We dont even know what we dont know because were still figuring out which questions to ask. Questions lead to answers which lead to more questions. Awesome because that means science will continue forever!
Dear Michael Turner: Difficulty is not real but a reaction to perceived confusion. Quit confusing yourself and quit telling yourself it's difficult or too difficult. When you get confused, hit a drum and move on. If you're still confused, hit it again. Don't beat yourself up about it, take the confusion and turn it into a result of something, anything, and move past it.
A question on Blindside Mechanics . According to modern Theory , what are the observation differences between , a 3D spatial universe, and a 3D object? I am referring to the side or sides that an observer can not see during a measurement.
It's "fashionable" to say that the BBT is not about an explosion (any more, in the light of better research), it's eternal inflation and gravity in superimposed synchronised phase-states(maybe so?), but the detailed phenomena of the Universe have some degree of the characteristics of experimental explosions, such as the shock wave. The shockwave aspect is a synchronised connection of probabilities in possibilities occurring in every possible proportion of time duration, phase-locked Phys-Chem, based on QM-Time modulation "mathematical" logic, in which the connection in the 1-0Duration interval determines the constant relative proportions of e-Pi-i, and every other rational-irrational possibility of eternal timing existence. So if the Universe is such a cause-effect wave-package of QM-Time "shockwaves", then a "reverse Engineering" analysis of the prime structure of phenomena from simple math, is impossible to determine without direct measurements, and that's always going to remain incomplete, limited by actual irrational probabilities. IMO, based on these observable and irrational shockwaves of BBT, the reason for why String Theory has the particular format of the "rubber band" shape origin, and "fails" to make "solid predictions", is because the Observable Universe is apparently "insideout" spacetime seen in the Holographic Principle like a one-way reflection of quantized bubbles of spinfoam in the AM-FM "cavity" of temporal superposition synchronisation. "Wheels within wheels", strings of timing.
MichaelKingsfordGray ?.., OK read (some of) the Google article, very interesting (blathering). Parallel the sentiments. One can claim to be uninvolved with these issues but "Everything is connected", and there's the Observer Effect that works both ways, so it's down to the interested amateur in the audience to give positive feedback, (allowing for innate bias). I don't want to take sides, only the outside. Thanks for the reference.
Strange, cosmologists are happy hearing stories. When will they start work on the unitary evolution of the universe from Schrodinger's wave function, explaining the formation of the stars, black holes, pulsars, magnetars, boson stars etc., in addition to galaxies. dark matter and dark energy and god knows what.
I always prefer the Steady State theory(S.S.) of Fred Hoyle, Bondi, and Gold of the 1950's, to the Big Bang, which is a botched theory. When it was found not to make sense, another thing called "inflation" was invented to try to repair its contradictions. On the other hand, the S.S. has no contradictions within itself. Those seeking to disprove it had to resort to something outside it: quasars, which because of their high Doppler red shifts were thought to be at extreme distances away. Researches recently showed that Doppler red shifts have no relation to the distances of the quasars. Thus it was originally no justifiable to use quasars to disprove S.S.
@@kennethchow213 Considering we can literally see the afterglow of it in a telescope, ,its not really a question anymore. We *know* Big Bang cosmology is true, because we the evidence is incontrovertial. and because we look out the telescope and everythings flying apart. And that means "Steady State" cant be true. Sorry dude, the universe just doesnt care what we prefer as a theory. And for reference, red shift doesnt measure distance, it measures motion. Someones been feeding you weird stories.
What a wet noodle of a paragraph. You have so much circular logic and self gratifying hypocrisy. I really wonder why you don't view the CMB as proper evidence, maybe because it directly disproves the SS theory that the universe has no age. If the CMB is not rigorous enough, then I see no rigorous proof supporting the SS theory. If people thought like you we would have no law of gravity. Just because we cannot understand the mechanisms of something very complex, does not make it wrong. Solid state theory has been disproven multiple times, it doesn't matter if the original use of quasars was incorrect because we can disprove it using other things now.
Quarks come into existence anytime you try and pull them apart. If you take two quarks and pull them apart, and at a point when you finally get them separated far enough more quarks will be created because a quark and an anti-clark pair are lower energy state then vacuum field energy for that same distance of separation and potential energy.
the snail pace of modern cosmology is killing me. i havent seen noteworthy breakthroughs in a while now. maybe we should focus on artificial intelligence which will nut crack all these problems in a split of a second.
