Brian Cox - Why Did The Big Bang Happen?
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 05. 2024
- English physicist and professor of particle physics Brian Cox explains the details behind the Big Bang theory.
The moment where space, time and everything else that came into existence which would eventually give rise to the present day cosmos, occurred some 13.75 billion years ago.
The prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods is known as The Big Bang theory.
It is one of the best theories we have in all of science. But of course it doesn't explain everything. Like "Why" did the big bang happen in the first place. But maybe the question "Why" is not a good question. As it presupposes the Universe had a purpose. Maybe, a better question is... "How".
Brian Cox points out how the idea that the universe began as an unfathomably single point, then expanded and stretched out to grow as large as it is today is truly mind boggling. But that's what the evidence strongly suggests happened.
Two major scientific discoveries provide strong support for the Big Bang theory: Hubble’s discovery in the 1920s of a relationship between a galaxy’s distance from Earth and its speed. And the discovery in the 1960s of cosmic microwave background radiation.
When scientists talk about the expanding Universe, they mean that it has been increasing in size ever since the Big Bang. But what exactly is getting bigger? Galaxies, stars, planets aren’t getting bigger. Their size is controlled by the strength of the fundamental forces that hold atoms and sub-atomic particles together, and that hasn’t changed. Instead it’s the space between galaxies that’s increasing - they’re getting further apart as space itself expands. And if that's the case, one might wonder: What is the Universe expanding into?
Brian Cox explains that its extremely difficult to imagine the idea that space and time itself may have been created at the big bang.
As counterintuitive and as strange these ideas may sound, they have firm theoretical framework based on our understanding of the laws of physics.
#bigbang #ProfBrianCox #science
SUBSCRIBE to our channel "Science Time": / sciencetime24
BUY Science Time Merch: teespring.com/science-time-merch
Sources:
• Teaching the Big Bang ...
www.uwa.edu.au/study/-/media/...
"Brian Cox" by p_a_h is marked with CC BY 2.0. - Věda a technologie
![[실시간] 전철에서 찍힌 기생생물 감염 장면 | 기생수: 더 그레이](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4nkFvwxGAfA/mqdefault.jpg)
The only thing I know about the speed of light is that it arrives too early in the morning
Haha that’s facts
There it is
Best thing I’ve ever read! Thanks!
Except in winter.
We all start blowing in one direction at the same time...I think we might get a few more secounds
As a historian, I find science just as fascinating. I could also listen to professor Cox all day. Absolutely skilled at making complex things sound simple.
Yes: the documentaries e has done are great!
simple for simple minds?
@@jnrmack Usually I watch him explain
Quantum physics. Nothing simple about that
@@davyjones7177 Quantum physics.a word made up to discribe not knowing what they talk about.
Simple,
Definitely.
The stupid leading the stupid.
It was actually Carl Sagen who said "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you". NDT might have just been quoting him.
NDT said it and didn't attribute it to Sagan. There's a video of him talking to William shatner about space-time and he says it
Quiet nerds
@@aliensarereal5316 yet your watching .....lol .....and reading the comments ....double lol
@@mikethompson7132 "Nerd" isn't an insult anymore, insecure boomer, and it's funny. Go away troll.
Stupidest reason I have heard for the lack of reasoning.
"We don't know." - Brian Cox
Brian Cox does not know. He is the 'face' of unknowing.. Currently a very profitable pastime..
But if it is genuine knowing you want to achieve, there are ways.. However, the first requirement is to realise that knowing is its own 'prize'. It does not need to be lavished with capitalist adornments and/or piles of cash..
So here is one of the main problems of understanding..
People have a very poor understanding of what the word 'infinite' actually means.. This is not any kind of 'fault', but just that we have evolved within the confines of what appears to be a finite environment, and we thus try to look at things in finite ways, also justifying those 'finite' thoughts. When I first approached the 'problem' I had the same difficulties, so it takes our minds a lot of effort to reach another perspective of understanding, but it IS achievable..
Firstly, there cannot be more than one 'instance' of infinitude, otherwise a secondary 'thing' would render them both 'finite'. So we are describing a 'oneness'.. Also, it can have no 'beginning' nor 'ending' as these would also necessitate a secondary 'thing' (or the utter nonsense of a 'nothing'!), so we are describing 'eternity' when we apply 'time' concepts. Then, we have to admit that it can only be the one thing that interconnects all other 'things', and we deduce this to be 'Space', necessarily..
All references to 'size' or 'direction' do not apply to the nature of infinitude, and thus have no relevance to our understanding of the true nature of existence. 'Measurement' has limitations.. When we point to any position in Space, we effectively create a 'beginning' to any subsequent forms of measurement, which only has relevance to the entity desiring to understand said 'measurement'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective.
spaceandmotion
I can comprehend everything starting at a single point, what I can't comprehend is where that single points was and what it expanded into
It expanded into the universe as it is now! Plenty there to explore. As for "Where" the single point was, that's a fallacious question if space and time came into existence by that point inflating into what is space and time which didn't exist up until then. No space = no place for the singularity, and no time = no time for it to exist in. Remove the 3 spatial dimensions and the forth one: time, and you are left with a single point of no size, nowhere. It sounds impossible to us as such, but only because we don't know, and cannot access such things as other dimensions, opposite/negative dimensions... all being out of our scope of not just exploration, but existence as we know it altogether, yet possibly existence not much different for a whole other, possibly immeasurable amounts of universes within the same space and time that aren't space and time to each other, and can coexist without interfering with each other, or exist being entwined with each other within the many quantum fields, just on different frequency harmonics than what give our universe mass and energy, and allow interactions between them, even if not apparent.
