasers cannot exist, if you want another joke only people with a deep understanding of physics will get.
Joshua Richardson Yes, I know all that, and I love a joke. My question is in regard to the limit of our observational capacity. Sure, there is a biological basis for the question, but how is it invalid? After all, our definitions are exactly that - _our_ definitions.
We can perceive that which exists. We can intuit that which cannot be observed. We can imagine that which does no exist. The trick is knowing when we're doing what we're doing, and not claiming we're doing something else.
If our universe is inside a black hole in another universe....what happens when the black hole in the original universe evaporates from Hawking radiation ? Just as the hypothesis by others that the universe is a simulation runs into an impossible infinite regress that no 'original' simulator could possibly cope with, so too the 'universe is a black hole' hypothesis runs into the impossibility of an infinite regress because the 'original' black hole should have long since evaporated and absolutely every subsequent iteration vanishes.
The introduction was amazing it told a lot that were missing in all other ones I have seen to date on this subject but was too fast too loaded with import for me requiring listening multiple times several sections
Probably that the discovery is great. A scientific or legendary status doesn't mean you're infallible. Einstein or Hawking made plenty of errors and oversights and where sometimes flat out wrong, eg. "cosmological constant" (unchanging universe - we know that the universe is expanding and so on) or that all matter / information falling into a black whole is lost forever vs. quantum mechanics (Susskind's string theory). I like Neil's approach of simplicity and for me he is one of the greatest thinkers within science and his lectures are interesting to listen.
Marc Munk Oh, I agree. My comment wasn't meant to be a jibe. I'm sincerely curious what he would have to say about it. I wasn't able at the time to find him speak about it.
I think that Neil Turok was speaking about gravitational waves that comes fromo the big bang itself ... Not the gravitational waves that were detected last 2015
The ones from the big bang *probably* have been the result of inflation, which Turok is highly skeptic of. The ones from the two black holes just confirms the existence of these gravitational waves that came out Einstein's equations.
Universe is a rubber band or a whip if speed is increasing. The space in-between everything is unimaginably increasing until gravity overcomes expansion. Dark matter is gravity and space dust.
Just SAD a video with this density of cleverness hasn't gotten (even auto-generated) _CC (Closed Captions)._ With accessibility like this, hearing challenged individuals might be left looking for the _'science'_ supposedly covered by the perhaps more properly named _World Silence Festival_ with their accessibility statement is *_"WSF: Where CC could just as easily denote 'Clothes Captains'!"_* Hehe? *;]* Holy crap i just noticed that the top pinned comment is by them and they actually mentioned needing translators! I guess they are trying at least! ;]
Infinite accelerating universe, dark matter, dark energy, and the rest of science conundrums can only be explained correctly once we have a complete understanding of the real true nature of gravity. I will publish online soon, in Singapore, my 30-year long fundamental research on the true nature of gravity. It solve all of the above mentioned problems.
Aren't gravitational waves just all the ripple waves from collisions eventually creating steady troughs that essentially work like space fabric "canyons" so to speak? I was explained to that basically "stuff" smashes in to other stuff and over long long time periods the stuff that doesn't fuse together either gets caught in an orbit or catches other stuff in it's orbit to in a sense shield it from more intense collisions.... in that mental image if seemed like there aren't really gravitational waves so to speak but rather gravity can only exist as a byproduct of impact ripple waves interacting/interfering with each other and relating these elastic resonant cavities that have a very small range but a range nonetheless of objects that could potentially intersect and become stuck in. Anyone? I am clueless I thought we knew gravity wasn't an actual thing....
There are several logistical errors... Extrapolation is an effective investigative tool. What we see is what there is. Looking at a projection gives impeccably useful information about the source material. Until people review these false assumptions there will continue to be problems. This reminds me of the factory workers who admonished me to not work hard because they want to milk it.
One thing is for sure there was no big bang, all you have to do is take the Hubble constant, it assumes that a certain redshift is a certain distance and a twice the redshift gives a twice the distance and the so-called Big Bang remnants with 97.5% redshift are 13.4 billion light-years away. That radiation from the remnants takes 13.4 billion years to reach us and it just goes with the speed of light, as if there is no expanding universe, but that wine emits radiation, after a billion years that is at a distance of 1 billion light years away and after 13.4 billion years that is at 13.4 billion light years away, if those remnants now move away from us at 97.5% of the speed of light, according to the big bang theory, that radiation will arrive there, but the remnants a little further up, that is just like the radiation from the big bang remnants when that radiation starts emitting at the speed of light and after 13.4 billion years that radiation is 13.4 billion light years further, only we are compared to the big bang remnants 13.4 billion years with 97.5% of the speed of light disappeared from this place. And if those so-called big bang remnants are just the dust cloud that our universe is built with, we look into the past and see that there is first a large dust cloud and when we look closer we see stars and milky way, then you ask of course what about that redshift, which can also occur when our atoms shrink, then the electron shells in which the electrons revolve around the nucleus of atoms become smaller and if we take a galaxy with 50% redshift, we look at a galaxy twice that size diameter and the electrons have to travel a twice as big orbit to make a circle around the nucleus and our atom is with respect to that atom with 50% redshift, halved in diameter and if we take the Hubble Constant you see that it is than is about 7 billion light years away and you can conclude that in 7 billion years we have halved in diameter, then you get a different insight into the universe, in the first place our measuring ribbon is shrinking and our clock is also going faster walking, which runs twice as fast as 7 billion years ago, we also see the Moon moving 2 cm from the Earth, that is entirely according to the Hubble constant, that was already known but the tides were held responsible for it , the Sun, we are moving away from that 10 meters a year, which is 10 million kilometers in 1 billion years and we are now at 150 million kilometers, so you might just think that's where the ice ages come from. The big bang theory supporters think that we are still accelerating, but the shrinkage is accelerating, because our clock is going faster and the shrinkage is also faster, the redshift bands can just indicate that structures in our atoms are evolving and so on. influence shrinkage.
if the universe is expanding, perhaps the balance of anti-matter is on the very outter "fringe" of the expansion, and cannot annihilate anything...yet.
In The Great Circle of Infinity, the tangency of point-line-circle time-timing orthogonality tangentials, this is the Absolute Zero Kelvin i-reflection containment vanishing-into-no-thing Singularity inside-outside holographic time-timing sync-duration Reciproction-recirculation. Ie pure-math relative-timing ratio-rates Circuitry of probabilistic correlations, temporal superposition spin-spiral log-antilog interference of e-Pi-i omnidirectional-dimensional cause-effect numberness.