The single electron postulate is good as a thought experiment. Not as a hypothesis. What about all the alpha radiation that it just never visits anymore? Instead of THE electron jumping around every electron habitation throughout the entire universe every instant, why not the electron spend eternity in each worldpath until infinity and then jump back to the beginning of time and we experience the totality of such events as a single reality? And if that is an acceptable way of looking at it, why not look at it as many electrons? --How would we distinguish between the two possibilities?
الورقيه العلميه ستيفن هوكينج Matt Stephen Hawking is a British physicist in 2018 . Please work with Stephen Hawking's theory In the last scientific paper Carl Sagan is a wonderful atheist is the American space scientist . I love Carl Sagan .Stephen Hawking is a great atheist who is a theoretical physicist .I love Stephen Hawking Matt Stephen Hawking is a British physicist in 2018 . Please work with Stephen Hawking's theory In the last scientific paper .
Here are the basics based on multiple sources: Friedmann came up with the idea of the non-stationary universe before Lemaitre, had to argue with Einstein, and won the argument. Friedmann also proved mathematically that the universe has to be dynamical (since the static solution of Einstein's EQs is unstable). Big Bang is Gamov's baby.
We dont even know what we dont know because were still figuring out which questions to ask. Questions lead to answers which lead to more questions. Awesome because that means science will continue forever!
The answer is 42
Gives me confidence that, someday, we will understand the universe. Hope I live long enough.
Hope you do but we are a long long long long way off. Peace
We will understand, I think, as long as we don't fool ourselves into think there's some magic involved.
Great lecture!
Dear Michael Turner: Difficulty is not real but a reaction to perceived confusion. Quit confusing yourself and quit telling yourself it's difficult or too difficult. When you get confused, hit a drum and move on. If you're still confused, hit it again. Don't beat yourself up about it, take the confusion and turn it into a result of something, anything, and move past it.
Thank you. I learned very much.
i wish there was more time because the last question was really good
A question on Blindside Mechanics . According to modern Theory , what are the observation differences between , a 3D spatial universe, and a 3D object? I am referring to the side or sides that an observer can not see during a measurement.
100. Wow. Time flies.
Appreciate the talk
Has the number of 100 billion galaxies changed since the James Webb telescope observations?
It's "fashionable" to say that the BBT is not about an explosion (any more, in the light of better research), it's eternal inflation and gravity in superimposed synchronised phase-states(maybe so?), but the detailed phenomena of the Universe have some degree of the characteristics of experimental explosions, such as the shock wave.
The shockwave aspect is a synchronised connection of probabilities in possibilities occurring in every possible proportion of time duration, phase-locked Phys-Chem, based on QM-Time modulation "mathematical" logic, in which the connection in the 1-0Duration interval determines the constant relative proportions of e-Pi-i, and every other rational-irrational possibility of eternal timing existence.
So if the Universe is such a cause-effect wave-package of QM-Time "shockwaves", then a "reverse Engineering" analysis of the prime structure of phenomena from simple math, is impossible to determine without direct measurements, and that's always going to remain incomplete, limited by actual irrational probabilities.
IMO, based on these observable and irrational shockwaves of BBT, the reason for why String Theory has the particular format of the "rubber band" shape origin, and "fails" to make "solid predictions", is because the Observable Universe is apparently "insideout" spacetime seen in the Holographic Principle like a one-way reflection of quantized bubbles of spinfoam in the AM-FM "cavity" of temporal superposition synchronisation. "Wheels within wheels", strings of timing.
MichaelKingsfordGray
?.., OK read (some of) the Google article, very interesting (blathering). Parallel the sentiments.
One can claim to be uninvolved with these issues but "Everything is connected", and there's the Observer Effect that works both ways, so it's down to the interested amateur in the audience to give positive feedback, (allowing for innate bias).
I don't want to take sides, only the outside.