Mind melting I know, but such are very possible truths of theoretical physics.
Exactly, and this is how we know the bbtheory is absolutely correct. 🤯
I think what OP is Saying is that when something is said to expand it is implied that there is a space into which it is expanding. Big bang contained all of space along with all matter, then what space was there for it to possibly expand through? The answer to this question I have always been given is that the universe is not expanding into anything, but rather simply expanding. Growing larger in size. This isn’t exactly an answer to the question but rather a clarification of the meaning of the word expand, or the more specific meaning of it In this context
So my understanding is it’s not expanding into any space but creating the space as it expands
Save you ten minutes: we have no frikin idea
In today’s climate the theory with the least attention is likely to be the closest to truth..
spaceandmotion
You didn’t explain anything
Thumbs up. I always enjoy the videos. Thanks!
Great Vids! keep up the good work!
Please, and I think I speak for everyone, start uploading in 4K! (or 1440p/60fps)
No you don't
I love this stuff. Ive always had a question though...If there was a big bang ...Is it possible that there are multiple big bands? and if so isnt it possible atr some point they may intersect?
Yes, there was: Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, and Les Brown
What is we made a deviice in the future ( don't get caught up on how its possible this is just a hypothetical) that sucked the entire universe into one point and then released everything again in the exact same way the big bang happened. If we did that wouldn't the universe play out exactly as it did? And then eventually we would do the same same exact thing and recreate the big bang again and again forever? and if that's the case then the big bang we all know of was potentially created by ourselves in a past version of the universe as well. this would create and infinite paradox but the cyclical nature of this little thought experiment would also explain the absurdity of the Big Bang happening seemingly out of nothing. It would mean the universe has always been happening and time is a circle. And under these conditions we would be our own god of sorts
Why?
How?
Did it even happen?
How can you measure the distance between planets to get an idea of when this happened if we don’t know where the exact center of the entire universe is wouldn’t we need to know the center point or where the bang took place to know how far away things have moved since the explosion happened?
(0:50) When following logic, "Why?" is the first question to be asked followed by all other inquiries. You don't take the #1 information-gathering question off the table merely for the appearance of presupposition.
I like when Brian says, " We Know" with such conviction and assurance. In a world where so much is just guesswork, it's reassuring that there are things that we know to be true. Thx Brian.
Yeah and in the past people have said such things before, like the world is flat and if you go over the speed limit of 27 mph you'll suffocate, or this person will never wake up from this coma or this person will never walk again, or it's not possible to reach the stars..
He and all those in his field do not have all the answers.
And should not be saying such thing's to answers that do not have. You'd have thought that from just a small amount of thing's i've pointed out here to you, that they'd learn not to be so rash and quick to spout off on thing's that have no knowledge of.
@@patrickdoyle9369 2+2=4 does it not. The scientific method makes it possible for scientists to say we "know" due to observation, measurement and experiment. and it's never just one person, it's a whole community of people, saying we "know". If physics was makebelieve then we wouldn't have, what we have today. Just my opinion.
He actually says, several times « as far as we know » since all theories are open to revision.
@@petyrkowalski9887 yes, and he's very clear on what they don't know, eg. dark matter and dark energy.
Most of the "we know" examples are either loose statements made by individuals or predate scientific method. When he says we know in context of big bang this means what we actually know and have hard data up to 10^-13 seconds after big bang. We know how matter behaves in such conditions based on rewound laws of physics and LHC research.
It hurts my brain thinking every single thing in the whole universe as small as an atom. How is that even possible? When I always thought of the big bang I assumed it was a cycle. As black holes form they keep sticking to each eventually creating one super ginormous black hole, but I never thought it was as small as an atom.
Probably unmeasurably smaller than an atom... because the singularity emanated from a different realm or dimension.
For black hole to form one needs to have gravity gradient. Also, space-time itself was created in big bang.
@@pavel9652 noone really knows that time was created then it's just a theory. I can't imagine literally everything in the universe is cyclical except the formation of it. Imo there is always a rebirth after death it just takes so long that no species will ever know. Stars have cycles, planets,moons, solar systems and galaxies it's pretty naive to think the only exception is the universe.
Here is how it works. Imagine a marshmallow. You pick it up, then squeeze it until is much more compact. That’s all it is. Stuff squeezed into a smaller volume.
@@stt5v2002 I understand it, it is just mind blowing that every star, black hole, dark matter, normal matter and everything else we know of was smaller than an atom.
"Why" is a philosophical question. It's the philosophy's final question. The answer lies in the following dilemma:
If you had a choice between:
- being Nothingness;
- deluding yourself into believing this dream equals reality to create and feel love.
You would do anything to create and feel love, hence why you exist.
Note that my words have an expanded meaning:
- Nothingness = a state where nothing exists at all, yet something exists that allows the creation of the dream; a true paradox.
- Dreaming = believing this reality is real while it cannot be real due to the paradox of inability to create something out of nothing.
- You = God, Everything that exists, Absolute, All-encompassing infinity of all possible realities.
- Creativity = Love = Everything that exists, all possible combinations of things and no-things, Being, Togetherness, Intelligence, etc, etc, etc (includes everything, both Evil and Good because evil and good are relative to the POV of the material form).
You can see the feeling (which is possible), of Mr Pro. Brian Cox's grin.
Question: How can gravity be a weak force when "the great attractor" is tugging the known universe in it's direction?
The great attractor is a gravitational anomaly that affects just some of the superclusters, the effect on Laniakea supercluster being the most visible. It is Not tugging the whole Universe. I may be wrong, though.