The cosmological models circle and revolve around the unheard-of as the cat around the bush. But what you can observe, if you like, is their dusty approach to a much older cosmological model. These are the descriptions of the origins, the descriptions of the growth and the descriptions of the transitions of the cosmos, as it is written in the Vedas. A very startling development of modern cosmology. As if...
Lawrence Kraus is a gem
I wonder how different this talk would be if they had it today... So much happened this year. Great talk, I love this channel!
We know galaxies are receding from each other because as we look farther away they get closer together. The scope of the Universe is unfathomable as it should be. Infinity is so damn hard to see. We will never know what is beyond what we can see no matter how far we look. It's hard to accept but it is also beautiful.
Andromeda and our milky way galaxies are coming closer to each other on road to a collision. This is what the scientists claim.
It's interesting watching this after they've discovered gravitational waves.
Also the taking of the picture of the black hole which creates gravitational waves.Its a good time for exciting science.
@@tonib5899
" Gravitational Waves " move away from the source , not inwards towards the source .
@@philharmer198 I am aware of that, my point was they they move at the speed of light, but I may have said that in a different post.
Priya seems to be a very good explainer, kept everything simple, using easy to understand analogies (potholes, lumps, etc.). The others were good too, but she was especially good.
Loved the interactions between Lawrence Krauss and Neil Turok at the end. Even though Krauss was supposedly the impartial moderator of the topic, you could tell he was an equal participant in the topic too, and he and Turok had very different rival theories about Inflation and the Big Bang. Like watching a couple of heavy-weight fighters taking little jabs at each other.
It is amazing how much can change in a short period of time. Based off the discussion of 'No Evidence of Gravitational Waves' @ 43:00, I wonder if there could be a follow up discussion ; not necessarily based off BICEP's observation, but LIGO's findings earlier this year.
Kind of literally light years ahead of TED talks, at least in the study of the universe. Awesome dream fuel.
hard agree! my mind has been blown a few times watching these vids lol. a few "assumptions" or theories presented on shows like How The Universe Works, etc that i could not understand the leap in logic while watching, start making sense after hearing these brilliant minds explain them a bit more in depth
Now that we've detected gravitational waves could you bring back these guests for an update?
Yes...Exactly what I was thinking during half of this video!
Actually, they weren't talking about gravitational waves in general, but the gravitational waves after the Big Bang & Inflation specifically. We know gravitational waves exist when it comes to a couple of black holes merging. However, what they hoped to find evidence for was for gravitational waves in the light of the CMBR. That's what the Bicep2 retracted announcement in 2015 was about, they had thought they had discovered the signature of gravitational waves in polarization pattern of the CMBR, but what it turned out to be was that the polarization was caused by dust particles within the Milky Way itself. So they had to retract their claim of discovery. They are now trying to find a way to detect areas of the sky which aren't as heavily affected by galactic dust, and see if polarization still occurs there. If they still find polarization, then it's a discovery of gravitational waves, and therefore a confirmation of Inflation theory; otherwise, it's not a confirmation of Inflation theory, and Neil Turok's alternative theory would come to the forefront.
Gravitational Waves of Neutron Stars and Black holes have been measured. But has Gravitational Waves of the Cosmic Microwave Background been measured?
I believe your confusion has been adequately addressed. No need to comment. D'oh! Too late :(
You are confused. The CMB has nothing to do with gravity waves.
they've finally posted the whole discussion on here
yugang08 Yeah, what's with the 5min soundbites? They don't make sense when you're editing a panel discussion...
Funny listening to parts of this now after proving gravitational waves exist..cant imagine what we'll know 10, 20, 50 years from now and think how funny it'll be listening to the things we think we know now
Neil Turak is the most intelligent individual person on this panel.
Galaxia ... Ed Witten would beg to differ, but Turok is definitely a top-5 brain.
I loved the barely concealed rivalry between him and Krauss. Taking little shots at each other. :)
The 2 most respected physicists in the world today are Edward Witten and Nima Arkani Hamed but I agree Neil is certainly up there.
@@SSagan 2 Gravitational waves in the Cosmic Microwave Background have been detected? When did that happen?? I think you are confusing the detection of GW's from blackhole & neutron star mergers by LIGO with GW's potentially produced at the Big Bang as predicted in many inflationary models in the CMB. The later was discussed by the panel when they were talking about the BISON experiment confusing polarization of light in the CMB with polarization of light from dust. Neil was talking about GW's from the Big Bang.
@@EconAtheist @UCR16LkunxjHR_Oxk7wWH1JA Arkani Hamed and Witten were not on this panel
The speed of gravity = c (LIGO)
The speed of the electric field = c (speed of electricity)
So c is the speed of fields, not the speed of light.
So why is the speed of light = c? Because light travels through the Luminiferous Aether which is a magnet medium so the speed of light is actually the speed of the Magnetic field.
Thank you.
Excellent! A great panel that clearly presented many of the cutting edge ideas in Astronomy.
Thanks!
Only thing to add.
Follow it with deep drill down presentations on each of the major ideas presented.
Interesting watching the battle with the guy at end - wondering what his response is now with the confirmation of gravity waves only a short time after this interview. But I must admit, I do think like him, and agree that the simplest explanation of nature is usually the correct one, and back in 2015, I would have found his explanations most convincing.
Finally! I was waiting for this video since may!!! Knowledge!!!
Knowledge ❗
I would like to see more of Lawrence Krauss presentations. Love his sense of humor and insights on the latest science topics.
I also wonder what Neil Turok has to say now that gravitational waves have indeed been detected.
And - instead of interpreting his statements, I say let them stand on their own. NT didn't say "gravitational waves produced by the big bang or inflation haven't been observed," he said "gravitational waves haven't been observed."
NT also implies that because super-symmetric particles and more massive Higgs bosons haven't been discovered in the LHC, they must not exist. But that REALLY only means that they (apparently) don't exist at the energy levels (distances) probed by LHC - NOT that they "don't exist.". "Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence..." as one of the panelists said early on.
Look - I truly appreciate informed scientific skeptics and rule breakers. Eratosthenes. Copernicus. Kepler. Galileo. Newton. Maxwell. Planck. Bohr. Einstein. Heisenberg. Dirac. Schrodinger. Hubble. (And MANY more...) They ALL abandoned the current scientific dogma of their times and led us to amazing new truths about our universe. And I get that Neil Turok has a "brain the size of a planet!" But he makes many seemingly unfounded assumptions in his explanation of his personal views...
