Brian Cox - Is The Big Bang Theory Wrong?
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 11. 2022
- Brian Cox - Is The Big Bang Theory Wrong?
SUBSCRIBE to "Science Time": / sciencetime24
Physicist and professor of particle physics Brian Cox explains whether the big bang theory is wrong.
Despite major scientific discoveries that provide strong support for the Big Bang theory, there´s been a viral paper spreading over the Internet lately which says that the James Webb Space Telescope has refuted the theory. This has led many to think that our understanding of the Big Bang may be wrong. Could this really be the case? Is the James Webb telescope rewriting fundamental theories of the cosmos?
According to Brian Cox the such a claim is ridiculous. Regardless of what you may have read or heard, the big bang is supported by a preponderance of evidence and has become the most successful theory ever put forth for the origin and evolution of the universe.
Brian Cox mentions that we can actually see the afterglow of the big bang.
Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see. Because we see an infinite universe expanding into itself. One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.
#bigbang #ProfBrianCox #science - Věda a technologie
Even in the early days of our universe, inflation was running rampant.
Hahaha
You know this how?
Blame the Dems? Kidding
Must have been an earlier version of Biden out there
@greglejacques1094
That's what Stephen Hawking said, more or less. He said, "the universe borrowed energy from the gravitational field to produce matter. The result of this borrowing, as any economist would tell you was inflation". The "debt" of inflation was that humans showed up 14 billion years later.
James webb is what happens when society gets nice things
@Greg LeJacques no reason we can't have both
@Greg LeJacques eating the rich precludes the permanence of global capitalism, now doesn't it
@Greg LeJacques You keep saying 'eat the rich'. I do not think that term means what you think it means.
@Greg LeJacques keep thinking.... you haven't gotten there yet
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 How about, "Compost the rich"?
What Brian Cox is not mentioning, is the full developed galaxies several billion years away. In accordance to earlier theories, these should be in a "new-born" status since the light was sent from them a "short" time after the Big Bang. This have made many astronomers think of the possibility that the Universe is INFINITE and has been so eternally.
How would you explain time if that was the case?
@Tom time is an illusion. lunchtime doubly so.
Several billion light years away (in the past?) or just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang like that one paper suggests proves that the theory is wrong?
For a little comparison;
Observable Universe;
Shape - unknown
Age - 13.8
Diameter ~ 92 billion ly
The Milky Way;
Shape - spiral galaxy
Age - 13.5 billion years
Diameter - 100,000 ly
JWST imaged objects;
Shape - disk shaped
Age. ~ 13.5 billion years
Diameter - 2,000 ly (@13.4 billion years ago)
Brian addressed that.
What they are seeing with the James Webb images is disk like objects of about a 2,000 light years across. Maybe they are proto-galaxies vindicating their theories about how galaxies evolve. Or maybe those disks are a cluster of the first stars or whatever the gave birth to the supermassive blackhole at the hear of most spiral galaxies. The image resolution just isn’t good enough to distinguish any details beyond that. This fits within the theory’s predictions, albeit on the earliest side of it. But when look at the age of the oldest stars in our own galaxy, it matches up well enough. No one is losing any sleep over a 100 million years or less difference when it comes to a universe that nearly 14 billion years old, aside for the greekiest of cosmologists looking to make a name for themselves.
( the Universe itself is currently guestimated to be between at least 247 time the size of the observable universe to as much as infinitely larger. We will likely never know for sure)
The simple inference is that structure formation had some kind of a kickstart in the early universe. One way is if like you say, the universe did not start at the bang, and some material from before persists through the bang, a-la Penrose's CCC theory. Another way would be to have some kind of "sticky" dark matter.
In any case it looks like the LCDM model is being challenged big time! This is not the only observation to do so. Giant voids apparently are too big for the model. No expert here, but it is cool to see doors open to new theories!
@Tom infinity is also a human concept. The universe is almost certainly not infinite. It only appears as such to something as insignificant as the human mind.
The problem with the theory is that scientists refuse to consider that they're not seeing the full picture based on only our oberservable capabilities. It's entirely possible what we see is due to a much larger landscape of space than our telescopes can see
Please watch: Common Sense The Needle
OK, Cox says that we can't deny the BB because "we can see the after glow as the CMB" But this is "begging the question" logical fallacy. He has already decided that what we are looking at "is BB afterglow," thus its evidence for the BB. The radiation we detect is radiation from some sources, but its a GUESS that it came from an event 14 billion years ago. Its more likely that the radiation is from sources all across the universe, that is currently been radiated, not "left over radiation".
Sure but that’s not falsifiable unless you can think of a method to test it. Many things could be possible.
That’s always the problem with science, it acts like we can exist outside of ourselves.
That is because, what you cannot observe, you cannot prove it
For those of you who say, "Well, what happened before the big bang?" I have your answer. It was the big foreplay.😉
You are fired from the internet 😂
@@toupac3195 Thank you (?)🤒
You are rehired to the internet with a raise
Normally inflation happens before the big bang
How long have you been waiting to use that?
So the Big Bang Theory isn't "wrong," it's just incomplete.
@Greg LeJacques Do you expect *anybody* to take you serious after saying something so silly?
That’s the beauty of science - it’s constantly being reviewed and improved with new information.
@Greg LeJacques Dude, your paranoid conspiracy fantasies are hilarious. 🤣
@@kellydalstok8900 Very true Kelly. New discoveries are often fascinating.
@Greg LeJacques Thank you for proving my point. 😁
I am so glad that these things are being questioned/re-considered. I like how Brian said, today the expansion is accelerating but maybe at some tipping point in the future, it may change. That's what I want to hear, the uncertainty of our understanding of how dark energy/matter will behave or interact once the expansion overtakes some other unknown limit? Who knows, maybe dark energy has one last trick up its sleeve as the expansion gets to a certain point. Maybe it has happened elsewhere, another universe/bubble/black-hole, another time/iteration? Universe pretty much recycles everything, would be a shame not to eventually recycle itself.
Between dark matter and dark energy we only can observe 4% of the matter in the universe?
Please watch: Common Sense The Needle
The astrophysics of a certain Jesuit needs to be recycled
Please watch:
Common Sense The Needle ... :)
Been saying that for years concerning carbon 14 dating. Funny how these believers in big bang and evolution say carbon 14 dissipation is constant, even though the sampling is maybe 150 years out of estimated millions and billions. But when this telescope says universe is accelerating not decelerating now all of sudden it's not constant.
LMAO
And they think I'm insane for having Faith in Jesus.
I like listening to Brian Cox. Especially when he says, “we don’t really know” “we don’t have the knowledge” and “science does not disprove the existence of God”. Theories, theories, and more ever changing theories. All interesting!
Is it?
@@curtcoller3632 lol sometimes
Science doesnt deal in supernatural it also doesnt disprove ghosts and angel
@नाम everything coming from nothing isn't dealing in the supernatural?
@@jack8162 if you have scientific methodology to hypothesize it , then no it isn't supernatural.
Maybe there have been multiple big bangs, we don't even know where the matter/energy goes when it is goes into a black hole, or what dark matter or dark energy is - there's much to learn
Even if there has been many Big Bangs, there must have been a first one.
I’ve always thought that… like we have billions of galaxies containing billions of stars we could have at an unimaginable distance away billions of big bangs containing billions of galaxies scattered around in the infinite dark space.
@@biggusdickus2312 space is part of the universe, the pictures of the big bang are so misleading it should be the big bang on a white background because EVERYTHING is in the big bang bubble according to theory.
Ok my question is big bang happened yes but where and who created the space where it happened
The bgv theorem disproves the cyclic universe
Gravity is attractive, but I like it for it's personality.