Of the 4 fundamental forces (the strong force, the weak force, electromagnetism and gravity), strong is by far the strongest (duh) but has a very short range - on the order of subatomic particles - and the weak force also has a very limited range.
That just leaves electromagnetism and gravity able to act over distance. Electromagnetism is much stronger than gravity, but the strongest known magnetic objects are magnetars, neutron stars with massive magnetic fields, so there's nothing we know of that can emit EM force with strength comparable to a supermassive black hole's gravity. Electromagnetism also affects most bodies much less than gravity, as the vast majority of material in an average planet or star is non magnetic.
This leaves gravity, which affects everything, as the only force with universe-shaping capabilities.
Not to mention according to theoretical physicists gravity seems to stop the local expansion of space, say between my house nd the local Walgreens.
Misses Hippy
Perhaps, just perhaps it's made up 😏
Gravity is weak only when compared to the other stronger forces
Because of how fantastically unlikely the fine tuning was, seems the best explanation is that our universe was created as part of a series of infinite other similar events.
Still doesn't answer the question, but gives a new idea of a multiverse and the idea that our universe itself is part of something much bigger still, a place we couldn't begin to understand.
I believe our little place in the universe allowed stars and planets to evolve and that because our universe is geometrically flat or almost flat it is trillions of times bigger. I also believe consciousness is fundamental and consciousness is all that exists. This stems from philosophy however rookie presumptions have been made in science such as the reductionist view of what is the base particle or strings ect...science will rectify these mistakes in the near future and discover something about consciousness that is far more incredible than we can currently imagine. Check out Bernardo Kastrup's videos about this.
It’s difficult to wrap your head around the concept of infinity, so perhaps this universe is just another iteration of the last one. Etcetera, etcetera…..for infinity, in both directions (or every direction) in time?
@@dr.jamesolack8504 Yeah. Although I think time is meaningless in a multiverse which goes back to my "place we couldn't begin to understand" point. It is so far removed from our reality in this universe it would be as hopelessly inaccessible to our understanding as quantum mechanics would be to an ant.
Allah is the the lord of all the worlds. He is the most high and he is the creator of the 7 heavens (multiverses) and the earth. I honestly think… and this is just a theory of mine,I think Allah (God) is always creating none stop hence why he is the creator of all things, that he creates space such as the universe almost as a storage for all of his creatures such as US and many other things out there that our minds can’t comprehend! So the universe is some what storage space for fine tuning for existence of life. One day it will all come to an end the Universe and everything in it will come to an end and we all will return back to our lord because the afterlife is the forever life. Choose to believe in it or not it’s going to happen either way.
So here is one of the main problems of understanding..
People have a very poor understanding of what the word 'infinite' actually means.. This is not any kind of 'fault', but just that we have evolved within the confines of what appears to be a finite environment, and we thus try to look at things in finite ways, also justifying those 'finite' thoughts. When I first approached the 'problem' I had the same difficulties, so it takes our minds a lot of effort to reach another perspective of understanding, but it IS achievable..
Firstly, there cannot be more than one 'instance' of infinitude, otherwise a secondary 'thing' would render them both 'finite'. So we are describing a 'oneness'.. Also, it can have no 'beginning' nor 'ending' as these would also necessitate a secondary 'thing' (or the utter nonsense of a 'nothing'!), so we are describing 'eternity' when we apply 'time' concepts. Then, we have to admit that it can only be the one thing that interconnects all other 'things', and we deduce this to be 'Space', necessarily..
All references to 'size' or 'direction' do not apply to the nature of infinitude, and thus have no relevance to our understanding of the true nature of existence. 'Measurement' has limitations.. When we point to any position in Space, we effectively create a 'beginning' to any subsequent forms of measurement, which only has relevance to the entity desiring to understand said 'measurement'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective.
Yeah, I've been saying for years that people need to stop asking "why" and start asking "how" when talking about the universe. People are obsessed with finding some "divine meaning" and "purpose."
There's no such thing and that mindset has held us back for thousands of years.
We're not special. We're not "put here for a reason."
We're here because that's how it played out.
Asking "why" leads to Creationism.
Asking "how" leads to finding a possible answer.
Just because the science does not have the answer to “ why the universe began “ ,it should not discourage this question.
This is a valid question.
Not if there was never a beginning? Also a valid question is 'Why should there be a 'beginning' at all, and why can we not accept reality for what it is when it is all around us?
spaceandmotion
@@fluentpiffle you may well be right. We could be living in a cyclic universe. Seeking is human nature and we all are seeking for ultimate answer.
@@immigrationadviser4711 But it is not a question of whether anyone is 'right', it is a question of necessity and plausibility.. We use these to eventually develop an alignment with 'what is'.. With 'seeking', we must realise that it can only be that which actually exists that CAN be sought.. Looking for things that only exist as a mathematical hypothesis is a waste of time...but I suspect the continued 'funding' is good..
In today’s climate the theory with the least attention is likely to be the closest to truth..
spaceandmotion
I hope Brian reads this because it's a question I long to try and understand an answer for. If travelling at the speed of light, strange things happen to time (as far as we understand). So what happens to particles say from an exploding star that travel at the speed of light? Does this mean these particles are somehow travelling in time? If so, is the universe a soup of different times? How can different times exist together, because these particles would reappear in space at different times from their origin?
i dont believe particles traveling from exploding stars CAN travel at the speed of light. from my understanding of nova and electron degeneracy pressure within stars, it is NOT possible for them to reach the speed of light because they CANNOT travel at the speed of light. As the gravity of stars contract the cores and force the particles to move ever-so quickly, they do not ever reach the speed of light.