If history is truly our guide, the next scientific revolution will likely be far stranger than anything imagined to date - and THAT'S why I love science!
the problem mentioned at 27 minutes has a solution. i found the answer. time is negative. Riess suspected a negative sign problem. the negative sign is missing in his calculation. he speeks of the most distance galaxies moving in real time or current time, evenafter he tells us that these most distance galaxies are next to the most ancient parts of the universe. the high red shift of these most distance galaxies, the high expansion rate of this part of the universe has absolutely nothing to do with what the universe is doing today. the acceleration is not increasing but just the opposite. the early universe expanded faster but slowed as the universe ages and the chart shows the redshift tending to the blue edge of the spectrum as time progresses.
hence, no dark energy from this perspective.
If the Universe is expanding and that expansion is accelerating what happens when we run the Universe backwards? Does everything keep slowing down until it stops at the Big Bang?
it hasn't necessarily been accelerating non-stop since the big bang, but basically yes, just as any explosion would.
The lady Privamvada is a smart cookie! Wow
The observable universe will be ours to master. The unobservable universe is where the fun is. The problem is we have alot of trouble making the math work with what we observe in many cases. So we hold some things constant that are dynamic at the right extremes and the universe is nothing if not full of extremes.
He says (minute 8:03) "We now now - to an accuracy of better than 1% - that the universe is flat".
So that leaves 99% of change that the universe is not flat.
Dimitri Edgar Metz No. It means that there's only a 1% chance it isn't flat.
I understand that, that's what he means to say.
But you can also say the Earth is flat with an error of 0,78% and still it's round. (every 100km Earth curves 0,78km 'downward').
So what does an accuracy of 99% mean? It doesn't prove space is flat. There's still to much 'space' for error.
I like the multiverse theory personally, throw in a little "As above so below" & voila! Blackholes become the gateways to new big bangs where the information is reassembled in a different dimension of spacetime making the cosmos somewhat infinitely large like a fractal where scale & time becomes beyond comprehension of even the most insanely existentialist mathematician.
and as is typical, when mankind learns how to traverse it, we won't stop for directions. :)
Muskoka Man Definitely fractals.
Muskoka Man Somewhat related: I imagine the physical universe as a kind of Klein bottle - or multiple interconnected Klein bottles (boingboing.net/2013/05/25/triple-nested-klein-bottle.html). Black holes are drain passages and the return valves on the other end are incomprehensibly small. When the pressure from the expansion of the universe forces the huge quantity of information into the drain passages and through the infinitesimal return valves, the result is like opening a fire hose with a tiny bore nozzle set to wide-angle spray. This event would cause an explosion of information ("big bang") into the receptacle(s) - in an infinite cycle.
brandex2011 Interesting!
+Muskoka Man Like an infinite matryoshka doll
Is there a followup to this presentation now that gravitational waves have been detected?
not from the CMB though.. his comment was misleading implying that gravitational waves would confirm inflation. they do not. only gravitational waves from the early universe/ ie. CMB would suggest that theory of inflation is correct
If there was a little astronomer. a trillion times smaller that an atomic nucleus, gazing out from the core of an apple would he see billions of spherical objects, separated by vast regions of empty space, but which did not appear to behave consistently with their observable mass, as if some dark force were holding them all together?
Exactly! What if there are no irreducible small particles? And if you need smaller particles to hold the already small particles together... And so on and so on..
@Dhyan Jay no, i meant that what if size is all relative and inside every atom here is an entire galaxy or universe of smaller particles that make that universe and inside every atom in THAT universe is another universe of smaller particles... And so on and so on... So that in the end there is no "smallest particle". Kinda like when you see one of the Zoom videos for Mandelbrot's set. There are many on youtube.
@Dhyan Jay thats based on measurements of the visible light spectrum... There are other "light" wavelengths that have other properties- gamma, X, infrared, etc... And these are just the frequencies we can measure with technology, otherwise we wouldn't even know it existed. We already know physics behaves different in macrocosms(celestial bodies, black holes, galaxies) than the physics at our scale, just as physics behaves differently at the quantum scale... Who's to say physics doesn't begin to behave differently, once again, beyond the quantum scale? We don't even fully understand all of physics- gravity, black holes, magnetism, quantum entanglement, etc, etc... As far as i can tell there is no definitive proof that size isn't relative. Our vision and senses are very limited in our current conscious state. Large scale maps of galaxies show similarities between galactic systems and our own nervous systems. We could seriously be just living on a speck inside someone's massive brain- which to them would be "normal" size. Ever see "horton hears a who"? Very similar concept. We cant be so naive to believe that there is nothing beyond our understanding or grasp. This universe is much larger and much smaller than we realize...
Dan Marron absolutely correct we are arrogant in the belief that what we observe is what exists. We only possess 5 senses and a very limited spectrum of observation even with our instruments.
One question that I've never had answered since my Cosmo studies...If we can detect accelerating expansion, why is a point of origin undetectable? It seems strangely similar to geo-centric thinking. Anyone with information would be appreciated.
every point in the universe is simultaneously the point of origin. Every observer is at the center of their observable universe
If the CMB picture is correct the universe is an oblate sphere.if we can see the same distance in every direction that also infers a spherical shape. So locally it’s flat but on the biggest scale it’s round. Yet why does the cosmic web have no particular shape.
pro tip from Kansas: the earth looks very round, more so without mountains blocking the horizon.
In this multiverse are some universes much older than the next , if so does the older universe influence the newer one through quantum physics
Question: These 2D oval background radiation maps are (Aitoff?) projections of the 3D night sky right? 38:38 Why is this projection chosen over an equal area method? Is it because gravitational lensing messes up the proportions anyway?
Second question: Is saying that the geometry of the universe is flat, the same as to say that 4D space-time has itself 0 curvature?
what is world science festival? i been following all videos ! i feel these things we my discovery ,, but was dissapointed as its already in discussion... good lead ppl..
really great introduction!!
We didn't know what we were doing? We specifically were trying to measure q0, and we had been studying supernovae since 1986 to measure distances. We determined how to use Type Ia SNe to measure distances between 1989-96. The value of q0 was surprising, but to say we didn't know what we were doing is not what happened Lawrence.
The videos of the World Science Festival are among the most insightful and entertaining science material I found over the internet so far, but I'd like to make you a question.