@Greg LeJacques 😂
@Greg LeJacques Without context, I don't know if that's good or bad.
@Greg LeJacques Well, my life doesn't lack context, it's based on doing everything my cat overlords wish.
Maybe it’s time to cut back on the drugs.
Do you know what else is attractive? A White Dwarf
The total mass M needed to reconcile gravitational and electrostatic states is M = Mo /(2Pi - 1) (alpha2), where Mo is the observed mass of the universe, (2Pi - 1) is the Bell inequality (ever an inequality in the macroscopic world), and (alpha2) is the square of the fine-structure constant (a optical magnification factor, twice applied for virtual and real expression). In the quantum realm, the equation is undefined, because the radius is equal to the circumference, meaning that Pi = 1/2. The number of unit circles (or squares) in the universe is M/m, where m is the present-day rest mass of the electron. For a unit circle to become a unit square, Buffon's needle problem becomes applicable, where one side is electrostatic and the other is gravitational. In order for the PROBABILITY to equal 1/2 (regarding Bell's inequality AND Buffon's problem), Pi = 4, meaning that Pi = 1/2 AND Pi = 4, implying that 1 = 8; hence, the qubit (used in quantum computing) is emergent. (My observations and derivations-- no citation needed.)
For very large R the definite integral of R over time T approaching origin of the universe to the present day is approximately 1/2 of R2, verifying perceived dichotomy (a weird quantum nuance, where areas AND number of unit circles or squares are indistinguishable).
They need to launch 5 or 6 more james webb telescopes and link them together into an earth orbit around the sun size lense
Durrrrr
Because it was easy and cheap to send just the one ……..
50B dollars is nothing for something this important and amazing, i mean they spend way more on buildings and military.
Elon is on it.
Ooh. Did you make money working on the James Webb Space Telescope? Running out of money? Do what all the rest of us do, buy a lottery ticket.
Thankfully knowledge is a constantly evolving and changing thing. The more we discover the more we realise how little we know and how much we have to revisit older theories and create new ones.
The question that has bothered me is: What did the Big Bang expand INTO? And could there be other big bangs occurring somewhere else?
At last~! Someone who thinks like me.
That one is a question I often ask' and always some nutcase declares with the utmost conviction I should go to Genesis in my Bible. (Hell, I threw out my Bible a loooooooong time ago-I found that 'Noddy' made much better sense).
If I offend any religious nuts, please feel free to savage my words (but keep it seemly, no stakes allowed).
@@johnhough4445 I am not offended, but I don't get what you are saying. The idea of the bb is that it happened an infinite number of times and ofcourse only ones per universe (the mutiverse concept). The reason is that our universe is too fine tuned. Therefor if something happens often enough, anything should be possible. It has nothing to do with science. It is religion, just like the concept of dark matter and dark energy. All concepts made up because what we observe does not match their believe.
The bible has nothing to do with a big bang? It is another way of explaining our existence that is not natural. At this point there is no natural explanation that makes any sense. They want you to believe there is, but they have absolutely no clue.
And yes, I think the beginning God is more logical than in the beginning nothing and nothing did explode to the point we are now.
You're thinking the arena of spacetime we see as the universe around us needs to be embedded into something else with a certain limited capacity, and that may not be the case at all. Our spacetime may not be "inside" a container or something.
There is no spece today expand into. Such questions don't make sense. It's like being on the north pole and asking which direction is north pole.
@@mwont that is not the same situation at all.
Roger Penrose has the simplest, though strangest idea so far. Yes, multiverses would have been more fun, and is actually not excluded by Penrose’s theory, however Penrose’s suggestion is in line with Einstein’s theory of relativity, though the role of quantum physics then would be undecided or unclear in CC.
I agree the great Roger Penrose makes more sense than all this multiverse science fiction stuff. Roger Penrose also said that quantum mechanics would make more sense if you bring gravity into the picture, which they haven't been able to do yet. Once gravity is brought into the quantum world, there would be no need to believe in the multiverse. Quantum mechanics is therefore an incomplete theory so they cannot prove the multiverse exists in an incomplete theory.
I always had trouble with the Big Bang theory, it hurts my brain to think about the whole universe crunched up to the size of atom. If the data supports it I will have to accept it. But it still hurts my brain. I am desperately hoping for an explanation that doesn’t hurt my brain so much.
@Greg LeJacques Brilliant idea! I should have thought of it myself! Getting inspiration from Paul Pelosi? He got hammered!
They'll "explain" everything by conveniently interpreting data in a way that justifies expenditure & makes them look good by not being wrong about their theory. They still haven't proved how the universe started from nothing or something we don't understand. There are no witnesses.
I agree Slehar.
@Tom I remember as a kid when my older brother told me that there was a time before I ever existed. It was mind-blowing! Still haven't quite recovered. Probably be just as astonished when I reach the other end of my time-line.
An honest comment, but taking the size of forever, the big bang could have been microscopic or fill the sky-perspective matters. The big bang is happening always, yet collapsing upon itself just like a common fusion reaction. we can see evidence of both. Past is collapsing, future is expanding and present is our present perspective.
"...As it was in the beginning..."
Science Time is *infinitely* BETTER than all the rest in the multiverse, friends. The narrator is excellent and easy to listen to…length of vid. is purrrfect…& Dr. Cox is a long-time fave of mine. Ya can’t find a nicer guy…always friendly and humble…& truly BRILLIANT, as well! TY for sharing this AWESOME new video…luv it, and appreciate a LOT…& ALL your others, too!!!😌
Ditto
i find it disturbing that many of the rest resort to clickbait or sensationalist titles (which often are misleading or just wrong) to gain youtube success
@@juzam6 I find their lack of faith disturbing.
@@Moondog-wc4vm Faith is a totally different way of believing why are we here. Every believer spends their life looking for a purpose, that's the only purpose for their lives, there is no purpose. If you find the answer, please post it here. Thinking out loud here, not imposing.
Cox belongs to the string theory cult.
I was always under the impression that with the big bang time started ticking and space started expanding and after that, the rest of the forces, matter etc. followed... Or in other words, there was no universe or time before the big bang.
Is there any reason to believe this is the first universe or the last ?
Please watch: Common Sense The Needle
I think if you listen to Cox carefully in other places, as well as other prominent theorists, they try very hard to acknowledge that nobody knows what, or if, anything existed prior to the Big Bang. And actually I think there is agreement that something did. While the fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating apparently surprised people and altered a previous assumption, this does not yet eliminate the possibility that the expansion will slow, then end, and then be followed by contraction back to a small but infinitely dense point. They also speculate that this may have already happened many times, perhaps infinitely, or that many universes come into being out of similar big bangs. It is also possible that black holes have something to do with this. So, yes, our universe as we know it and the time that appears to be factoring into it, may very well have "started" at the Big Bang but both may have existed prior to this. Yet Cox and the others will all be clear in stating that this is what we understand things to be at this moment. the Big Bang remains a theory even with lots of clear evidence to support it but it is very much open to challenge or revision.
Thank You for Your time.
This year - 2023 - You will see
a tiny team change the world of physics.
An all new comprehensive theory.
It's comforting to come up with an easy to swallow solution
It actually sounds like like bunching and "un-bunching". I like to think of it as the "standing wave" created by an accident on a highway.
Meaning, you have crash, creates a stop and go pattern that still exists long after the it's been cleared out and cleaned up.
If you look at it from a helicopter you'll see a 1D/2D pattern of "waves" flowing on the highway as the cars stop and go based on traffic flow.
