Brian Cox debunked the Big Bang! Wait, what?
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 01. 2024
- Start speaking a new language in 3 weeks with Babbel 🎉. Get up to 60% OFF your subscription here ➡ bit.ly/babbelsabine
I was rather surprised when I recently learned that the British science communicator and ex-particle physicist Brian Cox supposedly debunked the Big Bang with a creation story, no less than in a BBC documentary. I had a look at the clip and I think I know what happened.
The Daily Express article with the BBC clip is here: www.express.co.uk/news/scienc...
🤓 Check out our new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support us on Donatebox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #physics #shortly - Věda a technologie
TLDR: A scientist said something salacious and the press ran with it like a Christmas ham under their arm. The more I hear about this type of stuff, the more I think that "separation of press and science" is more important than separation of Church and State.
That's why science communication is a thing. I think it's up to the audience to be skeptical. Good luck with that 😂
Do you think the solution is to eliminate separation of church and press?
The "news" is just another unregulated way to make money, so truth and verifiable information are less important than clicks and eyeballs. So, Separation of Press and Reality.
I remember when journalism was a respected career. Now it's just glorified blogging.
You change that to politics from science and you have a point. The press is needed to convey information, politics warps it to whatever is the party line.
I think one big problem is that too many people are not ok with the concept of: I don't know
That's not a problem, that's science.
@@mater5930, you are right that "I don't know" is the beginning, middle, and end of science. But what was actually said was "one big problem is that too many people are not ok with the concept." Let's all promote "I don't know" as a valid answer!
@@susand3668 I agree
@@mater5930 You'd think, but many scientists let ego get in the way...
More people are content with Big Bang Hypothesis, which is itself a creationist myth and it's defenders still ignore intrinsic redshift, the thermodynamic impossibilities of standard cosmology and the holes all through GR, including its falsifications and better explanatory models put up in its stead. #toobigtofail somehow, even now...
I am always grateful for ANY person who simply attempts an accurate explanation of what evidence shows THEM…instead of trying to be “sensational” or “all-knowing”…
that was the best ad incorporated in a video I have ever seen. She actually showed that she's learned some french. awesome
She's also brilliant, so that makes things easier 😊
Yea her French wasn’t bad, and not to be rude or anything, but her French accent was better than her English accent… in my opinion…
@@mgx2077 Uh ... her English is completely fluent and intelligible.
With that constant smirk on Brian Cox's face its clear he knows exacly what happened at the beginning and he is having fun not letting us in on it.
His constant smirks … it’s what irks
never got that smirk thing, but i have noticed it in members of family ( cousin of my mother and his son), so it seems to be some character/genetic thing that can occur.
Just seems to me as if he's passionate about what hes talking about and happy people wanna converse with him about what he loves @ulazygit
Yes, God made it. The smirk is revelation of the method, and the joke is on you.
@@michaeljsullivan524 God could very well have initiated the big bang
as someone who just moved to paris, I can confirm "excusez-moi, quel âge a l'univers" is very practical in day to day life
You can always add "Mon aéroglisseur est rempli d'anguilles" - Trust me, I have a B.A. in Monty Python
What ?! Ca vient d'où ?
doesn't that translate to "will you sleep with me tonight, under the stars?" or "will you help me move my couch?" i forget.
@@adrien5568Hungarian phrase book sketch peut être?
"Excuse me, where is the nearest mail box or toilet?"
I saw the Daily Express logo and that answered the question for me.
Yes it really simplified it. A good equation to use is. D.E = a zero point of truth. They are a singularity of pure nonsense.😂😂😂😂
Brian Cox and the BBC - a scientist that endorses political views and thrives on the air of sensationalist publicity, working for an organisation that I would not trust to inform me of todays date!
@@tonib5899 Brian Cox might not even know he works for them 🤣
@arturama8581 I don't understand why Prof Brian Cox is being cooked for this, the guy just tried to explain complicated science in terms most would understand, when you talk about science on a scale like Cox does then you have to dumb it down, treating this as a negative is in itself negative, science can be scary to new comers and we need people like Cox to be welcoming and make it feel manageable, bringing good science to the forefront is absolutely vital especially when considering increasing budgets for stuff like nasa
@@ryanlee6920 But the Daily Express dumbs it down and warps it to the point where there is very little, if any, fact left. It is an absolutely disgraceful rag.
SO GLAD that you did post this brave open, honest video, and NO NO NO, it wasn't too much at all. THANK YOU SO MUCH, Sabine.
G-Day Brother.
Sabine will debunk you so hard your high school physics teacher will feel it.
LOL 🤣
Well played, oh Zen One
😂😂😂 Also just the sentence "debunked the Big Bang" 😂
Sabine is so cool… you will totally enjoy it when she debunks you. 😂
No. Sabine debunked nothing.
I am a francophone and I perfectly understood what Sabine said in French, so she's a good learner! I wouldn't dream asking her to lose the Teutonic accent. It gives a distinctive twist to her English and we are now used to it, so the same goes with her French. Accents are the last thing one loses when learning a foreign language, if ever.