Search CZcams for videos on Special Relativity. Only light travels at the speed of light. Nothing else. Light particles (photons) could not experience time even if they had eyes and a brain. Imagine a photon leaving Earth at the speed of light and as it started it was looking a clock, the time displayed on that clock would never change, no matter how long the photon looked back at that clock as it raced into space. Because new photons showing different times could never catch the Our photon flying away at the speed of light To someone on Earth the clock would continue to work normally. Humans on Earth would experience time normally, protons never experience time.... that's Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. How we experience time is affected by how fast we travel and how far we are from massive objects. So if you stayed on the International Space Station for a year, time would slow for you compared to someone who stayed on Earth. But the difference would not that much, the Space station is flying fast enough nor its orbit that distant from Earth. On practical problem caused not to work well if adjustments aren't made for the speed of their satellites and how the height of their orbit. So GPS would be impractical if Special Reality was ignored. Crazy as it might seem time passes differently depending on your location and the speed at which you are moving.
'Time' is simply the motions of existence. Humans have invented a measurement system based on their own subjective experience and called it 'time'..
spaceandmotion
@@fluentpiffle Trains played a large part in our standard uniform of time on Earth. The Royal Observatory, Greenwich, provided the standard for 'London time', counting noon from the Sun's zenith over the 0° meridian. In 1852, the timekeepers at Greenwich...
@@catalinacurio That's right, and before that we invented 'sundials'.. All Human inventions, to measure the motions of existence form a purely Human perspective..
I love science and have a lot of trust in the the theories we currently have. My only struggle is when we start talking about what happened 10^-30 seconds and stuff like the when the 4 force broke up into their own. I think because I don’t know the math.
No, it’s because there is no definitive answer, like when BC said that the atoms “crystalized” from the energy is a guess, there is no mathematically theory as to how it happened, there is a theory that there was a field that decayed into the quarks and electrons, again no supporting evidence or math. The truth is what BC also said, we just don’t know
No one does.
The math is needed to discribe an event you really understand
@@wdbressl It's not just a guess, it is an educated one backed by evidence. Using colliders like the LHC, they have been able to replicate conditions that existed in the universe shortly after the big bang and are able to see how nature plays out from those conditions. It may not be 100% definitive, but when results from your experiments exactly replicate what your theories predicted, it gives a lot of credibility tot he theory as a whole
@@mattwasilewicz9677 no they haven't. That's as true as people who claim, the experiments have been done that prove abiogenesis
When the WHY is clear
then the HOW is easy....
Example:
Why I need to know time
Then.. Invent a watch (how is afterwards easy)
Why I need to communicate long distance
Then invent a phone....(how to invent is afterwards easy)
Why I need to calculate... Invented a calculator (how is afterwards easy)
Then
the physics of fusion in stars has been known for all of my life.. I'm 69.. my dad was a nuclear engineer.. he helped build the weapons designed at Los Alamos in the early 50s.. he was teaching reactor physics when I was in high school.. this is something I have been aware of literally all my life...
stars can only fuse elements up to iron... even the largest blue giants... this limit involves the outward force of fusion... and.. the most fundamental law of physics.. two.. things... with the same energy cannot occupy the same space... those two forces and the infall of hydrogen from gravity going inward... are exactly what creates fusion.. but the inward pull of gravity is insufficient energy to fuse elements beyond iron... my dad said the rest occur in supernovae... 4 generations to obtain all of the 92 elements of the periodic table...
the size of stars is also limited by this two way pressure...
big bangs require an invisible guy to squeeze stuff past the point of fusion ...
black holes are another result of finite universes... and magic
because the relativity equations are very clear... as mass accelerates it gains mass through kinetic energy... provable in any car crash..
* at light speed.. the mass becomes infinite
* it takes infinite energy to move infinite mass
the event horizon of a black hole is said to be the point at which the infall exceeds 300Mm/sec... from which light can no longer escape
it's either one or the other.. not both
I'm going with Einstein
there's no such thing as magic
if you don't see the math... it's just blah blah blah
science is all about measuring the Universe we live in
measurements mean numbers... numbers don't lie
Hubble deep space images show galaxies moving in all directions.. all mixed together.. no prefered direction... as Michaelson and Morely told us in the 1890s
in an explosion 💥...there is, necessarily, a preferred direction...
multiple direct observations say that is not the case
in a finite universe.. there's only so much stuff... WYSIWYG
quantum foam was hypothesized in 1957, and experimentally verified in 1964... and my laboratory the past few years... the passage of light through vacuum creates quantum foam.. when there are two sufficiently energetic sources... there's a lot of math... but it's not difficult... it's just 1... 2... 3...
the Universe grows one hydrogen atom at a Time.. in an infinite Universe
hydrogen atoms have one thing none of the other ones have... duration...
they last forever ♾️
that is what creates Time
space is the distance between 2 things
it requires neither making, nor a beginning or end
Time and space.. no magic required
the Universe grows along the Fibonacci sequence.. as all populations do
it's a non linear growth
the next number is the sum of the previous two... like.. 1... 2... 3...
(0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144... ad infinitum)
that's why the Universe grows faster all the Time... because there's more stuff in it.. it's definitely not magic
the Planck length is calculated using the golden ratio.. the ratio of two consecutive Fibonacci sequence numbers... it's a variable irrational number between 1.5 and less than 1.7... that ratio is exactly why our lovely Universe is fractal
the ratio of protons to neutrons in the plutonium atom are just a bit more than 1.5.. smallest to largest ==>>
the Fibonacci sequence is found throughout the natural World.. now you know why
have a great day, y'all
Peace ✌️
a brief word about mathematics
there are only 9 numbers and zero.. zero is a number.. or a placeholder...
there are only 4 operations
all the esoteric symbols in math are.. representative of one or more of those 4 operations
it's not hard
the rest is pure logic
So, if the universe began at a point that could be as small as an atom, in what was that atom sized universe floating in?