I see this in all things. Just like your picture of the travel through time as the energy becomes photons becomes atoms, etc etc... to us. It was like a big purple sponge your displayed.
sounds funny your comment made me laugh...but where did laughter come from...is it a result of a big bang because the big bang theory makes me laught too and cry also. So sad that people think this explains how things came into existance, but the theory starts off at a spot, with things that are in existance.
What can people not see that?
How can people think they are so smart but miss something so simple? Sad really and then they do studies that they say they have proven man-kind is the most smartest "species" on earth...but i think they are bi-est opions that made there findings flawed. I think animals are more inteligent than we, they know God exists and created everything. Look at them can you not see that God made them? You think and explostion made them...like boom bamb oh look everything is amazing. Well thank you explostion your blowing up sure was pretty good at making all this stuff so wonderfully! Not!
@@barrycharlesbrebner That's Ok, your "god" is younger than Hinduism. So, that's about as much credit your "story" holds.
Hinduism and Mesopotamia is where most science comes from and all older than your "Jedeo-Christian-Islam tree of belief. Do a little more research in to the whole of the planet instead of a narrow view based on religion.
@@greatoak7661 and that is your God given freedom to choose, what you think and what you do! I do know the Truth mind you; Jesus has said He is the Truth, but it is your choice to believe Jesus or not.
Then He told them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. That is why I told you that you would die in your sins. For unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” “Who are You?” they asked. “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,” Jesus replied.…
❤ i love you!
@Greg LeJacques you think your smart, and maybe you are but if you reject the truth for lies, then, well you will die in your sin, and that really ain't to smart, and you will not be happy nor laughing. And you will probably hate yourself for choosing non-sense. I hope that does not happen though, because it does not have to, if you choose for it not to. Because Yes Jesus is the Truth, also the Way and the Life, no one can go to God the Father except through Jesus. God is INVITING YOU, will you except His invitation? 💌i love you Greg!
You may find interest in the study of Fourier Transforms in n-dimensional space (and perhaps even further modulated by fractal qualities such as the hausdorff dimensions of complex spaces).
Simply stated, the hausdorff dimension is a modelling of infinite roughness.
Or if you wish, the approximation of Fast Fourier Transforms to get a guess of how wave functions work when you lack the micro scale data of initial conditions and modulating functions.
These fields of study are basically an infinite rabbithole though.
The problem is that this isn't the whole question. The universe is a constant repetition of "Bangs" or a continual repurposing of matter from uncountable events. We had to have a model to explain the origin of the universe although we never quite considered the origin of elements which allowed such an event to happen in the first place. Then this whole Big Bang Theory turns into a rabbit hole because the origin needs an origin too doesn't it?!
@Greg LeJacques We are God and very few of us actually realize it. There is a higher consciousness in all of us that needs to pay no homage to time. That consciousness created the time envelope and filled it with matter. We as mortal beings can't comprehend infinity nor were we configured to do so but we belong to that omni-present consciousness. We exist on this plane to learn where to exert the energy that we are in a manner that will not only sustain us but allow us to expand. #ThoseAmongUs
Don't mistake "we" for "me".
I imagine the big bang could possibly be like a spark from a bonfire. There are constant sparks coming from something almost all sparks go out very quickly but some last a long time and some seem to fly on for a very long time before it fades. Our universe could be that long spark where everything worked. Stars and galaxies formed ect. Just a thought
This is why science works - it constantly questions itself, examines, re-evaluates, tests and re-formulates working theories and laws, without anger or prejudice, constantly evolving and refining itself.
Please watch: Common Sense The Needle
till the government or political activists get involved, then you got people believing a gas that is .10% of the atmosphere is a problem because of it
Oh don't worry, there are plenty of angry, fallible, egotistic scientists around ;-)
I have to say that part of the reason these misinformation theories survive is that their videos have titles like 'The Big Bang Didn't Happen' but then videos like this on the other side go with a clickbait title rather than 'The Big Bang Did Happen.' So if you just look at all the titles you completely get the impression that the theory is wrong, because none of the title suggest it is correct.
Nobody use the word correct, but the best explanation. Actually the BigBang explanation is more complex now. 😅
I think mankind as a species likes to think of beginnings and endings but there should be no reason not to postulate that the universe always existed and always will- possibly in different forms
Not only the universe, but whatever exists beyond the universe, that the universe is growing into. If you rewind the math on a growing baby, puppy, tree, or chicken, you get a "big bang" too. We just know for a fact that sperm, seeds, eggs, etc... are the real spark for expansion. I guarantee that the universe comes from other universes just like every other thing nature produces. It's only a matter of scale. Nothing in nature just big bangs itself into existence. Our universe very likely is growing on some massive structure that many other universes are also growing and feeding themselves from. They're born, they grow, they run out of energy, and they die. Just like everything else does.
@@paaao
That's in agreement with what the great Sir Roger Penrose said. He said once the universe expands until there's nothing left but photons, the universe will die a "time death" due to a lack of gravity which gives rise to time, which then triggers off another big bang into a universe that has already died. The new universe then continues to grow into an existing dead universe. That still leaves the question as to where the 1st big bang came from, unless there were big bangs eternally in the past, which doesn't make sense.
Absolutely. And don't count out our inherent inability to see beyond our humanness and the constructs we've created to try to understand our existences.
@@70AD-user45 I am not in agreement with what he said, because his photon explanation only holds true if nothing exists beyond the universe. Otherwise, when it dies, it dies. The energy gets slowly transferred out into whatever thrives off of dying/dead universes.
@@70AD-user45 Didn't Cox hint here at agreement with Penrose...by saying that the Big Bang could have been preceded by a period of cold empty expansion which then slowed causing the conditions for a Big bang? And Penrose theorises this would happen again long after our existing 'universe' has expanded and cooled to the point where only photons remain and time ceases to be relevant...repeating a possible endless cycle. It's all too much mentally...but I cope better with the idea of infinity than nothing at any point.
I find it curious that what is commonly called the space time continuum appears to be 13.8 or so Billion years old . This is based on the distance measured and a lot of other factors , but how can you do this without allowing that time itself more likely than not directly connected to speed . higher speed are affected by the time dimension differently from lower speeds . Maybe inversely?
Cosmology is based on Einstein's general relativity so we know exactly how space and time work in an evolving (expanding) universe.
They measure the redshift of the galaxies furthest away, that gives you the velocity of each one, regardless of how much spacetime has expanded since the Big Bang.
@@tonywells6990 and yet no one understands , or can even begin to speculate why the "edges of the universe" seem to be moving faster than light and still accelerating ! I merely posit that time be looked at differently : as a variable correlated to distances when measured in the intergalactic distances in the millions and billions of light years . Not just in distance but also in time .
@@tonywells6990 no we don't know exactly how time works, in fact we don't know how space works exactly either. Quick as you are in quoting Einstein , he himself remained baffled by inconsistencies he couldn't account for.
@@alexmeyjes5533 Actually general relativity explains perfectly well how and why the universe expands (faster than light speed separation rate is a consequence), and also gives an explanation for an accelerating universe although it isn't proven yet if dark energy is Einstein's cosmological constant but studies show it probably is. There is no evidence that the passing of time has changed since the big bang.
I agree space and time are hard to comprehend but 'and yet no one understands , or can even begin to speculate why the "edges of the universe" seem to be moving faster than light and still accelerating ! ' is not true.
That background music is 'to die for'; really helps!
I can't help but imagine that TIME itself is not a constant, but we are so accustomed to the rate at which we perceive the passage of time that it's hard to account for a possible change in its properties. Could we be attempting to measure the size/age of the universe with an ever changing ruler?
Indeed. This is also relevant in my opinion.