I think weight is always the last thing one loses, learing a foreign language or otherwise.
Leering is what happens at you if you do lose the weight.
I thought she just sounded sexy all the time.
Here is the question do you think there is as fine a singer in French as Lea is in German?
I have reason to suspect that no one makes music as well as the Germans do to-day in German.
À propos
Traduit de l'anglais-Lea-Marie Becker, connue professionnellement sous le nom de Lea, est une auteure-compositrice-interprète et claviériste allemande. Wikipédia (anglais)
The reason I note this is for selfish reasons. I love to look at the videos of the musicians in all the nations and language to debate who is the best.
French music is stellar.
Sabrine sounds like Lea. Lea is sexy thus Sabrine is sexy also ❤.
@@josedelnegro46 who asked?
@@JBroMCMXCI I ask. Have you heard of Lea? Sabrine has music videos. I like them. She sounds like Lea or Lea sounds like her.
But if you are saying who am I to ask? That has been answered. Yo soy Sancho Panza y Sancho Panza Es una persona ignorante nadie... nada y estúpido.
Gracias et merci encore
I think you mean hypotheses or speculation and not theory when talking about what happened before the Big Bang. Love your work. Learned so much from you. Thank you!
Thank you for promoting Babbel, Sabine. You (and your discount deal) have encouraged me to finally start learning French. It's been easier than I expected because Babbel hasn't been picky about my pronunciation.
As soon as I saw Daily Express I knew it would be a total lie.
I'm surprised they didn't manage to imply that this meant we were in for a severe cold snap next winter and something something, Princess Diana lol
Precisely, The Daily Express doesn't qualify as a newspaper, it's a propaganda sheet for wing nuts and a scandal rag for idiots.
Don't you mean the guardian.... At least the Express reports the truth occasionally!
@@Andrew-Kerr You make it sound as if he hasn't said such things...I can assure you he has. He'll parrot whatever he's told.
@@TheJon2442 really? oh boy! poor you.
for the ignorant in comments:
"In addition to their individual work, Cox and Hossenfelder have also collaborated on a number of projects, such as the book "Black Holes: The Key to Understanding the Universe" and the documentary series "The Universe: A Journey Through Space and Time." These collaborations have helped to bridge the gap between theoretical physics and the general public."
mmmmm???.........wonderful???
THIS IS ONE EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT WOMAN,,,,KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK SABINE !!!!!
What an excellent example of a singularity (2:02) that everyone can understand, one of the best I've ever seen I think. Thank you!
As one of my favorite science communicators, Dr. Becky, says, "Space is hard. Words are harder."
If there is an opposite to eloquence, this statement is a potential demonstration of the concept.
@@drydessert4198 considering eloquent means “clearly expressing or indicating something” it seems pretty eloquent to me. Your phrase however was not
@@almscurium "Space is hard. Words are harder." seems eloquent to you? Well, I can take that as an opinion. I think, it is obviously not, not that it was supposed to be. It's part of the joke that it is imprecise language.
it must have been magnetic fields bc she always says we don't understand magnetic fields.
also yay Dr. Beck, let me Smethurst ( ")
I'm glad this was said. I was thinking the exact same thing as I listened to this, lol! I'm still gonna have to say it again, if only to give Dr. Becky another shout out! 😂
I think Brian Cox is a very pleasant science communicator to listen to and is generally good at communicating complex ideas simply. He may occasionally be just a bit loose with language, but not to any ridiculous extent. However, he seems to be one of those physicists whose words often get twisted into outrageous headlines by the media and by tabloid science youtube channels. I honestly don't envy him that.
Brian Cox was a Blairite & is a remainiac globalist who believe in nationstate democracy. In other words he doesn't believe in democracy.
Its not a twist. Brian Cox really does use the term "big bang" in an odd way, but, since scientists dont use it at all, nobody has held his feet to the fire over it until now. Sabine is ruthless. Thats why we love her.
😳🔥❤️
@@deltalima6703 For sure, but she's not really being ruthless to Dr. Cox here. She's being much more ruthless to the "science media" that is grossly misquoting him here. She didn't really disagree with anything that Cox actually said.
@@deltalima6703 Scientists don't use the term Big Bang?
Try an academic search engine: you will find the phrase in the titles alone of more than a million published papers. BTW Brian Cox is professor of particle physics at one of the World's most prestigious [physics] universities. It seems scientists use the term.
@@deltalima6703: Cox is referring to the observable big bang rather than hypothetical big bang. I don't see what's so odd about that.
i like that you question main stream science and keep an open mind like a real scientist must due. Nice Job Sabine
I love the fact that CERN labeled the tubes. CERN LHC. Just in case you were lost inside that tunnel at least you know that you're at cern in the large hadron collider.
It's marketing. We saw it, so donors see it, and your aunt watching a news clip on TV sees it.
Maybe it's so when they are being transported on the back on a lorry, people don't assume it's a supergun and start panicking?
it was also very interesting to me that those labels are slightly worn off. like, who is rubbing up against the particle beam tubes so often that the lettering is wearing off? hmmm
@@JonS But that's just what someone transporting supergun parts would label them with, isn't it?