If you cannot subtitle the videos by some reason, why just aren't allowed the automatic subtitles? If it could help people like me who just did not born in a country where people speak your language around me, can you imagine how could help people who are just by instance, deaf?
Science has to be done by far more people. In a time when skepticism is becoming less and less popular, if we scientists don't step down from this pedestals, we are accepting the risk of having us all the destiny of Hypatia. And no one is gonna stand up for us.
Krauss finally touched on the essence of the discussion, at about 1 hour he starts to compare today's rate of expansion to that of the early universe and then passes off to Reiss who quickly muddles through without any real numbers. after being interrupted the discussion degrades to predictions of planets in the solar system. i wanted to hear the actual current acceleration and recorded red shift as seen between some close local galaxy and the milkyway.
Hubble was a lawyer, so i can understand why he missed the point that the farther out you look the more ancient the data. but Krauss should have understood that the early universe expanded rapidly and as it gained age, time coming forward the galaxies movement away slowed. the farther away the higher the red shift. you view time in the negative, when looking into the past.
+Mootez Elhosni as i stated: in the video conducted by Krauss et al he stated the need to compare current and ancient rates of expansion of the universe. so tell Krauss of "no need for CURRENT acceleration and recorded red shift." the expansion is not exponential. it is as stated by space.com "expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or
minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years)" this is a mere 0.007% per million years. very slow acceleration.
but this is irrelevant because i believe there is a mistake in the calculations.
Neil Turok is spot on. Refreshing to hear a little sense among a see of silliness.
17:01 So what is the last 1.4%?
It's Kyary Pamyu Pamyu
The panel starts at 20:05 in case you know the basics of dark matter/energy.
Vortex: expanding to a point until it folds back to the center.
Gravitational waves were detected just two months after this video was uploaded and finally confirmed five months ater that
WHY do we need all this information? HOW do we apply this knowledge? Please explain .
Not all knowledge needs to be "applied." Knowledge can exist for its own sake.
The problem in your 180ﾟ and a triangle is when, said triangle doesn't account for A 180ﾟ but either smaller or larger; at that point you no longer dealing with 3 Straight lines.
What a revolting title! What waves of curiosity and wonder it produces and one feels swept along.
When the rate of expansion becomes faster than light, then entropy will reverse itself and everything will begin happening again in reverse order. This suggests an infinitely oscillating universe. I just wonder if the oscillations are symmetrical. They would have to be if we are to believe mainstream theories. Unless Hawking was correct about information loss. Black holes are the one variable which could have broken the symmetry of an oscillating universe. In fact, I wouldn't consider this a paradox at all, rather a necessity, so long as a black hole's impact on an oscillation can be quantized through any effected world-lines. Determine this, and you may have a unifying theory. Patterns of oscillations could contain enough information to describe a system of higher order or the very system it contains.
I'm confused (not surprised) but if the theory of universes inside a black hole, which was what the last guy was talking about, is correct then surely the information of the universe would be constant? And if so doesn't that go against entropy? Don't think I really understood what he was getting at. Can anyone give a better explanation please?
mbk3986 Maybe the entropy in our universe has nothing to do with another universe. The laws about thermodynamics are about our universe.
But I am even much more confused (maybe I am missing something): Turok is strongly against the multiverse, but he advocates universes trough a black hole. Since we think there are many many black holes, that makes a multverse.....
Objects are moving far from each other as the space is expanding and accelerating and space w.r.t us beyond a certain distance moving at a speed greater than the speed of light.
How is this even comprehensible logically?
Space expanding.. what does it even mean? Is it an object? what is expanding out of what?
now, if it's so, what space is?
We used to think the world was flat, Pythagoras came along and showed it was round. We used to think the universe is a sphere. Now we know it's flat.
well the last guys idea is shot ,we have seen dizens if gravitational waves now. what a time eh?
dizens if ?
@@whirledpeas3477 dude dozens of . obs
thanks from Denmark
In regards to dark energy *
In the video " reality since einstein hosted by Brian Greene @ 36:05 he states that pressure yields gravity.
I beleive the extra gravity we are measuring is due to pressure of empty space-time its self, the energy of a vacuum. When space time is warped, the curve is filled with space, the energy of the space should have pressure added with greater depth. This is why we cannot see the gravitional sources, this would also explain why we measure it to be evenly dispersed. This would also explain the expansion of the universe. Like bubbles growing in size and accelerating in speed when rising under the pressure of water, so does matter, when under the affects of the pressure of a vacuum.
The reason our predictions of calculation the mass caused by the energy of a vacuum is too high is because we're basing our predictions on what we see in matter.
The mass caused by the energy of a vacuum in a confined particle under all four fundimental forces will be much higher than in a vacuum outside of matter.
Negative mass is possible if we are talking about relativistic mass. If the gravitational force caused by pressure of energy in a vacuum exceeds the gravitational attractions of matter, then we would have a negative number. That negative number would imply a rapidly accelerating universe, too rapid to hold matter together.
I just don't know why Lawrence has to be so condescending. He has a real thing against Americans, yet he lives here. He clearly is intelligent and has much to teach, but he doesn't have to make us feel stupid. Just damn.
He's an absolute pinko commie
If you had a typical cloud of ordinary matter and dark matter, which would be denser?
Since we currently don't know what dark matter is, that question probably can't be answered.
If the relative velocity of very remote ( ie long ago ) regions of the universe is higher than linearly proportional to the distance ( in space and time ) , then these very old regions are moving *faster* than the younger / closer ones , so expansion isn't speeding up but down , or am i dumb ?
Furthermore : at that stage of the Universe's Life Cycle , its Mass was way more concentrated , resulting in larger Red Shift of emitted Light .
If these two would cancel eachother out , the Universe would still be flat .
I guess i'm dumb .
Curious the "branding" detail: the folding screens (set decor) like windows/Microsoft's logo, while he's holding the Apple's bitten apple... that he ends up throwing away.
G Bénard Wow - you have uncovered a conspiracy
Lawrence remind anyone else of that scientist from the simpsons?
You fkn nailed it dude!
Professor Frink 🤣🤣🤣
@@bwp7420 no lmk
@@jameslowery3315 huh?
Wow what an intro!
Why does inflation only go one way?
Even I know When something explodes it goes in all directions
Thankyou for this!!!! Wondeful !!!!!!!!