Please watch: Common Sense The Needle
Question for any physicists: will there be a time when all the light from the start of the universe has collided with something so you couldn’t see that far back anymore?
the sun will explode in around 4 billion years so anyone still here wont be seeing much of anything. but for example if you were floating in space immune to the effects of time and space and somehow able to see the background radiation. yes. if the universe is infinite and continues its rate of expansion galaxies will continue to move away from each other eventually burning through all of its matter until you floated alone in an endless black abyss unable to see the remnants of the final few stars. be careful what you wish for i guess.
As far as I know yes, eventually the microwave background will be too faint to pick up, and all the stars will have moved so far away the night sky will be dark and a future intelligent species born then would never know there's other galaxies in the universe, even if they had telescopes and looked
Any light that was emitted before the CMB at ~ 380,000 years of age would not be visible today, as it has collided with ions in the plasma that existed before that time.
It's a great question! There will always be some infrared getting through to us--that is, until the universe has expanded so much that the stars are no longer visible.
I,m fairly ignorant of astro physics, I was intrigued by your use of the word "Time" though..... "Will their be a Time etc" is the interesting part of the question... to me at least. :)
I suspect that the estimate of the red shift is somehow off. Here are some possibilities: A) stars burned redder in the earlier universe and that has thrown off the redshift estimate. B) the older that photons get the more they naturally shift to the red, irregardless of the distance they traveled. C) the actual age and distance the early stars are from us is incorrect and that has thrown off the estimates. Or, D) They have not properly compensated for the fact that early stars were moving faster in the distant parts of the universe but have slowed down to the same speed that nearby stars are moving. After all, we are looking at light from over 10 billion years ago, so we don't know what's happened out there now.
I think the Big Bang is probably correct, I just think is not expanding at the speed we currently estimate.
They didn't mention any detail from the refuting paper, what was the reason for doubt?
There's stars older than the universe
I have always wondered why the question about there being more matter than antimatter is a problem. If a Feynmann diagram is anything to go by, at the Big Bang, most matter would go forward in time and most antimatter would go backwards in time. These 2 Universes would exist but not interact and the illusion of time would be equivalent in both universes... But then I am no physicist.
We see things expanding locally because we can only see locally. We don't know what is happening further out than we can see. We also don't know what is happening bigger than we can see or smaller than we can see. Even our tools have limits to how large and how small they are able to detect.
We can see things around 6 billion light years, is that local?
@@classicraceruk1337 it's extremely local in the infinite universe!!
@@stuartrichardson5232 Problem is maybe it’s not infinite it could be expanding. This is according to Sam Baron, Kevin Orrman and others. Being so sure is not a good thing. Others of course think it is infinite.Astronomer Anna Moore says maybe. Professor Joseph Silk says maybe as well.
arent we able to detect the smallest building blocks like atoms and the plank length? like nothing can be smaller than plank? or is that a tool limit and things can be infinitely small?
@@aurabless7552 Good Question………..long wait for an answer I reckon.
Gotta love Brian Cox.
It's all about understanding the known universe. Outside that which can't be known it could be infinite, now that hurts the brain.
I feel comfortable with the idea of the universe always existing in various states.
If the universe always existed in various states then time also must always exist.
But it's illogical that time always existed as we could never progress enough from infinity to reach today.
You cannot contradict yourself like that. Either nothing existed or something existed.
I don't think I did.
Time is movement (the eternal dance for impossible balance and symmetry at the fundamental level). But before that movement started there must have been a mysterious state of imbalance, an imperfection that I certainly don't understand. The only thing we can guess about that timeless state is that if something could happen it would happen because there was no resistance to stop it. The state would have known no laws, no boundaries or limitation, and most importantly no resistance. To understand what the state was we first need to understand what it has progressed into and what it continues to be. To know that we just need to understand what every part of existence has in common. Thats where we'll find the answer.@@lettherebedots
Assuming time was born from a timeless state, 'always' implies both the timeless state and the period of matter, the existence we know.
Unfortunately there is no English word that describes a timeless state so you just say always. @@andrewdouglas1963
How about photons making matter and antimatter pairs that normally, but not always annihilate each other back to photons. Maybe sometimes an event horizon separates them. Black hole, sure, but maybe there is one for time, too. Could be the same thing. How about antimatter sometimes gets separated from matter and goes back in time.
2:47 one of the most mind-blowing parts of this video is seeing “expansion of the universe” written in comic sans
I think with quantum entanglement,,, we might be in some kind of "2d" universe, and possibly not perceiving light/distant space correctly at all due to our perspectives. 🍃🍃
Yes this is effectively Lenny Susskind's Holographic principle where information/bit is the most basic unit and everything else is a derivation of it and entropy. It certainly has some beautiful mathematics and empirical evidence such as the volume vs surface area of a black hole. Beyond my pay grade in QM so I don't completely understand it, but it certainly is a thing of beauty and can begin to tackle the contradictions of GR vs QM.
If you want to get right out there at the superposition of genius/quackery, the opposite is interesting too - Gavin Wince's ideas of extra degrees of freedom ...multidimensional time and multidimensional space ... so the Big Bang becomes a temporal vanishing point of sorts and stuff like gravitational lensing are deltas in the rates of change of the passage of time in a large gravitational field. He's often dismissed as a charlatan, but he has some interesting mathematics.
The Question Is:
Is the universe the accelerating, or is time slowing down?
The universe is accelerating. There is no evidence that time was different in the past otherwise physics would be completely different and it would be obvious in our observations.
@@tonywells6990 Not According to Einstein.
Are you not familiar with Einstein's theory on special relativity?
The faster you travel, time slows down.
That's why your GPS most be recalculated, to compensate
for time dilation.
@@wplg Actually it is according to Einstein, since cosmology is based on his general relativity theory. Objects (galaxies, stars etc.) at great distances are not moving through their local spacetime at relativistic speeds so special relativity isn't important.
@@tonywells6990 Time dilation caused by a relative velocity
From the local frame of reference of the blue clock, the red clock, being in motion, is perceived as ticking slower[8] (exaggerated).
Special relativity indicates that, for an observer in an inertial frame of reference, a clock that is moving relative to them will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in their frame of reference. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the time dilation between one another, with time slowing to a stop as one approaches the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s).
Theoretically, time dilation would make it possible for passengers in a fast-moving vehicle to advance further into the future in a short period of their own time. For sufficiently high speeds, the effect is dramatic. For example, one year of travel might correspond to ten years on Earth. Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel through the entire known Universe in one human lifetime.[9]
With current technology severely limiting the velocity of space travel, however, the differences experienced in practice are minuscule: after 6 months on the International Space Station (ISS), orbiting Earth at a speed of about 7,700 m/s, an astronaut would have aged about 0.005 seconds less than those on Earth.[10] The cosmonauts Sergei Krikalev and Sergei Avdeyev both experienced time dilation of about 20 milliseconds compared to time that passed on Earth.
The real question is are you capable of formulating a ten word sentence then proofreading it prior to posting ?
If it's expanding more quickly than it did in the past, then as you back in time it's expanding ever more slowly. The problem is that as you go back in time you get the point where it's not expanding at all but it's not at a singularity. Is distance an illusion?
Please watch: Common Sense The Needle
I think "where did the universe come from" is the wrong question if the universe has always existed.
I guess people just have a hard time accepting infinity as an answer.
There could’ve been multiple big bangs. We don’t even know what the Big Bang was how it happened or what existed prior
Could it be what we see way out in space may not actually be there now ?
It is indeed the case, since what you are seeing happened billions of years ago (or however long it took the light to reach us so to finally see the observed thing). Nothing is today as it appears in those long ago and distant images.