"Hello? 999? Yes, I've just woken up in a concrete tunnel next to a very gradually curving pipe, and I also just realized I have no phone signal."
"infinitely lame" had me replaying that 5 times. you're hilarious, Sabine!
infinitely hilarious
I am not a mathematician, but the idea of infinity as well as proportions or types of it, such as half infinity, is all considered kind of a real thing. Even though that's all basically still just infinity.
First of all you need to fully accept that we humans have no perception of it, and that it's fully natural to emotionally dismiss it.
The start to see that this way of thinking opens lots of possibilities in science, and especially with physics and time.
Also think a second about how time can become infinitely slow around black holes, while it still is there.
There is also something with singularities if I am right. They do not actually exist at our point in time, but the idea is that they exist infinitely far in the future for related reasons, if they actually even do.
Was it Eddington who said, "Something unknown is doing we don't know what."?
Thank you for all your excellent videos, Sabine. I fully understand what you have been going through, and think you are now doing very good work for everyone who is interested in science but who are not themselves scientists.
"The smart thing to do would be to just leave it at that. But that's no fun". Well said.
Hearing you speak plausible French is honestly the best endorsement of a sponsor you've ever made.
Ah, The Daily Express. That bastion of truth, accuracy and integrity.
True, but I'd extend that same sentiment to all mainstream media outlets as well. Even the so-called science mags are often full of it.
@@methylene5 whilst I agree, some publications are worse than others.
I asked GOOGLE's Bard, and here's what it said: The concept of "before" the Big Bang might not even be meaningful in the traditional sense. Time itself is thought to have begun with the Big Bang, so talking about what happened "before" is like trying to describe what's north of the North Pole.
Our understanding of physics is constantly evolving, and it's possible that new discoveries in the future could shed light on what happened before the Big Bang.
So, while we may not have a definitive answer to your question yet, the quest to understand the origins of the universe is one of the most fascinating and challenging in all of science. And who knows, maybe someday we will be able to crack this cosmic mystery!
I wasn't a fan of daily short videos at first, but I think you hit a pretty good sweet spot now in terms of length. If the videos are 5-10 minutes long, I don't mind it as much! It was only at first, when they were 2-4 minutes long and 1 minutes was sponsorship, that it was a bit fragmented :-)
Thinking about the universe hurts my brain and my soul. It's so infinitely beautiful and sad at the same time. The endless mysteries and the fact that we'll never ever scratch the surface of understanding and knowing it.
It doesn't seem fair does it. Not knowing and then you die! Damn the Cosmos! 😊
It will probably be dead simple once we understand it. It wouldn't surprise me if you could easily explain how the universe works to a five year old if you just knew how it worked.
your whole universe is the one you see, little piece of the cosmos! a universe to yourself!!
Though we may never know the answer at least find joy in the fact that we can ask the question.
It´s like your nose. It´s a wonderful miracle in your face and youn don´t see it.
That sponsor segment was spooky - apparently, your room has very similar acoustics to my room, and even though I had headphones on, it suddenly felt exactly as if the video played on my speakers :D
Great video with plausible information, thank you. TS
The Daily Express ~ "A right riveting read!"
Read ~ "a load of Bollox"
a load of Botox...
The only place to find the Daily Express is in the bathroom, just in case you run out of loo roll.
The British press is a dumpster fire lately. Mind you, the rest of the MSM is not much better either.
What do you expect from a guy named Cox?
All those Rupert Murdoch's newspapers are great for a ton of things.......use it balled up under kindling to get the fire lit then keep feeding the fire with more of his newspapers
Thanks Sabine. You are a treasure of sane, educated, thoughtful information. Coated in tasty humour. ❤
I would not make such an inappropriate comment, but some would say tastiness in more than just humor.
Time is the strongest force in the uni
An object at rest will not remain at rest if time is allowed
Life = heat time distance.
Time is what allows something to come from nothing
String theory for me is life between birth and death hot to cold, cold hot, rich to poor and love to hate. And anything that could fall in between is real too us. And everything else beyond can only be measures
Cool
Express and Dailymail should always be ignored.
There's no explaining the dream while you're still in it, kid.
?
Oh, thanks for the reminder. Keep forgetting that
But often we know we are in a dream
Yes, because "The Express" is a reliable source of information 🙃
Super reliable LOL !
Right up there with the New York Post and the National Enquirer.
especially about the weather/'extreme climate events'
it's acid rain all over europe today. i just checked
How long do you think it'll be before the article "What did Princess Diana think about Eternal Inflation Theory?"
Well, not quite as good as Daily Fail...
Thanks for this clarification. Brian Cox is not alone in referring to the Reheating following inflation as a Big Bang; IIRC, Ethan Siegel does, too. It is confusing for those of us more accustomed to thinking of inflation following the Big Bang rather than preceding it.