My novel hypothesis that dark matter is just distortions in spactime by which the curvature alone is the cause of the gravity. Spactime has been observed to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating waves. These properties have been proven with observations of gravitational lensing, frame dragging, and recently gravitational waves. Fabrics can be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of deformation losing elasticity. Such extreme conditions were all present during inflation, so it is plausible that spacetime’s elastic nature hit its yield point and deformed. Therefore, if gravity is the direct result of warped spactime, and fabrics can be deformed, then a deformation of spacetime could create a gravitational effect independent of mass. Dark matter may simply be a particle of the spacetime’s structure, instead an exotic particle sitting in spacetime causing the warped geodesics.
👍🏽🙏🏽 Spacetime being flexible witout mass introduces the variable you have described! Unique configurations of matter may enable the bending and twisting of spacetime, no positive or negative real mass needed.
Interesting discussions. So many theories & ideas but sad to say, no final & definite conclusion. Not in my many lifetimes. Question is, why the Big Bang? Not how, but why it start; began,? Assuming to be true.
isn't true that propibiltyility stand to say that in the universe we aren't the only lifeform existing. Based on a mathematical theory.
What goes up must come down hasn't been true since we achieved 'escape velocity'. We left a lot of stuff on the moon, which proves that it went up, but it did not come back down.
Rather than calling it dark matter or dark energy would it not be more accurate to call it dark knowledge.
13:55 Empty space is not truly empty. I know this holds true perhaps in the deep vacuum of space. But I do know for sure that there are a handful of people I know who have truly empty space where a brain should be.
🙂
A flat universe would go against everything else we observe. Virtually everything that's formed (not a piece of something else) in the universe is in the form of a sphere. Why should the universe be any different? The universe is mostly likely an immense curved sphere that's so big we could never observe or measure the curve itself.
Gravitational waves have been detected... Next chapter please
The currently accepted theory that our universe is an expanding [emergent] hypersphere at the speed of light, mine is that there is a super massive black hole at the center of our universe instead, and all matter in our universe is entangled with it making the universe steady state. I treat matter-energy differently then electromagnetic energy. The electromagnetic spacetime continuum is an open universe that coexists with a closed mass-energy universe in a close by, but separate [bran] gravitational spacetime continuum. Certain vibrational frequencies of the gravitational spacetime continuum form harmonics where entanglement occurs. The fourth harmonic is where gravity [so-called dark matter] occurs in the presence of matter. The tenth harmonic is where anti-gravity[so-called dark energy] occurs, where there is an absence of matter.
My hypothesis is that protons [holes in the semiconductor junction] in all forms of matter and their presence in our location in the universe, this is the source of the attractive force of gravity in the vicinity of matter. My discovery is at 100nm distance away the force of gravity is magnified and can be harnessed to produce gravitomagnetic induction with my invention, the mass spin-valve or gravitational rectifier, due to this gravity large extra dimension. The other novel thing I discovered in the absence of matter produces a repulsive anti-gravity force that is much weaker then the gravity force and balloon like. Electrons however do not contribute enough mass to really effect gravitation in any significant way.
While bound in electron orbital in the solid, hole mobility is limited and much slower then electron mobility in the semiconductor crystal My assumption, based on semiconductor theory for holes, that speed of light doesn't apply to holes, making quantum entanglement, and superconductivity possible in solids.
Magnetism is a property of electromagnetism produced by electron states in matter; gravity is produced by the mass of the matter which mass comes from the mass of the neutrons and protons of the element of matter as described in the periodic table of the elements of matter.
Particle
Name.............Mass
proton.............1.6726 x 10^-27 kg
neutron...........1.6749 x 10^-27 kg
electron..........0.00091x10^-27 kg
Holes are the mechanism for quantum tunneling in the semiconductor; as well as superconductivity. To understand how "holes" work it is useful to examine the Hall effect in semiconductors. The Hall effect is due to the nature of the current in a conductor. Current consists of the movement of many small charge carriers, typically electrons, holes, what are called mobile ions or all three. When a magnetic field is present that is not parallel to the direction of motion of moving charges, these charges experience a force, called the Lorentz force. When such a magnetic field is absent, the charges follow approximately straight, 'line of sight' paths between collisions with impurities, phonons, etc. However, when a magnetic field with a perpendicular component is applied, their paths between collisions are curved so that moving charges accumulate on one face of the material. This leaves equal and opposite charges exposed on the other face, where there is a scarcity ofmobile charges. The result is an asymmetric distribution of charge density across the Hall element that is perpendicular to both the 'line of sight' path and the applied magnetic field. The separation of charge establishes an electric field that opposes the migration of further charge, so a steady electrical potential is established for as long as the charge is flowing.
Both forms of gravitation experience time dilation and that's because they are time dependent forces. Electromagnetism EM or light has none of these properties except for anti-gravity and light are both mass-less. Light is mass-less because it is time independent and that's why speed of light is constant irrespective of the frame of reference you are in. Anti-gravity is mass-less because the force is produced by the absence of matter. So if you want to use the photon particle wave analogy graviton is a time dependent massive particle wave; anti-graviton is a time dependent mass-less particle wave, and photon is a time independent mass-less particle wave. The time difference between gravitational energy and electromagnetic energy is what I refer to as the non-renormalizability of Time and this is property that is caused by gravitational frame dragging.
Your thoughts are welcomed.
Michael E Boyd Great hypothesis about the universe as a steady state. Your perspective seems to be somewhat dependent on particle theory as an imposition of gravity on matter which is then defined as mass. I believe that particles are not a real event, but only our observations of a space/time conjunction of wave behavior. It is our limited abilities of perception that describe particles. For example, a coalescence of light observed within a certain time frame is labelled a "photon" whereas you say "Light is mass-less", and I agree with you on that point. However, I believe that principle applies equally throughout the observable universe. Particles are not constants. When observed, particles would actually be only phases of wave motion; momentary states of observable wave behavior like eddies in fluid dynamics. Particles and their mass measurement is then an issue of observation.
I also believe that the universe is not a steady state field. The analogy I proposed previously to Muskoka Man, is to imagine the physical universe as a kind of Klein bottle - or multiple interconnected Klein bottles (boingboing.net/2013/05/25/triple-nested-klein-bottle.html). Black holes are relief valves (drain passages) and the return valves on the other end are incomprehensibly small. When the pressure from the expansion of the universe forces huge quantities of information into the relief valves and through the infinitesimal return valves, the result is like opening a fire hose with a tiny bore nozzle set to wide-angle spray. This event would cause an explosion of information ("big bang") into the receptacle (fire hose reservoir) - in an infinite cycle.