Thanks for the reference.
illuminate had to step in and stop the last question as he was dead on!
what do you mean "dead on"?
amoswembley there's only one photon and time is a flat circle
Strange, cosmologists are happy hearing stories. When will they start work on the unitary evolution of the universe from Schrodinger's wave function, explaining the formation of the stars, black holes, pulsars, magnetars, boson stars etc., in addition to galaxies. dark matter and dark energy and god knows what.
Hubble built and proved the theories of Father George Lemaître SJ.
Lemaitre made a hypothesis. He did not actually develop a theory.
I always prefer the Steady State theory(S.S.) of Fred Hoyle, Bondi, and Gold of the 1950's, to the Big Bang, which is a botched theory. When it was found not to make sense, another thing called "inflation" was invented to try to repair its contradictions. On the other hand, the S.S. has no contradictions within itself. Those seeking to disprove it had to resort to something outside it: quasars, which because of their high Doppler red shifts were thought to be at extreme distances away. Researches recently showed that Doppler red shifts have no relation to the distances of the quasars. Thus it was originally no justifiable to use quasars to disprove S.S.
But the proof of Big Bang by CMB is not rigorous enough.
Well the abundance of evidence, especially from the BICEP-2 experiment etc.
@@kennethchow213 Considering we can literally see the afterglow of it in a telescope, ,its not really a question anymore. We *know* Big Bang cosmology is true, because we the evidence is incontrovertial. and because we look out the telescope and everythings flying apart. And that means "Steady State" cant be true. Sorry dude, the universe just doesnt care what we prefer as a theory.
And for reference, red shift doesnt measure distance, it measures motion. Someones been feeding you weird stories.
What a wet noodle of a paragraph. You have so much circular logic and self gratifying hypocrisy. I really wonder why you don't view the CMB as proper evidence, maybe because it directly disproves the SS theory that the universe has no age. If the CMB is not rigorous enough, then I see no rigorous proof supporting the SS theory. If people thought like you we would have no law of gravity. Just because we cannot understand the mechanisms of something very complex, does not make it wrong. Solid state theory has been disproven multiple times, it doesn't matter if the original use of quasars was incorrect because we can disprove it using other things now.
how did quarks come into existence?
Quarks come into existence anytime you try and pull them apart. If you take two quarks and pull them apart, and at a point when you finally get them separated far enough more quarks will be created because a quark and an anti-clark pair are lower energy state then vacuum field energy for that same distance of separation and potential energy.
@@dankuchar6821 😂😂😂😂😂
the snail pace of modern cosmology is killing me. i havent seen noteworthy breakthroughs in a while now. maybe we should focus on artificial intelligence which will nut crack all these problems in a split of a second.
Maybe dark energy is not a repulsive. Maybe it is space-time that is becoming weaker when it gets stretched. Like a rubber.
The single electron postulate is good as a thought experiment. Not as a hypothesis. What about all the alpha radiation that it just never visits anymore? Instead of THE electron jumping around every electron habitation throughout the entire universe every instant, why not the electron spend eternity in each worldpath until infinity and then jump back to the beginning of time and we experience the totality of such events as a single reality? And if that is an acceptable way of looking at it, why not look at it as many electrons? --How would we distinguish between the two possibilities?
The single electron postulate really led to a deeper understanding that we now call fields. The single electron postulate was a good stepping stone.
الورقيه العلميه ستيفن هوكينج
Matt Stephen Hawking is a British physicist in 2018 . Please work with Stephen Hawking's theory In the last scientific paper
Carl Sagan is a wonderful atheist is the American space scientist . I love Carl Sagan .Stephen Hawking is a great atheist who is a theoretical physicist .I love Stephen Hawking
Matt Stephen Hawking is a British physicist in 2018 . Please work with Stephen Hawking's theory In the last scientific paper
.
He doesn't even recognize Alan Guth as the father of inflation?
14:10 "Gamov's idea of the Big Bang" ?????? Big Bang comes from Belgian priest George Lemaitre!!!!
Michaël Paradjian - Also Friedmann, independently. Gamow developed the theory and predicted the microwave background radiation.
Here are the basics based on multiple sources: Friedmann came up with the idea of the non-stationary universe before Lemaitre, had to argue with Einstein, and won the argument. Friedmann also proved mathematically that the universe has to be dynamical (since the static solution of Einstein's EQs is unstable). Big Bang is Gamov's baby.