Ethan Siegel (and others) generally refer to this as the "Hot Big Bang". AFAIK this puts constraints on the initial conditions of the early universe w.r.t. size and temperature to explain the lack of certain artifacts (e.g. magnetic monopoles) that would otherwise have to exist, but for which there is no observational evidence
Perhaps he feels lucky.
For a communicator like Brian Cox to use the term Big Bang in a way that's different to the way it's used in everyday life, is positively stupid.
Every time a watch one of Sabines videos I struggle to keep up, I'm just an average gut trying to learn something new. So for all of you out there that understand all the information, respect !
Catholic priest and theoretical physicist George Lemaitre is the father of the big bang theory and for this concept he let himself guide by the Genesis: Let there be light and there was light. For him the suddenness of the light‘s existence was equal to the suddenness of matter coming into existence.
I wish there was a lot more "we don't know" out there instead of "here's how it is". Knowing what we don't know, and the curiosity to fill in the gaps, is what drives the best science.
"According to this theory, out universe is created in a quantum fluctuation in a field called the inflaton." OK, give me a few years to chew that over....
"In the beginning there was nothing, then it blew up"
You ain't supposed to eat the theory! Have a Macdonald's Sir! ❤
Love the new Q & A Graphic.. May I suggest one of the stills they use of you in the graphic be you holding your head in a hand or both, showing frustration.. 🎉❤
Love love love love love
Very clear explanation with examples without unnecessary complications, thank you Sabina
Love your style.
So rational . So analytic . Original and enjoyable to watch and understand.
So this will solve world hunger now?
@@ericevangelista6568 :)
That was a slam dunk debunk 😂 but seriously, I absolutely love what you do Sabine, I love your no-nonsense style
Sabine is the physics teacher I knew I always needed, and now I get to hear her.... truly a remarkable universe
She is sliding into hack territory, making videos about subjects she does not know about or twisting things people said.
@@petri2767 My favorite was how we need to allow Lia Thomas to particpate in women's competitions because people with ambiguous body parts exist. You cannot get more "scientific" than that...
@@andreasrumpf9012 That's just common sense. She's 100% correct about it, too. Sport has always been about having genetic unfairness lead the way to victory.
Talking about things that only need a functioning brain doesn't make her a "hack". You're just idiots who had their ideologies touched and are offended about it. Get lost.
You should flip your profile picture so that you appear sad on the outside, and on the inside, well...
The standard answer is that there was no "before" the BB as all dimensions were created at that instant. Very difficult for us to understand since we live in a universe with a specific time arrow related to the expansion.
Something I've been thinking of a lot is what if it's not expanding but instead shifting like water. Instead of it having a beginning it just "is" along with all of the stuff within it which tends to gravitate to each other overtime.
How it behaves now and how we imagine it could've started seems to have a disconnect.
Galaxies collide with each other often and/or move apart, just constantly moving in different directions like a trash pile in an ocean.
Gases that also exist in this space gravitate to each other until you get nebulas and the process of creating matter happens on its own.
It makes much more sense to me that the universe just always was and the process for creating stars had the by-product of creating other materials. Like we know how stars are made and yet we assume it all happened all at once but also took billions of years before looking like what we understand now.
It would be more consistent if the entire process took billions upon billions of years rather than part of it and then BANG
"We don't know." So much more satisfying than, "Your question has no meaning," which I have heard supposed experts say.
I am sure that refers to asking "what happened before time?", which has no meaning. It's like asking what is at 91 degrees north. It's beyond the scale, and so the question has no meaning.
To ask what is outside space-time may be such a question. Saying you don't know is also a good answer, but there are a lot of examples of meaningless questions that include an impossible premise for example.
Questions only have no meaning if they are obviously self-answering.
Some questions have inherent assumptions built into them. Examples of such questions that are NOT meaningless include leading and loaded questions. Other times, the bult-in assumption simply makes no sense. "How many angles can fit on the head of a pin?" depends on if an angel occupies a finite amount of physical space and, if so, how large a head of a pin really is in comparison (do we take a statistical average all pins in the world?)
Just because a question is meaningless doesn't mean it can't have any value. "What is the sound of 1 hand clapping?" is a well known *koan*, used in Zen Buddhism to challenge rational thought.
@@LiveFreeOrDieDH Single handed clapping is possible, by whipping the four non-thumb fingers around so they slap the palm hard enough to make a sound. It sounds like two-handed clapping done by someone who has only barely learned to do so: weak and irregular. Anyway, I hope this doesn't ruin Zen Buddhism ;)
@@Antares2 Well, time's a funny one. Either it's infinite in both directions, or has a "start" or an "end". But for time to "start" is a pretty weird notion. And I don't blame anybody who'd ask what happened before the "start" of time. I mean, "start of time" is circular, as far as I can tell.
The phone should have rung in the first 10 seconds. 😂
Yes!! What has happened to the phone ☎️????!!!!!
@@annecarter5181 Should have been, "Hello, yes Brian, yes, yes, yes, yes, uhuh, uhuh" 🤣
"Hello, this is God I want my universe back."
@@annecarter5181 Sabine said it's been hard to integrate phone calls into the daily news format. It rang once when Elon Musk called.