Thoughts?
brandex2011 The important thing is that you have to remember to produce frequencies that have equal number of odd and even harmonics so that when you produce harmonic progression by creating two of these special shaped frequencies you will produce a Plasmon wave at the eighth harmonic. Plasmon waves are carriers of energy and have the ability to travel resistance free." That's not inconsistent with my theory that the "spontaneous absorption and emission of light" is a by product of properties of gravitation produced by matter's [hole states] in two of the Fibonacci sequences that are quantum entangled on both sides of the super massive black hole at the center of the universe. When I was studying dislocation in the semiconductor crystal I noticed that in most crystal matrix the spontaneous appearance of interstitial screw type dislocations appear in the crystal lattice over time. I hypothesis these appear due to the emergent nature of gravitational space and time [i.e. space-time] from the super massive black hole at the center of our universe. Because we are constantly in motion there are characteristic plasmon waves, where these wave states act as carriers of energy [quasi-particles] and have the ability to travel resistance free [superconductivity]....but they also have the ability through the superposition of states [harmonics] to act as a power amplifier too. It is closed convergent gravity which is time dependent [massive graviton quasi particle], an open time independent divergent electromagnetism [massless photon quasi particle], superimposing to produce divergent antigravity, which is also time dependent in the same time domain as gravity is [i.e. massless anti-graviton quasi particle]. GR is built on gravitational time dependance [i.e., frame dragging] while EM and SR is not. That's why speed of EM is independent from your frame of reference; it's time independent. SR [linear space time] is a special case of GR [non-linear spacetime] after all.
Recent research conducted in Europe proved that the node points at the zero-point when three harmonics each of the eighth in a state of Quantum Spin produces gravity. That is if the gravitational spin is spiralling at the standard direction of that particular hemisphere and this depends on the standard effect of Nature to step harmonics from a lower frequency up to a higher frequency. To make Nature run the opposite way then the harmonics travels from a higher frequency like 32’768 Hz down to 4096 Hz then the spin spirals in the opposite direction producing at the node points anti-gravity.
This is actually the spin state of a graviton and anti-graviton respectively, where a graviton is produced by the presence of matter's nucleus, nano-bumps, and the anti-graviton is produced by the absence of matter's nucleus, nano-pits.
Please See www.calfree.com/FiguresGravityRectifierPZTvGMRpit&bump.pdf
for the measured effects of geometry, on gravitational fields and time. The geometry of matter, or lack there of, causes a force field to be produced that I could measure.
The first page shows the 3-D atomic force microscope (AFM) rendering of the 10um x 10um square nano-bump that produced the ringing PZT readback signal on lower left of a strong pulling force. The readback signal on the lower right is the associated gravitomagnetic induction [graviton] signal the nano-bump produced which is also a negative amplitude voltage gravitomagnetic induction signal.
The second page shows the 3-D AFM rendering of the 10um x 10um square nano-pit that produced the damped PZT readback signal on lower left of a 84% weaker push force. The readback signal on the lower right is the associated gravitomagnetic induction [anti-graviton] signal the nano-pit produced which is also a positive amplitude voltage gravitomagnetic induction signal.
I calibrated this gravitomagnetic induction signal output voltages of
these nano-features to a calibration pit using a magnetic force
microscope to measure force magnitude converting recorded volts to
nanoNewtons force. It's pretty much 1Volt=1nNewtons force for
calculation purposes.
The third page takes the gravitomagnetic induction readback signal from the same 10um x 10um square nano-bump on page 1 to show how this calculation works, and the fourth page does this calculation of the measured force strength, for a 40um x 40um square nano-pit.
Michael E Boyd By steady state I mean the universe is in a constant state of creation and annihilation of matter energy [a closed steady state universe], while the electromagnetic signature of that universe [an open universe] propagates at 3x10^8 m/sec everywhere. So our universe is steady state in the same way that atoms making up matter at the nano-scale are steady state [not]. But I thought stable matter lasted for ever, and only radioactive matter was unstable?
In Cartography of the Local Cosmos the authors' examine what is called "The Great Attractor" in the Centaurus A Cluster. The video can be found here: vimeo.com/64868713 My hypothesis is that this video and the article Cartography of the Local Cosmos support the theory that there is a super massive black hole at the center of our universe; instead of the currently accepted theory that it is an expanding [emergent] hypersphere instead. But you really have to take the time to watch this carefully at around twelve minutes in until around fifteen minutes. If you look closely you will find [as i have] that we exist in the jet of this super massive black hole [follow the vector arrows directions near the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies]. Also you should note that the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are entangled together too, due to some time in the past the two galaxies embracing....maybe that's what produces the gravitomagnetic fields....i.e., the gravitational bran.
So thanks for your thoughts as always.
Michael E Boyd Thanks for clarifying steady state as constant state. Now it makes sense.
Are Plasmon waves carriers of energy in that they convey packets? Or are they only a manifestation of observable energy?
Obviously, I’m a believer in waves as the constant state of the universe. I think fluid dynamics of cosmology has it right.
Also, do you believe a super massive black hole at the center of the universe is the prime mover of all spin/motion/energy? Would you consider that to be the engine of the universe? If so, what causes the spin of the black hole itself?
All of this is for discussion, so thanks for your response and input. Many posters think I’m trolling when I’m actually sincerely asking for a dialog, so thanks again.
brandex2011 Are Plasmon waves carriers of energy in that they convey packets? Or are they only a manifestation of observable energy? [There are two sides to the plasmon wave , one you can observe, the other you can not...since it's also on other side of blackhole you don't see. In the silicon crystal in a PV solar cell for example you can use ultrasonics to create a plasmon state that will increase the solar cell's quantum efficiency from 8% to 83%, that's the mode that use the equal number of odd and even harmonics so that when you produce harmonic progression by creating two of these special shaped frequencies you will produce a Plasmon wave at the eighth harmonic. This plasmon wave makes energy production more efficient.]
Obviously, I’m a believer in waves as the constant state of the
universe. I think fluid dynamics of cosmology has it right.
[Close, but it's not really moving [so not fluid] it's like all the protons[holes] inside the black hole are dancing the same way, and all the other protons in the universe swing to the same tune...]
Also, do you believe a super massive black hole at the center of the
universe is the prime mover of all spin/motion/energy? Would you
consider that to be the engine of the universe? If so, what causes the
spin of the black hole itself? [Yes...and I don't know what is the cause....yet. I'm still working on it.]