Nothing
The void
So here is one of the main problems of understanding..
People have a very poor understanding of what the word 'infinite' actually means.. This is not any kind of 'fault', but just that we have evolved within the confines of what appears to be a finite environment, and we thus try to look at things in finite ways, also justifying those 'finite' thoughts. When I first approached the 'problem' I had the same difficulties, so it takes our minds a lot of effort to reach another perspective of understanding, but it IS achievable..
Firstly, there cannot be more than one 'instance' of infinitude, otherwise a secondary 'thing' would render them both 'finite'. So we are describing a 'oneness'.. Also, it can have no 'beginning' nor 'ending' as these would also necessitate a secondary 'thing' (or the utter nonsense of a 'nothing'!), so we are describing 'eternity' when we apply 'time' concepts. Then, we have to admit that it can only be the one thing that interconnects all other 'things', and we deduce this to be 'Space', necessarily..
All references to 'size' or 'direction' do not apply to the nature of infinitude, and thus have no relevance to our understanding of the true nature of existence. 'Measurement' has limitations.. When we point to any position in Space, we effectively create a 'beginning' to any subsequent forms of measurement, which only has relevance to the entity desiring to understand said 'measurement'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective.
spaceandmotion
The atom sized universe might have been the size of a grapefruit. However, this only describes the observable universe. If the universe is flat and infinite, then the primordial grapefruit would have floated amongst the cosmos which may or may not have been compressed.
I would argue that "WHY?" isn't really asking for a rationale but rather simply doesn't presume that creation was *inevitable* . "How?" presumes that since it is, it was always going to be. That simply is unsatisfying from *within* the universe but may be THE answer before/outside it...
The existentially logical answer is that whatever possibility exists is BOUND to occur at some stage, given that there is an 'eternity' in which to do so..
So it is a question that is also tied to the nature of how things exist, and how we can determine what 'eternity' might mean..
Here is one of the main problems of understanding..
People have a very poor understanding of what the word 'infinite' actually means.. This is not any kind of 'fault', but just that we have evolved within the confines of what appears to be a finite environment, and we thus try to look at things in finite ways, also justifying those 'finite' thoughts. When I first approached the 'problem' I had the same difficulties, so it takes our minds a lot of effort to reach another perspective of understanding, but it IS achievable..
Firstly, there cannot be more than one 'instance' of infinitude, otherwise a secondary 'thing' would render them both 'finite'. So we are describing a 'oneness'.. Also, it can have no 'beginning' nor 'ending' as these would also necessitate a secondary 'thing' (or the utter nonsense of a 'nothing'!), so we are describing 'eternity' when we apply 'time' concepts. Then, we have to admit that it can only be the one thing that interconnects all other 'things', and we deduce this to be 'Space', necessarily..
All references to 'size' or 'direction' do not apply to the nature of infinitude, and thus have no relevance to our understanding of the true nature of existence. 'Measurement' has limitations.. When we point to any position in Space, we effectively create a 'beginning' to any subsequent forms of measurement, which only has relevance to the entity desiring to understand said 'measurement'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective.
The Qur'an says that "the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit, before We clove them asunder" (21:30). Following this big explosion, Allah "turned to the sky, and it had been (as) smoke. He said to it and to the earth: 'Come together, willingly or unwillingly.
Love the intro you were on the right track then 👍
Feels good to know that even my "teacher" askes if/why Big Bang bang happened. He was the first giving a lecture even I could understand. Still think the singularity theory could be true, like the universe just starts in a Black Hole.
The universe itself, its size and how it came to be its incomprehensible to the human mind.
I think that was always there,
We are just trying to explain it on human terms.
The universe can’t be infinite, it had to have a beginning
@@sinclairj7492 how do you know that? More research needs to be done to find the answers. Until then though, it is entirely possible that our universe has infinitely existed, in one form or another. The big bang might have been a transition, rather than a creation.
@@allstarwatt7246 If the universe was infinite, then the past would be infinite, if the past was infinite then there would be no today and tomorrow would never come
Humans are aspects of existence, so in order to explain we have to be able to think in universal terms, which is possible, but is a step much like that one on the moon..
So here is one of the main problems of understanding..
People have a very poor understanding of what the word 'infinite' actually means.. This is not any kind of 'fault', but just that we have evolved within the confines of what appears to be a finite environment, and we thus try to look at things in finite ways, also justifying those 'finite' thoughts. When I first approached the 'problem' I had the same difficulties, so it takes our minds a lot of effort to reach another perspective of understanding, but it IS achievable..
Firstly, there cannot be more than one 'instance' of infinitude, otherwise a secondary 'thing' would render them both 'finite'. So we are describing a 'oneness'.. Also, it can have no 'beginning' nor 'ending' as these would also necessitate a secondary 'thing' (or the utter nonsense of a 'nothing'!), so we are describing 'eternity' when we apply 'time' concepts. Then, we have to admit that it can only be the one thing that interconnects all other 'things', and we deduce this to be 'Space', necessarily..
All references to 'size' or 'direction' do not apply to the nature of infinitude, and thus have no relevance to our understanding of the true nature of existence. 'Measurement' has limitations.. When we point to any position in Space, we effectively create a 'beginning' to any subsequent forms of measurement, which only has relevance to the entity desiring to understand said 'measurement'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective.