It's an absolute certainty that it's different. Perhaps it has gone completely, eaten up by the Great Space Anti-Matter-Monster, or perhaps it's just really, really similar to today but a bit further apart. Of course depends on your definition of 'now'. On galactic scales when using General Relativity, the hardest bit is simultaneity due to the inherent maximum speed of light in a vacuum, c. At the quantum level though, it does appear entanglement is real - instantaneous spooky action at a distance - so now we're really confused. As a scientist, that''s a great way to be - more to discover..
Is the "oldest light in the universe" really just that, or is it the oldest light we've detected in in the observable universe?
Or put another way, does anyone know the estimated delta between the size of the Universe and the observable universe?
Estimated delta ?
I don’t understand how a cool down of the universe equates to an increase in energy and subsequent acceleration. So it would seem there is a physics that would explain the CMB , the 380,000 year gap to where light began to be emitted, as well as the noted acceleration of the universe. But the one we are trying to promote needs a lot of tweaking.
The best thing is that everyone in the comments are talking about the theory. Unlike Neil Tyson, Prof. Cox draws attention to science instead of just focusing on him.
Cox is a string theory cultist. Atleast Neil Tyson is a real scientist.
Don't be ridiculous everything Cox says or does is about him.
Everything is possible in this universe. Because there is space for everyone's thoughts.
Everything is impossible in the universe, because there isn't space for everyone's shit.
sure many things are possible but only one thing actualy did happen. God did create the universe.
Do people really think that the big bang theory really explain where everything came from? That does not explain how anything came into existance so why do people act like and talk like it does. People are you really that blind or do you just refuse to see? It is so obvious that the big bang theory does nor explain how anything came into existance...because if there was something that did go bang and it was big...where did that big stuff come from that went bang? do you see now how this big bang theory explains nothing?
@@barrycharlesbrebner science says "we don't know, but we're trying to find out", religion says "god did it". Right now in our hands and within our view is a whole universe of discovery and clarification, which is a pleasure to study in itself, gives the average person access to insights that not even Darwin or Einstein possessed, and offers the promise of near-miraculous advances in healing, in energy, and in peaceful exchange between different cultures. Yet millions of people in all societies still prefer the iron age myths of the cave and the tribe and the blood sacrifice. If you don't study the current vanguard of origins of the universe instead of stopping at the door and making ridiculous proclamations then you do yourself a disservice.
@@jonq8714 well i am glad to hear from you! ❤But basically you are explaining to me that you do not know. So if you do not know, how everything came into existence, why do you think your thought about how it may have happened be better or superior than any other idea? If you knew, then maybe you would be in the right to speak down to others. I do know my friend, and how do i know? Because God, has revealed the Truth to me, by removing my sin, that separated me from God that had my eyes blind, ears deaf, and mind so i could not know. Why do you think that God creating everything is ridiculous? Do you not see that everything coming from nothing, is even more ridiculous? So why choose one idea over another? The truth is what i seek, what-ever the Truth is, i want to know the Truth..how about you?
@@barrycharlesbrebner I follow the evidence and allow my opinion on any subject to change as our pool of knowledge grows. The religious aren't permitted such flexibility by definition, as you have proved you start with the conclusion and work backwards from there. Your "god did it" is my "I don't know". I wasn't talking down to you, I was urging you to have intellectual integrity. The history of the receding grip of religion having to backpedal and change their stance on stuff as science has advanced is evidence enough that religion is just man made bullshit.
Much of religion is so laughable on its face that writers from Voltaire to Bertrand Russell to Chapman Cohen have had great fun at its expense. In our own day, the humor of scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan has ridiculed the apparent inability of the creator to know, let alone to understand, what he has created. Gods seem not to know of any animals except the ones tended by their immediate worshippers and seem to be ignorant as well of microbes and the laws of physics. The self-evident man-madeness of religion, as well as its masculine-madeness in respect of religion’s universal commitment to male domination, is one of the first things to strike the eye.
So we have just the same amount of evidence that the universe was created by a god as we do of a giant cosmic chicken laying an egg.
I find the most interesting that there can be incomplete and conflicting theories whilst discussing cosmology whilst the data are sorted out but jump over to a discussion on the origins and the treatment of a virus and there is only one allowed opinion/explanation. If there is any deviation from the government's approved notions then you will be banned from any forum or discussion.
(@5:44) Not sure if statement is wrong on:
"Webb's observations actually supporting the big bang model, showing that the first galaxies were smaller and grew larger over time just as big bang cosmology predicts".
As far as I understand - correct me if I'm wrong - universe expansion / dark energy implacts only distances between galaxies and not the size of galaxies by itself. Statement above mentioned is a little bit vague and doesn't mean anything and I'm not sure if Brian Cox could agree on that statement.
A theory can be wrong or updated where fundamentals of it won’t change. Ie, a white hole within an existing universe is an update
That’s what the anti-science people don’t understand. A large portion of them are believers in a millennia old book that will never change and will also never be right.
This is what makes me wonder, what exactly is the space outside of the universe expansion that allows the universe to expand into it? If the universe is expanding.... what existed before it expanded.
There is no outside, only inside.
@@jimmythejock4376 Okay but like.... How does it expand into nothing. Maybe this is one of those things that the human mind can't comprehend but... If something expands, that implies there's something to expand into.
True nothing doesn’t exist so must be eternal something outside the universe. Can’t even begin to imagine an expanding floating bubble located in nowhere. It has to be in somewhere for it to exist in the first place, Unless it was created from an eternal source. Doubt science would ever answer something that’s so out of reach apart from plausible theories.
GOD spoke, and He said...
"Let There Be Light"
...nothing else makes sense.
@@bradabar2012 Dear, oh dear. What a childish mindset you have.
The bible is a book written by unknown primitive people who knew nothing, so they made up stories. It’s like Rudyard Kipling’s Just So Stories. Only that writer knew better, and created the stories just for the amusement of children.
Describing what happened billions of years ago with galaxies and their conduct into the present is not comparable to the chaotic pattern of weather, which is highly susceptible to "the butterfly effect," where, theoretically, a butterfly can flap its wings at the right instant to change an entire weather system. The sheer momentum of mass involving galaxies is incomprehensible in relation to changing the paltry mass and its movement regarding earth's atmosphere.🌎
I recently saw this commendable-but-comical post at another web site: "There is no such thing as 'space' as we know it; there is matter everywhere; everything is in constant motion, appearing to be entangled by "gravity' doing its job, that is, directing traffic!"
A group of Soviet experts conducted by Prof. Herouni using radio telescope came to a conclusion that there was no Big Bang.
Citations needed
There was also this Soviet scientist who refuted the modern notion of genetics. However, he was wrong.
Apage satanas.
I believe they are right
Me too.Bangers only believe in it without single proof.
New here. Good video, I found it interesting and entertaining.👌
Glad you enjoyed!
Since it has been discovered the cosmic 'Dark Ages' turns out to be smack full of galaxies, I'd be a little hesitant to continue to use cosmic red shift as a reliable evolutionary tool, in turn leaving cosmic background radiation open to interpretation.
Personally, I'd be a little hesitant to throw my lot in with Cox's false logic reasoning.
so did you like the part where it is never explained how anything came into existance...only that some stuff that already existed they think did this and that and this and that again and again? But where and how did anything come into existance? People act like this explains that...but it does not. So why do they think it does? Can you see how this does not explain how anything came to exist?
i do know how...but many people want to reject the Truth and it is so simple too!
@@barrycharlesbrebner yeah, definitely no explanation for the first initial amount of matter.
@@SovereignHumanBeingX great well i am glad you can see that! So why is it that people speak of the big bang theory as if the theory explains the origins of the universe when clearly it does not? Why the deception and misleading? They teach this stuff in the school system like it is the absolute truth, when they do not actually know. That is called lying and deceiving! Why are people doing that (do you think)?