One of my go to science sources . Thank you Sabine
I just have a postulation for gravity: It's "symmetry breaking" was in multiple stages. At T- 1x10^-44s till 1x10^-40s , whatever the universe was went 1 dimensional on us, then between 1x10^-40s to 1x10^-36s at a 90°angle, it went 2 dimensional on us, and between 1x10^-36s and 1x10^-32s, also called inflation, it went from an already huge 2 dimensional area at a 90° angle to what we know as spacetime. Each one of those stages has dark energy as a consequence, just like radioactive particles have alpha, beta, x-ray, gamma radiation as a consequence which actually are, helium-4 nuclei or 2 protons and 2 neutrons, called alpha radiation, beta radiation would be electrons and positrons, and both x-ray and gamma radiation is electromagnetic radiation or high energy photons, so I hope you can forgive that I think that symmetry breakings can have consequences like that too, and I think it's dark energy, so bite me :p
The rapid decay of gravitons, consequences of dark energy, caused photons, neutrinos, gluons that briefly clothed up into glueballs causing pressure and heat together with the photons and neutrinos at a very confined space still, which was hot and dense enough for Grand unified theory to take over from here.
This means, the bigger a black hole, the colder it's core is going to be. This postulation unlike many theories does have a way to disprove it or ... not and gives us valuable data we didn't have yet?
Just shoot it to a lagrange point, and trap 'n deform a bose einstein condensate of rubidium, maybe if i'm right it might take longer to reshape into a ball when the magnetic field was dropped and free floating than usual and there is a cold threshold where a critical point was reached?
I am just curious. Other than Big Bang, is there any imaginative hypothesis to explain the redshift of Universe?
There's the idea of "tired light" (Google will tell you more)
Yep. Something called "tired photons hypothesis" or something like that.
Tired light is better explained as time dilation.
@@SabineHossenfelder Sabine, i Love your videoes! I have a question for you:
Is it impossible that the gravity we are affected by from sagitarius, could explain the redshift we are observing from objects outside our galaxy cluster? That everything isnt traveling away from us, but that its an effect of being trapped by our own black hole? Im not a physicist, and I realize Im probably provably wrong, but I would love to hear your perspective on this and why It might be wrong.
Thanks
@@SabineHossenfelder (we want you to do a video about it)
Great video! Keep up the good work. Also, Babbel only has 14 languages available at the moment :(
Hey Sabine, that part you said about singularity arises because we assume space to be smooth and not discrete??? Yeah... that's kinda what Stephen Wolfram has illustrated for us quite elegantly with his method of quantizing space using hypergraphs. He's onto something that turn-of-the-century physicists all assumed to be true (but didn't have the tools to probe).
... At what point did Brian Cox mention the " Creation Story " as an explanation ? ... he used the word " creation ' in a neutral and non religious fashion - no " God " was mentioned. And so far as the idea of NOT KNOWING is concerned, of course we DON'T KNOW ! ...
Science is the study of unknown things, and an attempt to make sense of them. And this is the BIG difference between Science and Religion : Science DOESN'T know, but TRIES to, Religion Doesn't KNOW either, but tries to PRETEND to ! ...
I love the way the analogy of the water drop was used, where the drop tapers to infinity, yet the actual source, the tap, is in plain sight. 🤣
I think she said the tube of water doesnt become infinitely thin because quantum mechanics trumps fluid dynamics.
@@deltalima6703 My point was the source of the water drop... the tap.
To my understanding the analogy, implies that we are living in a universe that dripped off of something, and we'll never know of what ...
@@stefaandondeyne Agreed... maybe there was a source, but we can only see as far as the single point where it was launched.
what is this meant to mean, it's an analogy for singularities not the universe. And the tap just moves water from one place to another so what does that imply. huh
“Well, that’s no fun!” Is the thought before every physics theory.
And every physics test I've taken.
They have fun at our expense, having to learn it and take tests about it as though it's serious science. When their theories are proven wrong, we don't get a single apology for being jerked around!
"Well, that's no fun!" Is the thought before every tax season knowing they fund garbage like this instead of things to actually improve conditions for people.
wonderfully clear explanation, thank you
As we are finite, our perception is constrained by our very narrow frame of reference, we live, and we die, and through this, we may forever struggle with the concept of eternity.
One of my favorite Brian Cox quotes (at least I think it was him) is “Nothing doesn’t like to exist.” (in response to the question of why is there something instead of nothing).
What does a rock dream of?
If nothing existed, it would in fact be something by virtue of existing.
You’re welcome for the bit of sophistry.
"Something" won the coin flip. Metaphysically.