Thought information travels faster than light...it´s instant! ...
Prove it!
Only if there is a Cosmic Mind that transcends the spacetime and the speed of light.
what if we are just in an early stage of expansion of the universe and things aren't exponentially expanding bt just havent strat to slow down yet
to be precise it haven't even hit its max speed for its expansion yet
Turok’s insistence that gravitational waves don’t exist must be making him feel a little foolish these days, along with most of his theories falling flat as well.
The obvious question is how can galaxies be reliable measurement points for mapping dark matter when they can’t be used to reliably measure acceleration
Quantum mechanics or entanglement could exist between 2 or more universes as well, no?
In relation to the black hole theory, I couldnt agree more that the birth of a black hole is related to the process we know in our instance as the big bang. However, I struggle with the ongoing consumption of mass that a black hole and how that would manifest itself within its child universe. mm Secondly, when 2 black holes merge, what would happen to each child universe (and grandchildren universes)? Would the two child universes subsequently merge to form a new universe? So what would it mean to us if our parent black hole merged with another one tomorrow? Will this "black hole to big bang" process repeat itself for infinity?
+PhamNet
there is no theory out there that says black holes make baby universes ...
+PhamNet
Well, the so-called "Big Bang" would constitute a "White Hole" - that is, a super-dense object (probably a singularity) blasting all it's mass outwards (instead of sucking matter in) I don't know what you mean by "child universe". What I can say is that Roger Penrose devised "Penrose diagrams" to show, for instance, what happens when two black holes collide. Any "gateways" that the two BH's had, in terms of possible gateways into different _Universes,_ merge into one set of new gateways.
Adam Mangler
the most accepted theory about our Universe is that it came from the inflation of space ... not a white hole.
I don't understand what you are saying there. Are you referring to the accelerating expansion of the universe (part of the Lambda-CDM Standard Model?) Thanks.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
Adam Mangler
"This theory posits that, when the universe grew exponentially in the first tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, some parts of space-time expanded more quickly than others. This could have created "bubbles" of space-time that then developed into other universes."
www.space.com/25100-multiverse-cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves.html
Ligo has found these gravitational waves he talks about we need new updated show plz plz plz
No, LIGO did not find gravitational waves from the big bang.
At 6:01 Krauss says "Becuase no information can travel faster than light." Shouldn't he have said, "Because the only information we are able to discern cannot travel faster than light."
Einstein says no, Max Born says maybe.
Joshua Richardson Einstein says there is _no_ information we cannot discern? Born says there _may be_ information we cannot discern? If an event occurs that we cannot discern, we will have no knowledge of it. I would appreciate a reference to support Einstein's "no" and Born's "maybe". Neither of those assumptions make sense to me. Thanks.
brandex2011 I guess some people don't like jokes.
In imitation of Kraus' joke, lock the doors as a discussion of physics is about to start, and we don't want the biologists to run away.
It's called Quantum Entanglement, it was originally developed to disprove quantum mechanics. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen created a paradox of two particles becoming entangled and sharing the same spin, no matter the distance between them. If the spin on one entangled particle changed, the spin on the other particle would also change in response. This was in violation of relativity, as the information could travel at faster than light speeds. Look up EPR paradox to get the full story. Einstein called this "spooky action at a distance".
However, the people on the other side of the debate, the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics, said that in fact, sub-atomic particles could in fact become entangled, and change their spin in violation of relativity. Since relativity is the most consistent theory in science (both then and today), and quantum entanglement is in violation of it, there must be something wrong with quantum mechanics.
However, we've done experiments showing that quantum entanglement actually works. Two entangled particles will share spin, simultaneously, regardless of distance. This means the two most consistent theories in physics, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, are in violation with one another. Both work, and both predict the universe correctly, but they predict things that are in violation of the laws of the other theory.
This leads to the Bohr-Einstein debate. It basically went like this...
Einstein: God does not play dice with the universe.
Dirac: Einstein, stop telling god what to do!
I'm paraphrasing there, but it's the gist of the debate. Einstein first wrote this (god does not play dice) in response to a letter by Max Born. It would be Bohr, the leader of the Copenhagen school, who would respond, saying that it was in fact possible, if very unlikely given the technology of the day. This didn't make Einstein happy (nor Schrodinger, another quantum critic) as he helped create EPR theory to disprove Quantum Mechanics, and instead the most famous scientists in QM had embraced it, along with the randomness he so hated.
So the very Quantum Physics that Einstein helped give birth to (with Max Planck's help) with his theory on light's wave-particle duality (the paper that won him a Nobel prize) and suggestion of the photon as the force-carrying particle of magnetism, was now predicting things that were in violation of the other child of his, Relativity. He spent the rest of his life looking for a was to resolve the issue, which he called unified field theory.
Okay, that should be enough. You can unlock the doors and let the biologists get a breath of fresh air. If you want, I can also give a lecture on how Heisenberg proved that lasers cannot exist, if you want another joke only people with a deep understanding of physics will get.
Joshua Richardson Yes, I know all that, and I love a joke. My question is in regard to the limit of our observational capacity. Sure, there is a biological basis for the question, but how is it invalid? After all, our definitions are exactly that - _our_ definitions.
We can perceive that which exists.
We can intuit that which cannot be observed.
We can imagine that which does no exist.
The trick is knowing when we're doing what we're doing, and not claiming we're doing something else.
If our universe is inside a black hole in another universe....what happens when the black hole in the original universe evaporates from Hawking radiation ? Just as the hypothesis by others that the universe is a simulation runs into an impossible infinite regress that no 'original' simulator could possibly cope with, so too the 'universe is a black hole' hypothesis runs into the impossibility of an infinite regress because the 'original' black hole should have long since evaporated and absolutely every subsequent iteration vanishes.
Tq so much for shedding lights. The West is such the promising 'prometheus'.
Everybody understands that the margins of error in experimental Astronomy and Cosmology are much larger those in HEP.
The introduction was amazing it told a lot that were missing in all other ones I have seen to date on this subject but was too fast too loaded with import for me requiring listening multiple times several sections
Neil's part was so damn interesting, why did they stop him -.-
Wonder how he took the LIGO success :)
Great stuff. Maybe lose the 'indy pop' in the closing credits.
What would Turok say now that gravitational waves have been detected?