" just because something is unimaginable to us doesn't mean it can't be a reality" when I use this it's wrong but when others use it it's fine
Video title: “Why did the big bang happen?”
40 seconds into video: “Maybe why isn’t a good question…”
Why is a philosophical question posed from a human brain. The universe doesn’t think, it’s a natural phenomenon that just does. So, “how” is the relevant question when it comes to the universe and existence. “Why” is unanswerable and unnecessary.
@@augustmoon0004 well we don’t know if the Big Bang model is completely correct 😓after all the CMB is not the entire cosmos 😐we don’t know what lies beyond the CMB 😑also the only reason why the Big Bang makes since is because that’s what our brains understand 😐however the brain does not like infinite 😑our brains make us have limits but looking at it deeper we were all ready dead a long time ago and what I mean by that ? 🧐I mean before you were even born 😑you were nothing that’s why you can’t remember the past 😑and when you die you become nothing again 😑
@@jettmartincicthedragongame3110
There is a lot we don't know and CAN'T know. That condition, however, doesn't justify proposing unfalsifiable claims.
There are those who believe that gravity may transcend a universe and bleed into others. I find this possibility intriguing.
Prior to the "big bang", I don't think that time really existed, it's a kind of by-product of "stuff" existing, I don't think that time exists outside the "shell" of the total universe (not just the observable one) space defined as physical dimensions can only reach as far as light/time has travelled so can't be infinite.
Maybe the entire universe has always been infinite and at time zero was also of infinite density. Stay with me on this one.
If our finite observable universe was at time zero, of infinite density then it must have been of zero volume.
If the entire universe is currently of infinite volume then even if it were at time zero also of infinite density it may still have been of infinite volume.
A finite value divide by an infinite value = zero ( observable universe)
An infinite value divided by an infinite values = infinite value, or zero, or 1
or all of the above.
Infinities don’t make mathematical sense.
@@mitseraffej5812 Managed to "stay with you", I think!!!!! Interesting enough for me not to comment on it straight away!
The way I see it, these 'ideas' have exactly the same merit as the most advanced theories because none of them can be proven at this time, hence the word 'theory'
You have an interesting idea!
@@mitseraffej5812 okay, my thoughts on your ideas are more or less agreeable, but if there existed an infinately massive object, would it actually be able to escape itself thereby causing the initial inflation period? Or is it possible that because time did not exist before the inflation, there couldn't be any time dilation occurring which creates the effect that we recognise as gravity?
If so, could the strong nuclear attractive force be responsible for everything being in that one "place"?
@@stuartmoulton6426 How, where or when does that one “place” even exist if space-time was not yet a thing?
I often think that human intelligence lacks the ability to intuitively understand or visualise such things.
I expect that like myself, you find it astounding that most people have not the slightest curiosity about this subject.
@@mitseraffej5812 Not sure about yourself but I didn't get very far with my physics studies at school (a long time ago) because my understanding of advanced mathematics let me down! I was always "up to speed" understanding the theoretical stuff because I have always had the "imagination" required.
For this reason, most of the ideas I have are the products of my imagination and nuggets of knowledge that I've picked up along the way that kind of stand up to my own scrutiny, but is not based upon "recognized fact" and unfortunately I don't have access to any major league astrophysicists who would be able to explain to me why I am either right or wrong in my thoughts....
The fact is that I cannot answer the question of how stuff could exist in the absence of time/space.
I do however agree with you in the not understanding why more people don't think about this stuff, maybe they start to but once they get too far down the rabbit hole to see the sun they become worried about their own sanity!!!!
Instead of thinking in terms of the big bang occurring in an infinitely small space, rather think of it occurring in an unimaginably small space. This allows you to think of it as unimaginably huge at the same time. Whatever its size, you can't imagine anything smaller... nor anything larger.
Yep
Dumbest thing I ever heard
Semantics won't solve a singularity
It was infinitely big though. Just the observable universe was small.
@@McSmooth5150 Yes, this is what my primitive brain imagines to be the case.
If something of an infinitely large volume ( universe in it’s entirety) was compressed to achieve an infinitely high density it would still have an infinitely large volume.
A finite volume ( observable universe) compressed to an infinitely high density would by mathematics be contained in an infinitely small volume.
Infinities sure make my head hurt.
Answers are commensurate with the quality of questioning..
spaceandmotion
Maybe time give us humans the illusion of a distance. What if the universe is actually a finite size but it is time which slows down towards its edges? If time is suppose to be the 4th dimension, what if the way in which we perceive a change in the flow of time as a distance travelled? That would explain redshifting.
These are just some of the things I think about when thinking about what time actually is.
The universe is expanding faster as time goes on. Like we are being influenced or pressured by another force. Wish we could crack the mystery of dark energy and dark matter.
Easy…dark energy is composed of evil thoughts and missed opportunities that people omit and expels into unexplainable phenomenon…all energy has to go somewhere 🤷🏾♂️
Everything has its time. Humans will crack dark energy mystery in the 2305. Till then, have patience my child!
@@Razrman This is why I put the question on the back burner now for 5 yrs. There is so much other more interesting stuff being discovered recently. Can't wait for the JWST.
The universe expands faster than light can travel
The accelerated red shift could be explained by observer contraction if the observer is in the state of contraction the whole universe would appear red shifted, every spiral galaxy has a supermassive black hole at their center, black holes contract and dilate time. The so-called, ultra fast expansion of the early Big bang would have been time dilated by the extreme gravity of all the matter being so close together, so the first micro or nanoseconds of expansion may have taken eons of time to elapse.