It's the natural curve evolution to shear entropic radiation resonation waves. We know literally everything in the universe has it's paradoxical opposition. The fact that we can make any choice or have distinction between inverse properties.. entropy wants our disorder to permeate and refract into nitrogen jello or plasma without thermodynamics.. but we are here, partially aware of this, evolving everything scope to human existence towards curving our destruction. We are the natural evolution of resonation currents trying to shear the radiation waves they needle cast to phase vibrate through. Just think of the universe as a neutrino ocean and pay attention to fluid mechanics/dynamics.. curvature into spheres is the perfect inverse skirting of resonation pressure attempting to squeeze things into diffraction after loosing their coupling, entanglement, attraction forces/reactions. Because they weave through paradoxical sets in a looped system.. it can only expand to evolve together in Ying yang transference across turbulent exchange into strange attraction. So like the train in the movie "the core" .. no matter how much energy pours in or how much one side jumps to gain relative to the other.. they refraction and bifurcate waves and vertices, Vortex and supernova, fusion and resonation pulsation field coupling to only strengthen eachother. Over a Lorenz strange exchange and paradoxical flips
@skipper2285 naw the opposite. Look up strange attraction and the von Karman Vortex streets. Dynamical systems mean they ebb n flow but any gain diffracts into resonation harmony in Ying yang over paradoxical flip. It's why we are/everything is expanding
"infinitely lame"
i can't stop laughing!!!
PhD Student in Cosmology/Astroparticle Physics here. To my understanding the whole cosmology community understands the "Big Bang Theory" to be the theory about how a very hot and dense state of the very early universe leads to the universe in which we live today. The earliest time "after the singularity" we have any clear knowledge about is at around 3 minutes when the first nuclei were formed (theoretical calculations agree with the observed abundances). This is colloquially known as "Big Band Nucleosynthesis"... note that this is not referring to any singularity, and still contains the words "Big Bang".
We have no clear evidence what happened before Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, everything is extrapolation from what we know from particle physics and some speculation... Therefore, if inflation would be a correct theory, reheating would indeed initiate the Big Bang, and I would not know any cosmologist heavily arguing against that terminology. Everyone seems to believe that the initial "singularity" cannot be physical, so there is no reason to refer only to this unphysical instance as the Big Bang... it is more about what follows.
All this inflation story sounds like nonsense. Cosmology in general took a huge blow from the JWT deployment. Decades of speculation invalidated by a few months of data from a single machine has got to be embarrassing.
I love how she properly writes sponsors into the video script, almost as rare on CZcams as her honesty
Absolutely. And I think endorsements like these should be far more expensive for those purchasing the ads because they're just so much more effective.
Thank you for the video.
I am glad Dr Hossenflelder and her team, are here to put things in perspective. We just don't know, a refreshing disclosure. However that is no reason not to come up with alternatives and theories, which Dr Hossenfelder mentions.
Those theories always remind me of the stuff I made up as a kid to explain my lego spaceships that I built while watching animated series.
"This is infinity fast, so everything that goes faster than it uses atomic energy magic to convert infinity into more speed, like it's two times infinity now."
There are different sized infinities
@@NotSoNormal1987That's true, but not remotely relevant.
Brian Cox has this air of mysticism that really, really made me appreciate CZcams and the regular scientists communicating on there.
Telling everyone how full of shit he is.
An air of mysticism? He looks like the epitome of a nerd... If that is your air, you can find it easily near any university.
Some small energy ya got friend!@@ozymandiasultor9480
@@ozymandiasultor9480 Nah, I agree with Fjord. The problem is these long form documentaries where he has to travel to India and Egypt (using Orientalist type tropes) or South America where he writes in the sand, spending tens of thousands on their production budget, when he could have stood with a blackboard behind him and said more in two minutes than in the entire 45 minute show.
Oh come on. This reminds me of some historians going on amazon trashing a popular science history book.
Cox makes these programs for the masses and people like me have learned a great deal from him and enjoyed doing so. If you want more, there's other sources, but for most people Cox will do just fine and it should be shown on TV regularly.
Over the past year I've noticed a disturbing trend on CZcams; videos are being put out which appear to be essentially clickbait. The title will include some prominent name (Cox, Musk et. al.) and the content is revealed to be a miasma of speculation, pseudo-scientific nonsense and often with only a brief mention of the headline act. My wife watched one yesterday on Oumuamua which was total rubbish - I heard every word while doing a crossword in another room. I also think some of this stuff is being generated by an AI and I think that particular one was one of them. Point is, one needs to hone one's b.s. detector these days. I now ignore videos which I can readily identify as garbage.
It's inherent in science to ask "What caused that?', but perhaps somethings were always there and will continue to be forever.
True: God!
His name is Jesus.
I love the water drop analogy. Stored that one in my backpack.
A few years back I commented on a video regarding a similar topic and said that from what I can observe, everything around us is some sort of oscillation or waveform. So why shouldn't what we call universe be a cyclic expansion and collapse? I got laughed at and I still can't explain why I think that other than my observations of daily life.
There is some that think that theory is one of the explanations, they call it the big crunch when it contracts. And if people laugh of that they are just idiots...
But as it is now parts of the universe we can observe is moving away from us and is already moving away faster then light speed can cover the distance and it is lost for us forever (that is called the particle horizon). So for now it seems that this universe we live in will not be able to contract ever again.
The latest observations suggest that it is likely that the universe will eventually contract.
Philosophical intuition and logic tells me the same thing as it tells you, but experimental evidence is needed.