Can you the explain the bit about the laws of physics not applying at the start?
Depending on proximity, some things will always increase their distance from you at an ever-quickening rate. Say your standing in a large field, 1000 ft from a street, and a car goes by, going, say, 60 mph. the distance between you and the car will increase at an ever-quickening rate as the car continues on; it's just simple geometry.
Please watch: Common Sense The Needle
It seems so...but a lot of us knew this already.
Please watch: Common Sense The Needle
The question is what is time and why does gravity and our own consciousness seem to be affecting it?how can the start of our own consciousness begin like the mystery of the Big Bang itself?
Scientists think they're brilliant however they know very little about consciousness. Atoms are 99 percent empty held together by a mysterious force called strong force. Everything we touch is electrons pushing against each other. The fact is we may very well be spiritual beings having a physical experience. Our consciousness could be the only thing that is real here.
Law of One by Ra. Give that a read.... it will wake up your brain cells :)
In a very real sense, there is no difference. Everything is made from the same stuff. It's just about (how we perceive) timing and circumstance. Our perceptions are only, well, our perceptions. Human limitations - even if we become machines (of which will be fed by, yes, humans) - will never penetrate the real truth. By design, they cannot.
The accelerated redshift can be explained by shrinking atoms. When atoms shrink, the wavelength they emit becomes smaller and the interaction between atoms also becomes faster and time also runs faster, which ensures that the shrinking is also faster. if you then look into space you see an accelerated redshift, which seems to accelerate due to the ever faster shrinkage, if you then see a galaxy with 50% redshift then you are looking at atoms that have a diameter twice as large and where the time only goes half as fast, in the time it takes for the light to reach us, our atoms are halved in diameter, where the frequency became 2 times as high and the interaction also became 2 times as fast and the time also went 2 times as fast fast, because of that the shrinking also goes twice as fast and the next halving takes half the time, you can also calculate that back where a galaxy with 75% redshift has atoms that have a diameter 4 times as large and where time is only a quarter of the speed and the halving takes twice as long as a galaxy with 50% redshift and a galaxy with 75% redshift is then 3 times as far away as a galaxy with 50% redshift and it would It is possible that Hubble's constant is incorrect.
Met krimpende atomen is de versnelde roodverschuiving te verklaren, Als atomen krimpen dan word de golflengte kleiner die ze uit zenden en word ook de interactie tussen atomen sneller en gaat ook de tijd sneller lopen, dat zorgt er voor dat het krimpen dan ook sneller gaat, als je dan de ruimte in kijkt zie je een versnelde roodverschuiving, die door het steeds sneller krimpen lijkt te versnellen, als je dan een sterrenstelsel ziet met 50% roodverschuiving dan kijk je naar atomen die een 2 maal zo grote diameter hebben en waar de tijd maar half zo snel gaat, in de tijd dat het licht er over doet om ons te bereiken zijn onze atomen gehalveerd in diameter, waar de frequentie 2maal zo hoog werd een de interactie ook 2 maal zo snel werd en ging ook de tijd 2 maal zo snel, daar door gaat het krimpen ook 2 maal zo snel en gaat de volgende halvering in de helft van de tijd, dat kan je ook terug rekenen waar een sterrenstelsel met 75% roodverschuiving, over atomen beschikt die een 4 maal zo grote diameter hebben en waar de tijd maar een kwart van de snelheid heeft en duurt het halveren er 2 maal zo lang als met een sterrenstelsel met 50% roodverschuiving en staat een sterrenstelsel met 75% roodverschuiving dan 3 maal zo ver als een sterrenstelsel met 50% roodverschuiving en zou het kunnen dat de Constante van Hubble niet klopt.
Weird theoretical question: say we find a mirror in space that is pointed at the earth since a long time. if we would find it, could we observe the earth's past?
yes!
I think we'll find out one day just how big the universe REALLY is; and that we will also quickly realise that we will never be able to see so far back (due to how light travels).
@@roger8117 how do you know the universe is infinite?
@@roger8117 how do you know there isn't a far off wall? We can't see beyond the observable universe
Spacetime is flat when not effected by gravity, that doesn't imply the universe is infinite in any way
Two lasers will part if one enters the gravitational field of a celestial body and the other does not due to gravitational lensing
None of what you tried to say implies the universe is infinite
@@roger8117 you disagree but you can't refute any of what I said
Take care now
@@roger8117 it's a refutement of your hypothesis not a hypothesis of mine
I have explained why your hypothesis is wrong and you've failed to address my refutation
You take care 🙂
@@roger8117 it does mean you are wrong. That's literally what refute means 🤦♂️
If you want people to take your nonsensical hypothesis seriously then you'll need to be able to prove my refutation was wrong
we believe that universe is infinite, but yet we always treat it as if it was expanding somewhere, it's baffling to me. In this part it just expands.
It's only expanding in a 3D world, it's contracting in a higher dimension according to some physics teachers
@@jetlife3173 if it was infinite it couldn't expand; that's not what the word infinite means.
Nobody believes that the universe is infinite. Everything about the universe and everything in it are all finite.
@@jetlife3173 Play that out in your mind and get back to me on that.
@@jetlife3173 When you said "your" instead of "you're" I knee all I needed to know. Goodnight.
Funny how 6 months after this video was released, the JW Telescope found galaxies that shouldn't exist if the "Big Bang" theory was correct.
No it didn't.
When two universes touch...gives rise to fresh big bang...
we will never know…
Never say never
Albert Einstein made contributions to physics. His brother Frank made well he made a monster.
And his other brother Beck made calculations on the number of calculations that can be performed with a certain amount of energy at a certain temperature. Of course his other brother Liecht became a whole country, even though he's a little bitty one.
How do you explain the big bang in the multiverse ?
In a corrupt and false society, is the acceptable majority ever right?
"Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. ... I maintain also that substances, whether material or immaterial, cannot be conceived in their bare essence without any activity, activity being of the essence of substance in general." (Gottfried Leibniz, 1670)
"For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940)
"Finally, if nothing can be truly asserted, even the following claim would be false, the claim that there is no true assertion." (Aristotle)
"No two or more substances can have the same attribute and it appertains to the nature of substance that it should exist. It must therefore exist finitely or infinitely. But not finitely. For it would then be limited by some other substance of the same nature which also of necessity must exist: and then two substances would be granted having the same attribute, which is absurd. It will exist, therefore, infinitely." (Spinoza)
"But maybe that is our mistake: maybe there are no particle positions and velocities, but only waves. It is just that we try to fit the waves to our preconceived ideas of positions and velocities.The resulting mismatch is the cause of the apparent unpredictability."
(Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time" 1988)
"We must not conceal from ourselves that no improvement in the present depressing situation is possible without a severe struggle; for the handful of those who are really determined to do something is minute in comparison with the mass of the lukewarm and the misguided. ...Humanity is going to need a substantially new way of thinking if it is to survive!" (Albert Einstein)
"You and I are all as much continuous with the physical universe as a wave is continuous with the ocean." - Alan Watts
"What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg)
"The writer of originality, unless dead, is always shocking, scandalous; novelty disturbs and repels." (Simone De Beauvoir)
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Schopenhauer
"I must confess that a man is guilty of unpardonable arrogance who concludes, because an argument has escaped his own investigation, that therefore it does not really exist." David Hume, 1737
"A man who is being delivered from the danger of a fierce lion does not object, whether this service is performed by an unknown or an illustrious individual. Why, therefore, do people seek knowledge from celebrities?" Idries Shah
“Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking; a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. . . If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then, we are up for grabs for the next charlatan (political or religious) who comes rambling along.”