Probably that the discovery is great. A scientific or legendary status doesn't mean you're infallible. Einstein or Hawking made plenty of errors and oversights and where sometimes flat out wrong, eg. "cosmological constant" (unchanging universe - we know that the universe is expanding and so on) or that all matter / information falling into a black whole is lost forever vs. quantum mechanics (Susskind's string theory). I like Neil's approach of simplicity and for me he is one of the greatest thinkers within science and his lectures are interesting to listen.
Marc Munk Oh, I agree. My comment wasn't meant to be a jibe. I'm sincerely curious what he would have to say about it. I wasn't able at the time to find him speak about it.
I think that Neil Turok was speaking about gravitational waves that comes fromo the big bang itself ... Not the gravitational waves that were detected last 2015
Luis Alberto Ake what's the difference between gravitational waves from the big bang as opposed to two black holes?
The ones from the big bang *probably* have been the result of inflation, which Turok is highly skeptic of. The ones from the two black holes just confirms the existence of these gravitational waves that came out Einstein's equations.
Great inf.
OK what is it expanding into?
Universe is a rubber band or a whip if speed is increasing. The space in-between everything is unimaginably increasing until gravity overcomes expansion. Dark matter is gravity and space dust.
Are you sure 🤔
If everything is moving away how come we are colliding with andromeda ?
For the same reason dark energy isn't causing you to explode.
Just SAD a video with this density of cleverness hasn't gotten (even auto-generated) _CC (Closed Captions)._ With accessibility like this, hearing challenged individuals might be left looking for the _'science'_ supposedly covered by the perhaps more properly named _World Silence Festival_ with their accessibility statement is *_"WSF: Where CC could just as easily denote 'Clothes Captains'!"_* Hehe? *;]*
Holy crap i just noticed that the top pinned comment is by them and they actually mentioned needing translators! I guess they are trying at least! ;]
Infinite accelerating universe, dark matter, dark energy, and the rest of science conundrums can only be explained correctly once we have a complete understanding of the real true nature of gravity. I will publish online soon, in Singapore, my 30-year long fundamental research on the true nature of gravity. It solve all of the above mentioned problems.
Aren't gravitational waves just all the ripple waves from collisions eventually creating steady troughs that essentially work like space fabric "canyons" so to speak? I was explained to that basically "stuff" smashes in to other stuff and over long long time periods the stuff that doesn't fuse together either gets caught in an orbit or catches other stuff in it's orbit to in a sense shield it from more intense collisions.... in that mental image if seemed like there aren't really gravitational waves so to speak but rather gravity can only exist as a byproduct of impact ripple waves interacting/interfering with each other and relating these elastic resonant cavities that have a very small range but a range nonetheless of objects that could potentially intersect and become stuck in. Anyone? I am clueless I thought we knew gravity wasn't an actual thing....
There are several logistical errors...
Extrapolation is an effective investigative tool.
What we see is what there is.
Looking at a projection gives impeccably useful information about the source material.
Until people review these false assumptions there will continue to be problems. This reminds me of the factory workers who admonished me to not work hard because they want to milk it.
One thing is for sure there was no big bang, all you have to do is take the Hubble constant, it assumes that a certain redshift is a certain distance and a twice the redshift gives a twice the distance and the so-called Big Bang remnants with 97.5% redshift are 13.4 billion light-years away. That radiation from the remnants takes 13.4 billion years to reach us and it just goes with the speed of light, as if there is no expanding universe, but that wine emits radiation, after a billion years that is at a distance of 1 billion light years away and after 13.4 billion years that is at 13.4 billion light years away, if those remnants now move away from us at 97.5% of the speed of light, according to the big bang theory, that radiation will arrive there, but the remnants a little further up, that is just like the radiation from the big bang remnants when that radiation starts emitting at the speed of light and after 13.4 billion years that radiation is 13.4 billion light years further, only we are compared to the big bang remnants 13.4 billion years with 97.5% of the speed of light disappeared from this place. And if those so-called big bang remnants are just the dust cloud that our universe is built with, we look into the past and see that there is first a large dust cloud and when we look closer we see stars and milky way, then you ask of course what about that redshift, which can also occur when our atoms shrink, then the electron shells in which the electrons revolve around the nucleus of atoms become smaller and if we take a galaxy with 50% redshift, we look at a galaxy twice that size diameter and the electrons have to travel a twice as big orbit to make a circle around the nucleus and our atom is with respect to that atom with 50% redshift, halved in diameter and if we take the Hubble Constant you see that it is than is about 7 billion light years away and you can conclude that in 7 billion years we have halved in diameter, then you get a different insight into the universe, in the first place our measuring ribbon is shrinking and our clock is also going faster walking, which runs twice as fast as 7 billion years ago, we also see the Moon moving 2 cm from the Earth, that is entirely according to the Hubble constant, that was already known but the tides were held responsible for it , the Sun, we are moving away from that 10 meters a year, which is 10 million kilometers in 1 billion years and we are now at 150 million kilometers, so you might just think that's where the ice ages come from. The big bang theory supporters think that we are still accelerating, but the shrinkage is accelerating, because our clock is going faster and the shrinkage is also faster, the redshift bands can just indicate that structures in our atoms are evolving and so on. influence shrinkage.
what about the energy its used more energy loss weaker hold?
Another banger
if the universe is expanding, perhaps the balance of anti-matter is on the very outter "fringe" of the expansion, and cannot annihilate anything...yet.
I don't much like these "committees" - I much prefer one person giving a lecture and allowing lots of time for Q&A's.
I concur.
"Sudhakaran-Sivaram Theory Of The Universe"Published By Amazon
“Thx universe is flat” 😂😂 this man is nuts! The universe has at least 12 dimensions! I’m so clever. Is he a comedian?
In The Great Circle of Infinity, the tangency of point-line-circle time-timing orthogonality tangentials, this is the Absolute Zero Kelvin i-reflection containment vanishing-into-no-thing Singularity inside-outside holographic time-timing sync-duration Reciproction-recirculation.
Ie pure-math relative-timing ratio-rates Circuitry of probabilistic correlations, temporal superposition spin-spiral log-antilog interference of e-Pi-i omnidirectional-dimensional cause-effect numberness.
Lawrence Kraus. No comment.
The cosmological models circle and revolve around
the unheard-of as the cat around the bush. But what
you can observe, if you like, is their dusty approach
to a much older cosmological model.
These are the descriptions of the origins, the
descriptions of the growth and the descriptions of the
transitions of the cosmos, as it is written in the Vedas.
A very startling development of modern
cosmology. As if...