What is expected is that the dimensions can only be those that we observe since they are an abstraction of the orthogonal directions from a point, from that reasoning and knowing that nothing can arise from absolute nothing, what can be deduced is that space-time has always existed and will always exist, with local Big Bounce cycles probably.
I am of the opinion that what we call the Big Bang can be described as a white hole and what we call the Big Crunch can be described as the maximum density black hole that is incapable of further curving space and undergoes a transition towards a new white hole, or Big Bang.
Search up Conformal Cyclic Cosmology
It's not at all a new idea, the Hindu idea of the "days and nights" of Brahma goes back thousands of years
Well, part of the problem is that 'Big Bang' is a terrible name. At best, it was a super tiny event and there was no 'bang' because there is no air in space. Also, the theory doesn’t adequately explain certain aspects. Why 'Big'? How did the 'Bang' happen? It's like naming a theory 'apple theorem' and then discussing orange juice. Moreover, what kind of theory requires adding 95% of unknown substances to make it work? That's a 20-fold error. It's akin to a child claiming to have two PHDs after the first year of school (the additional 19 being 'dark education'). So, rightfully, people question if the theory's name is wrong, what else could be? If you need to add (fake it to make it ) 95% material to fit observations, it's not science; it's prophecy.That's exactly it. This is precisely why a Priest read the Bible and formulated the Big Bang theory. Just like other observations, such as everything appearing to orbit around us, leading to the belief that we are at the center of the universe.. It's astonishing that people still refer to observations as facts, much like those who claim the Earth is flat because, based on limited observations, the horizon appears flat. The Big Bang theorists are, at best, like divorce scientists who conclude the main reason for divorce is marriage based on observations alone. Without mathematics, it's not science; it's philosophical speculation. Mathematics clearly shows that 5 does not equal 100, and it's time to abandon such religious-like beliefs and seek better theories.
I dropped out of engineering college in my second year after losing a grant due to a delay in getting tax documents from my parents and a car accident. Kids kept me at work full time not to return to school. I’m a CNC programmer now; make lots of surgical and aerospace components. My new dream is to start my own company and partner with people in the medical industry to provide more affordable surgeries to those in need through efficient manufacturing and, hopefully, hospitals and doctors willing to work with us.
Physics is when you use some math to create a model that approximates recent observations. I attended a lecture by the guy who hypothesized the big bang years ago, and he now refutes it himself saying he now believes it is a big oscillation.
As soon as I saw that the headline was from The Express I knew where this was going 😉
My dad was a very intelligent fellow. His mind was well beyond his education and he often got a huge amount of disrespect from well educated idiots. (Yes. I'm bitter.)
One day I told him that I figured out what came in the moments before 'The Big Bang.'
'The Big Click'
My best explanation as a teenager right into the birds and bees was "When a mommy universe and a daddy universe really love each other...."
I think the two most current theories of which I'm aware are by Laura Mersini-Houghton (author of Before The Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe and What Lies Beyond, July 2022), who proposes that our universe is part of a multiverse created when the cosmic wave function resolved at different energy points across a string theory "landscape" - and the other by Thomas Hertog and Stephen Hawking (author of On The Origin of Time, 2023) which proposes that the universe resolved from a quantum state due to our observing it backwards in time (given that by Einstein's equations the arrow of time is bidirectional). At least, I think I understand these two theories that way. Each has given a presentation on their theory at the Royal Institute as well (one can find the videos on CZcams). I would be very interested in Sabine's take on both of them.
I knew you before i knew brian cox. You have done a better job spreading science and knowledge in my opinion. Thank you ❤
If you’re going to Paris, can I suggest you memorise; ‘Excusez-moi, pouvez-vous déplacer votre tracteur’, you may need it!
I love Brian Cox, he was amazing in Succession! 😜
You should see Stella Cox, she has a lot of movies.
Sure, but he knows almost nothing about astrophysics...I mean that iteration of Brian Cox, the old dude from Succession.
Oh, and in Oppenheimer!
@@fredrik241 haven't watched Oppenheimer yet, does he play the bomb?
@@synystera no, the warheads got together and signed a petition complaining he would make them look small.
Love how Sabine smoothly segues from Brian Cox to language to Babel.
I spent many years of my young life passionately studying mathematical physics at university. I considered it as THE best way to understand the universe.
Now I just find what it produces embarrassing...
My theory: Before the universe, there was Nothing... and then Chuck Norris roundhouse-kicked Nothing in the face and told it to get a job.
Gold nunya!
1:40 I've never before heard anyone explain the big bang using this equation before, that's great
also water drop example!
"its not a very popular idea probaly because the entire point is that its infinitely lame" got a good chuckle from me
Very interesting Sabine. A quick question: As space expands into the universe, could there be galaxies that are so far away from us, so their light would never reach us?