-- Carl Sagan, May 27th 1996
“Verily, when good is hungry it seeks food even in dark caves, and when it thirsts, it drinks even of dead waters.” Kahlil Gibran
“..it is utterly impossible for me to entrust anything to future ages without its first being passed through the hands of those that have an interest in suppressing it.” - Rousseau
"..scientific training is not well designed to produce the man who will easily discover a fresh approach." (Kuhn, 1962)
"History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992)
"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."
(Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics)
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair
*
"Commendation from NASA for research work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the Earth's atmosphere and the Moon's surface for navigation of the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon..
Dr. Milo Wolff has found the structure of the electron consisting of two spherical quantum waves, one moving radially outward and another moving radially inward. The center of the waves is the nominal location of the electron 'particle'. These waves extend infinitely, like charge force. All 'particle' waves mix and contribute to each other, thus all matter of the universe is interrelated by this intimate connection between the fundamental 'particles' and the universe. The natural laws are a direct consequence of this Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), thus WSM underlies all of science."
"Gravity is caused by the mass-energy density of space. This mass-energy density of space is determined by the square of the Wave-Amplitude and is always positive (squares are always positive). The wave-velocity is inversely proportional to the mass-energy density of space, the higher the mass-energy density of space, the slower the Wave-Velocity. As Matter and its resultant mass-energy density of space are always positive, this causes a slowing of In-Waves as they travel through other matter/wave-motions, and it is this property of Space that causes the natural ‘Gravitational’ attraction of all bodies, and explains why Gravity is always attractive." (Geoff Haselhurst)
wave structure of matter
spaceandmotion
Creationists and other such anti science types grasp at anything in their attempts to prove science wrong and creation correct. They have no problem misrepresenting things that are said either.
True. It's exasperating reading the drivel they post.
@Greg LeJacques And of course you have scientific data and sources to back that up. Last OFFICIAL science word I've seen is 13.8 billion years, possibly as much as 14 but no more.
Besides, why does everyone make this an Atheist vs Theist thing? It's science versus creationism. There are many who reject the creationist views and accept the scientific data who are also theists. The atheist vs theist narrative is a false dichotomy driven by creationists because it's easier for them if they make those who disagree with them into an easily pigeonholed enemy/demon stereotype. It plays into fooling those who want to believe in creation so trust YEC apologists without question, those who don't know the sciences enough to know when they're being lied to and those who are too damn lazy to check out the dishonest claims of the YECs.
It makes it easier, they just say the word "atheist" and immediately it's those bad people against all the "godly" ones (helps them also to associate atheism with "godless communism"). That type of stereotyping makes it appear that they have vast majorities on their side and only sad god hating minorities against them. Instead of them having to admit that it's really them that has the minority view BY A LARGE MARGIN. A goodly portion of non fundamentalist/non legalistic evangelical christians accept science as correct and accept the bible stories as simply allegories.
Are you human or an ape?
“We don’t understand (anything), therefore god dunnit.”
@@llllllllllllllIIlIllIIllIIIIll Yes
The problem with the Big Bang comes when we try to visualise it, which is utterly impossible...
On that note, we can't visualize the atom. There is nothing of material there and nothing to see.
Big Bangers have not determined where the Bang took place😊😊😊
Yet!
@@rkays7459, It happened on the frying pan, of course, while the mash was cooking!
Take some DMT ....Shabam!!
There it is ....easy !
When I took my astronomy course in 1967 astronomers were still puzzling out the difference between the 11 billion years age calculated from expansion and the 12 billion years age of globular clusters. I'm glad they got that straightened out.
Please watch: Common Sense The Needle
We will never get the answer to this question and most others, because we were never meant to .
The Big Bang is possibly one of several according to Penrose (and of course Fred Hoyle).
Hoyle's steady-state has long since been disproven. That is why nobody bothers with it anymore.
Cox is awesome! A++ Sir.
No, he is a string theory cultist.
I don’t think that just because we incorrectly predicted how long ago the Big Band was means that the entire theory is wrong
What makes you think the prediction was wrong?
Is the Big Bang related to the acceleration of the universe? The rate of the latter has been increasing, almost like a variable constant 😱. If, as Brian says here, the red shift of distant galaxies is caused by the volume of space which is expanding, why do we need to postulate the acceleration of the expansion at all?
I laughed at every episode. If that's so wrong, I don't wanna be right.
Bazinga!
Yes
that's the first thing I thought when I saw the title
@@ghostrider511000 I love u Robert! (This is a reference lol)
America just spent more time watching the Wednesday show than the entire planet has ever spent on discovering space mysteries. Imagine what we could accomplish with some priorities.
I'm afraid that we're going to have to agree to disagree. The United States won the space race against the Soviet Union when we sent a successful manned mission to the moon. We also built and maintain both the Hubble and James Webb space telescopes. We have also drones to the surface of Mars. Although I think that we both can agree that NASA should be allotted greater funding, that's just not politically or economically viable during a recession.
@@Wolffur
The main driver behind the rocket that delivered Americans to the Moon wasn't what one can reasonably describe as an American. It was in fact a German who had previously been designing rockets intended to destroy the UK and other countries - the USA eventually. As I understand it, the problem with the F1 rocket engine exploding was only resolved by reference to the design of the V2 rocket engine.
America seems keen to claim many things as exclusively American, like the Saturn rocket and the atomic bomb which was as much brought to fruition by European scientists as it was by American scientists.
From the perspective of a complete outsider, I think James Bond makes a fair point.
@@lenroddis5933 I am not at all disputing Werner VonBraun's contribution to the space race, but it was done with American funding on an American base.
@@Wolffur
Quite right. But I think the comment was more about native born Americans rather than foreign individuals bought/'captured' by the US to carry out work on their behalf for which the USA appears to be taking credit.
I have a question--could it be possible (as technological advances happen) to find galaxies existing before the Big Bang happened. With Webb they have found large galaxies existed before anticipated. I am just asking.
The total information content we have about the universe that could come from "before the big bang" amounts to a couple hundred bits or so (which might become a couple thousand with more precise measurements), so... no, probably not. We will be lucky if we could establish a general idea about the field couplings in the pre-big bang era. I am doubtful even about that.
I can accept the Big Bang, but have trouble accepting the size, density, mass, etc of it's starting point.
Have heard it was infinitesimal small in size. How the entire Universe started from something the size of an atom is a hard reach. If it was the size of a galaxy, or solar system, I can accept that. Energy is neither created or destroyed, it just changes from one form to another. If the entire Universe has x amount of total energy, all of it would have to be inside the tiny starting point. The mass of entire Universe would also have to fit inside the tiny starting point.
I have seen papers claim there was zero mass at start. Nice try, but that does not fit any basic model.
You're right, there is only speculation about the universe at such tiny scales. From experiments and observations we know the observable universe was once the size of a basketball (somewhere around that scale) when it was about a trillionth of a second old, but before that not much is known. Inflation theory (or some iteration of it) nicely explains how a tiny point (maybe at the Planck scale, maybe far smaller) could have suddenly expanded and started the big bang but again it is mostly speculation although inflation makes many predictions that match observation.
@@tonywells6990 Thanks for comment. Now all they have to prove is that EVERYTHING there is now once fit in a subatomic size incubator. That includes ALL Mass and ALL Energy. If it started out the size of a super massive black hole, I might accept that for size.
But, if EVERYTHING was stuffed inside anything that dense, Inflation would be impossible. Black Holes do not expand outwards unless it gains more mass from swallowing more objects. They certainly do not explode outwards spilling their contents.
EVERYTHING has an ultimate FINITE starting point and ending point. No such thing as Infinity. It's a concept impossible to prove because Infinity is impossible.