There is no "why" in physics.
And there's no crying in baseball.
Well that may be but their are somethings you have to answer WHY? Why is our place in the universe so specific? Why are we born in specific points if this planets history? What makes one a human ? Why do we exist at all? Their are somethings science does not have the answer to 😐
@@jettmartincicthedragongame3110 That's what I mean. Science answers how, not why.
I loved the video 👏🏻
Constant interaction creates constant expansion. I have a solid theory as to the why and how the universe came into existence. No one can seem to counter my theory either. One day I'll get to explain it to someone who matters.
Im interested 😀
I matter
And Nixon had a secret plan to get out of Vietnam
Write a paper.Submit it to physical review letters.
Bullshit
20 seconds into this video and you are already mis-representing BC. We have absolutely no idea how it all started. You can find him on CZcams in an interview in Australia saying he's fed up of this stuff. All we can say, he says, is that the universe was small, dense and incredibly hot 13.8 billion years ago.
Time is fascinating. I worked the subway stations for nearly 10 years. From one end of the city to the other. Every so often I would notice the city would be saying that, "Today just flew by" or "The day was just dragging along." How can an entire city complain about the same time paradox unless it was effected by it. Maybe a time distorted bubble the earth passes through in its revolution around the sun. Maybe random waves of time distortion hitting the earth? Maybe they're randomly given off by the sun. Maybe they're from outside our Terran system and reach us in intervals. ???? Ti-i-i-ime, is on my side. Yes, it is!
Leave the weed alone
Time is fascinating until there's a deadline 💀
@@michaelking9818 never during work. Which is when this happened. Sorry, not applicable.
A fantastic, very interesting video! Thanks.
My question is: why is universe expanding to its time proportional to the relative space of a parallel universe in an infinite loop of cosmos and never ending space???
|\Psi
angle = \sum_{s_{z1}} \sum_{s_{z2}}\cdots\sum_{s_{zN}}\int_{V_1}\int_{V_2}\cdots\int_{V_N} \mathrm{d}\mathbf{r}_1\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r}_2\cdots\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r}_N \Psi |\mathbf{r}, \mathbf{s_z}
angle
This guy is GREAT at NOT ANSWERING QUESTIONS.
Brian Cox does not know. He is the 'face' of unknowing.. Currently a very profitable pastime..
But if it is genuine knowing you want to achieve, there are ways.. However, the first requirement is to realise that knowing is its own 'prize'. It does not need to be lavished with capitalist adornments and/or piles of cash..
So here is one of the main problems of understanding..
People have a very poor understanding of what the word 'infinite' actually means.. This is not any kind of 'fault', but just that we have evolved within the confines of what appears to be a finite environment, and we thus try to look at things in finite ways, also justifying those 'finite' thoughts. When I first approached the 'problem' I had the same difficulties, so it takes our minds a lot of effort to reach another perspective of understanding, but it IS achievable..
Firstly, there cannot be more than one 'instance' of infinitude, otherwise a secondary 'thing' would render them both 'finite'. So we are describing a 'oneness'.. Also, it can have no 'beginning' nor 'ending' as these would also necessitate a secondary 'thing' (or the utter nonsense of a 'nothing'!), so we are describing 'eternity' when we apply 'time' concepts. Then, we have to admit that it can only be the one thing that interconnects all other 'things', and we deduce this to be 'Space', necessarily..
All references to 'size' or 'direction' do not apply to the nature of infinitude, and thus have no relevance to our understanding of the true nature of existence. 'Measurement' has limitations.. When we point to any position in Space, we effectively create a 'beginning' to any subsequent forms of measurement, which only has relevance to the entity desiring to understand said 'measurement'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective.
@@fluentpiffle YOU ARE THE GREATEST MAN. YOU ARE INFINITELY ELOQUENT, SAVANT!
@@fluentpiffle i think you have a point here
Real question is what is space 🤗
And what is behind the worl??!!!...
Space is the absence of...
Space is mostly consisted of dark matter and energy. Little sprinkles of matter and gas drift in space.
@@wolff_tk9421 that's what it consists of...not what it is
Space are the holes in between the string in a net
Is it like playing Carom Board where we will arrange coins in order, before we start our play, then with a striker we hit to spread the coins in all directions. So every time is it a routine process for universe to expand and then shrink to a dot and again another Big bang ? Then in which big bang count we live. ? How many Big bangs happened before ?
#Finetuning data suggests that since our universe is only made possible by fine tuning certain parameters into a highly improbable configuration. So, much more improbable is a multiverse(es).
No, everything in the universe didn't come from something the size of an atom, nor is the universe expanding. These concepts will be the subject of humour someday when the foibles are realized.
Yes and No.
The universe is expanding. Look at the red light shift of stars all around us.
Someday real soon!
spaceandmotion
Right. Some random person on the Internet who presents exactly ZERO subject matter expertise tells the cosmologists that they've got it all wrong, and we should believe him for NO SPECIFIED REASON.
Sure, buddy. I hope that panhandling is working out for you as a lifestyle choice. And don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat because of, you know, the alien rays.
Ron b you play guitar dads name is Robert just passed ? Just wondering if that's you. If so this is ur cousin lol
What if it's a never ending loop, with the collapse of one universe creating a new one, only for that universe to expand, then contract, and eventually collapse. Beginning the cycle again.
Makes sense. Good of you for pointing this out
No evidence whatsoever of this
@@ak52892 well, firstly, there wouldn't be any evidence as any previously existing universe would be completely destroyed, and secondly, it's just an Interesting thought. I never claimed it to be a fact
Very good, but please do not add distracting background music.