I'n not Sabine, but i can answer that. The answer is yes. There is a limit on how far away we can see, because the speed of expansion becomes faster than the speed of light after a certain point. That's not in contradiction with general relativity because nothing (i.e., matter and energy) is moving faster than the speed of light in their own frames of reference. The set of all things we can see is called the observable universe: it's a sphere of 45.7 billion light-years radius centered on us (of course, if there are alien astronomers in another place of the universe, their observable universe would be also centered on them)
In one of the Dr Who audio plays the Big Bang was simply a misfire of an alien spaceship firing up its engines creating our universe.
Seems more likely than the singularity
Goofy piece of writing, that.
@@BalBurghit's Doctor Who. That's a requirement, lol! After all, one of the 5th Doctor's stories (the one where Adric died, for Whovian timeline clarity) had a spaceship crash into the Earth, about... 65 or so mya. Not that pesky asteroid that left the big hole in the Yucatan about that time that got such a bad rap. 😂
City of Death? Mysterious link with Sabine learning französich, eh?
That's really stupid
of all the theories for what happened before the big bang, eternal inflation is the most pleasing to my brain. Would be interesting to know if it could ever be verified through observation?
I believe there is a certain type of polarization in the CMB, B mode that if detected would make inflation more likely and rule out alternative theories such as the cyclic models.
Eternal Inflation is eternal into the future, but presumably finite into the past. That's why Sabine said the Eternal Inflation multiverse had a beginning at a finite time in the past.
What a banger of a video Sabine 🎉
I noticed a click bait trend on YT involving Brian Cox. Usually the posters are just putting together a narrated video with stock photos and brief still images of Brian Cox. I think they are capitalizing on Brian's rock star looks and celebrity status. Add a sensational headline and boom! You have million views! Brian Cox doesn't have to know.
Translation : all the time and money and work spent and we still know sh*t
Oh I hate it when journalists sensationalise basic analogies or hypotheticals into literal things
I KNOW the "big bang" has been debunked and disproven since the 70s
If you don't believe in the "metaphysical" then you will never understand how the "physical" came to be.
A cycle of Big Bang to Big Crunch to Big Bang, and so on, makes the most practical sense. The problem is that it not only makes a start point possibly impossible to find but it also makes a start point redundant. Just like when someone asks "where do we go when we die" and someone answers "the same place you were before you were born." People just don't like the most obvious answers.
Sabine, I have not understood why you say that eternal inflation must also have had a beginning at some finite time in the past. My understanding of this theory is quite limited, but what I get is that it should, on large scales (much larger than any individual universes), more or less resemble a de Sitter model (spatially flat with Omega_Lambda = 1). Under these conditions the expansion law is a pure and simple exponential, it does not admit any beginning or singularity and more in general there is nothing special about any point in time.
I've always liked the comparison of "asking what was before the big bang is like asking what's north of the north pole." It might not be right if there's all these theories out there about what came before, but I think it gets you in the right mindset to think about time and space as intrinsically connected. There's all sorts of interesting questions that come out of it, like how do you build a frame of reference that doesn't consist of space or time? What is the universe expanding into? Does that question even make sense? Mind boggling stuff to think about and it's kind of amazing that us pink meat apes can even begin to think about it.
Yes I remember a physics teacher saying the universe is only expanding in our 3D world and contracting in a higher dimension, I'm not really qualified to know if that makes sense either,just his theory I suppose
The only thing that detracts from this video is the obnoxious set of the compulsive, obsessive hustle culture's sales ads which limit the universe to how can I jack off for money in my little microcosm.
That’s because we are not just “pink meat apes” that just stumbled on fire and electricity by accident, our consciousness is also not generated by our brains rather a receiver, that’s why we can even ask such questions. I doubt that “animated matter” with chemical reactions(which is what we are portrayed as being) can think such mind melting topics especially when this gets mixed with theology( btw theology and science are both asking the same questions just in a different was like 2 different sides of the same coin)
@@Jack-gn4gl I'd be lying if I said I understood it any better but to me that explanation falls under the "push it up the chain" category that Sabine was talking about. If there's a higher dimension then where did that come from? How can it contract if it doesn't also have some dimension that represents time or space?
It's mind boggling, the more I think about it the less sense it makes. Clearly "Something Happened," and we're all here today, but the idea of "Something Happening" without time or space existing doesn't make any sense, let alone "everything happening all at once."
Who needs to quote Brian Cox out of context when thinking about the reality is enough to destroy my brain...
Before big bang there was small atomic universe which expanded to our current universe which cooled down now we have Earth habitable planet
It's not that Brisn Green said anything wrong, it's just that the spatula he used to flip his morning pancakes didn't have the proprietary coating of Flim Flam Teflon that makes the flipping process seamless so you don't have to deal with eating pancakes that are not perfect circles. Thankfully, I, Sabine, always have my Flim Flam Flipper with me so I never have to worry about miscommunicating science. And it's a complete coincidence that the Flim Flam Flipper is a sponsor of this show. Just click on the link provided to receive a free trial Flim Flam Flipper, and make all your transitions smooth, including your transitions from content to product plugging!
"infinite density" prior to the Bang, makes no sense. Density, as commonly we understand it, is the ratio of mass to volume.
Incalculable mass to incalculable volume is not infinite - it is undeterminable.