@@SJR_Media_Group The universe did not form into or from a black hole due to the rapid expansion of spacetime, especially if inflation is correct. Also, certain configurations of dense matter can produce a repulsive force that may have caused this rapid expansion. Maybe the universe was a white hole or it 'bounced' from a previous contraction.
@@tonywells6990 Thanks for input. I didn't say Universe came from black hole, I was just using that as an example. They are the densest known objects in Universe. And it only holds remains of nearby solar systems and galaxies that came to close.
At time = 0 everything came from something trillions of times denser than a puny black hole. Expansion via repulsive force is a pretty good explanation. A galaxy size starting point is easier to accept than a basketball, or smaller.
@@SJR_Media_Group a singularity doesn't really have a size...so how are black holes more believable?
Universe is never ending
Or it's not. Impossible to say.
Photon entropy (decay) causes the background redshift and the expended energy provides its propulsion at c, the speed of light, by the "right-hand rule" e-m field.
Per Wiki: "Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: 'A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.'"
This is more-than-coincidentally the estimated amount of time it would take for a competitive and hence intelligently evolved tribal mentality to devolve into an idiocracy.
So they’ve moved the Big Bang goal post from “just give us 1 miracle of everything from nothing” to “ok everything existed before the Big Bang in a cold universe where time existed AND where it was very cold AND where everything was expanding…
The big bang wasn't caused by nothing. The singularity consisted of energy, not nothing
@@drsatan7554 I was being generous to the Big Bang.
If something existed before the Big Bang, then it’s not histories origin story to begin with.
But now we know time, temperature and motion existed before the Big Bang. Plus all the other stuff that will get added to that list.
@@ThisTall we know energy and therefore temperature existed before the bang. We don't know that time did
Not hearing anything that disproves the big bang theory
@@paulthomas963 the jwst data showed that our models for galaxy formation were wrong. Those galaxies aren't the wrong age, we have no idea how old they are
So nothing about the big bang theory has been effected
List these "other reasons" because the "biggest one" isn't a problem at all
Yes , and and so is a few other theories , with lots of rewriting of books to follow .
Forever and ever... We are quite literally only human. Quite insignificant in this universe as we perceive it.
Hydrogen-rich stars and galaxies of equivalent mass, respectively, previously and inappropriately deemed to be colliding under BOTTOM UP (BBT) cosmology are actually and appropriately DIVIDING under TOP DOWN cosmology, which respects and predicts this behavior from evolutionary changes regarding critical masses (witness our own galaxy and Andromeda, representing main sequence evolution).
Man's brain and theories cannot ever completely figure out what truly happened. It is as simple as that. There had to be something that was always there.
@@Adrian-jk4kx Massively higher probability of a slug explaining Concord than Concord explaining a slug. We actually are the slightly evolved slugs that designed and manufactured Concord. There is zero chance of Concord evolving into anything, therefore the slug is way ahead.
You have hit the nail on the head!
Every universe has a big bang. The issue is not whether big bangs occur, but if they are unique and all of the same size and age. One model is the champagne multiverse. In some places, matter, space and time collapse into a black hole: on the other side a universe with new space, time and matter is formed - it has experienced a big bang.
Nope!
Don't think so
Universe is from Latin and means everything 'entire' thus the big bang theory sought to present itself as the explanation for the beginning of the universe.
so if big bangs did happen do you think this is a theory that explains where everything came from? Do you think this explains how anything came into existance?
Where did matter of anysort come from...and i sure hope you do not try to say a big bang! A big bang of what from where...where did it come from?
i do know the answer to this question but i am trying to open your eyes to the error of this all. ❤
@@carlosoliveira-rc2xt it doesn't matter, atoms are 99 percent empty held together by a mysterious force called strong force. When we push on something it's electrons pushing against each other. Science understands very little about human consciousness. It's a fact that the consciousness could be the only thing that's real here. We could very well be spiritual beings having a physical experience.
According to this farther galaxies have a more red light or red shift so it is therefore presumed that they are accelerating away but the point to note is that the red coloured light is the light that can travel much farther, just like stop lights are red so that they can be noticed from far away because a red colour can be seen more clearly from farther away than any other colour of light. Similarly, high communication towers have red blinking lights so that even in fog or bad weather airplanes can notice them. Keeping this in mind, maybe the red light coming from distant galaxies is only because that part of visual spectrum is able to reach JW from that far away and not because of accelerating away.
If its still accelerating doesn't that imply that the universe is in the middle of the event?
Big bang theory is not a one time event. It's a constant event that happens an infinite number of times.
What leads you to think that?
@@TheSaintFrenzy logic dictates this as fact. I call it the slinky universe theory. Proof is in the black holes and suns.
what if our universe is just one cell in body of Steve who works in accounting?
The real problem is "what does it mean to exist". As you go back in time, things become inconceivable. Because what was there before ? And before that ? And before that ? When and how does this end ? It can only end with "out of nothing" or "an infinite chain of "before that" ". Both are inconceivable.
But, what you can have is high energy particles which is the basis of galaxies formation.
I find it cute that humans think they can theorise with any certainty how the universe began
Me too. Whatever happened it happened outside of the universe because the universe wasn’t here.
We have no way of ever knowing what happened outside our universe millions of years before our time from telescope pictures showing our universe from millions of light years away. And then we have the question of infinite time and space.
A Miracle Happened,
@Greg LeJacques according to many scientists the Big Bang started all things, space, time our universe and all things in it.
If the Big Bang created the universe it couldn’t have been inside it..
@Greg LeJacques if we believe infinite time, infinite space has always existed then the Big Bang theory is out.
I agree.
@Greg LeJacques they say that “size matters” but please explain.
Ah yes. I forgot what som scientists think caused the Big Bang.
As I said, I don’t.
💖💖💖
Initially, it looks as if we must choose between "the universe is infinite" OR "if it is not infinite, then there must be an ending". These are both inconceivable, but perhaps the answer is "neither". How can this be ?
Much like choosing between "the Earth must have a beginning and an end" OR " if the Earth does not have a beginning and an end, then the Earth is infinite", when however the correct answer is "neither, because the Earth is a sphere, therefore it has no beginning and no end (i.e. you can walk on Earth forever and never reach "the end"), but it is finite". So a sphere is infinite, but at the same time it's not.
The Universe must follow some similar principle. Like be a "4D sphere" or something. Like if you keep travelling that way for billions of years, you will return back here but from the opposite direction.
Which means that if we look very very very far away (i.e. back in time), we should be able to see ourselves (i.e. whatever gas cloud gave birth to our galaxy/solar system), billions of years ago.
Maybe it sounds crazy, but to me it makes much more sense than the alternatives (infinite OR have an end). And there is the sphere example to prove mathematically that "infinite but also finite" is possible.
What I don't understand is - why is the universe just galaxies with nothing much in between. How come matter is all in clumps called galaxies. If there was a big bang wouldn't matter be spread evenly throughout space. Maybe there were mini big bangs which created each galaxy.
Too many people in this world are too ready to jump on any controversial bandwagon to dismiss or question what we understand without good reason and without evidence. Not enough Professor Cox's.
God made the universe obviously
Ha ha... 🤣
How are you here?
Ignorance is bliss
@William Proffitt
2 questions
1st question which particular
childish fantasy magic skyman
aka
grotesque
oppressive
delusion Is your favourite glaringly
obsolete
delusion
?
And 2nd and far more important in your upcoming trial.
Which child trafficking criminal organisation do ewe financially and sexually PROFFITT from?
Who made god?
I’ve noticed they say we don’t know a lot. But are 100% for sure the universe is 13.8 billion years old. When there has been evidence since James Webb they have seen other formations further out. Once a science or archaeology has set a precedent on what’s written in text books they have a hard time changing to reflect the new data.