The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another. It would appear that all the energy in this universe is being converted into space through the interactions of the charged particles that exist in it. The expansion of the universe is fueled by the interaction of the charged particles that exist in it. Electromagnetic radiation is just the neutral memory of the interaction between these charges broadcast through space but also stored in it. The fabric of space recording the record of time, using the instruments called particles. Does it sound good enough to go platinum though...
Blimey, that takes a bit of thought!
Is it plausible to accept that the conservation of energy law would not be able to apply to the early stages of the universe? Obviously something weird and wonderful was occurring but I think different laws could have been applicable to explain what was occurring!
@@stuartmoulton6426 Is it plausible to accept that the force that energized this universe was applied from outside of it? We have to bring internal energy to bear anytime we want to exert a force on the exterior world.
Force transfers the energy we bring to bear from our internal state to an external state. That force can be applied to external bodies and transfer momentum internal to external, external to internal. A good example of the internal to external back to internal exchange of momentum through force is a knockout punch. That is internal energy brought to bear delivered by force to a body external to yours and that momentum is transferred by force to the internal of the body it is delivered to.
It seems conservation of energy would apply to energy moving from an internal to an external state, as well as energy moving from an external to internal state. In this way energy cannot really be contained to a closed system. The nature of force transferring energy from internal to external states will never allow it to be contained to any particular system permanently.
@@jayb5596 I don't see anything implausible👍👍👍, difficult to understand, yes🙄🙄🤔🤔🙄😖😖, implausible, no!!!!👍👍👍
@@stuartmoulton6426 Here is a thought experiment for you to ponder.
The 0s and 1s in binary represent OFF or ON, respectively. In a transistor, a "0" represents no flow of electricity, and "1" represents electricity being allowed to flow. In this way, numbers are represented physically inside the computing device, permitting calculations.
Atoms are built from quarks, two up quarks and one down quark produce a proton. Two down quarks and one up quark produce a neutron, they are interchangeable. A neutron is unstable outside of the nucleus of the atom and will decay into a proton. Protons are stable outside of the nucleus.
Neutron "0" represents no flow of electricity.
Proton "1" represents electricity being able to flow.
The carbon atom for example represents 6 protons, 6 neutrons, 6 electrons. That makes up the nucleus of the carbon atom, so it represents a 12 bit byte. Each proton and neutron represent a single binary digit.
A single carbon atom representing 666, is a 12 bit byte. If you account for particle spin you realize that these 12 bit bytes of carbon can be arranged in various nuclei alignments, to represent any combination possible within that 12 bit byte. This is just a single carbon atom.
12 binary digits, or 3 nibbles (a 'tribble'), have 4096 (10000 octal, 1000 hexadecimal) distinct combinations. Hence, a microprocessor with 12-bit memory addresses can directly access 4096 words (4 Kw) of word-addressable memory.
Extrapolate that concept on to every atom in the universe. The computational power makes no rational sense.
We are a duality of self. I am just a duality of my "self and I". Self converts biological binary codes into conscious depictions, projects those depictions back to us. Just like we do with our form of binary code, on modern devices. Self observations are subjective to the individual, self projections are objective to individual consciousness.
@@jayb5596
Oh, no!!!!!!!😂
My neanderthal brain was running up a VERY severe incline thinking about universal existence theories and black holes and the question of multiverses et al, now you go and add that to the mix.....
If only we could discover a way of tapping into the potentials of our existence?????
Thanks for your informative and interesting reply Jay, I'm now heading to my darkened room........👍👍👍👍
There is one major problem I have with the big bang theory. When ever the big bang theory is mentioned they always say observable universe. But as we all know there are galaxies in which the light from them will never reach us. Due to this fact it leads me to believe that this is a major flaw in the big bang theory. There is also a problem I have with red shift, Due to the expansion of the universe the light waves are stretched. what if the light gets stretched so much we are unable to detect it
I don't think you ever did complex calculations.
@@laughingbuddha2948 So I am to accept the current theory as being the fact and it is not my place to question the experts. If we all followed you thinking then the human race would still be in the stone age. Yes the calculations that have been done are only as good as the data that is available. I have a feeling that the James Web telescope will solve a few of the questions but inevitably will pose more questions than answers. Rather than you dismiss my questions as being nonsensical it would be more prudent if you would try to dispel my questions with facts. Theories are just that, theories and until they become scientific fact they will be unverified theories.
@@liketoknow6566 You don't discuss the theory of relativity with your plumber. Your post is the living proof of that.
@@laughingbuddha2948 Yes, you are correct I do not discuss the Theory of relativity to my plumber, but as history has shown us what we thought was true has turned out to be incorrect. The difference between you and me, I question everything where as you accept everything. There are many theories, a single big bang multiple big bangs, the universe generates and regenerates itself, a multiverse, the incredible bulk and so on. These theories are so far just as plausible. Your post is the living proof that most humans are sheep and are constantly being lead. Thank you for you UN-informative conversation. You have a good life.
@@drsatan9617 Yes, I already knew that but it still does not validate the Big Bang theory or any of the other theories. The Hubble constant assumes that at the beginning there was zero expansion. What if the expansion of the universe was never at zero.
There wouldn't have to be other dimensions for there to be other universes. There could be neighboring universes far enough away to be out of sight. When I look at the big bang I tend to think it can't be an isolated occurrence. It seams unlikely that something would occur only once and have a start or an end because then there couldn't be a cause.
the only thing to me that would make sense is the theory that the universe expands and contracts, and that dense contracted point of matter at the end of the universe eventually becomes too dense resulting in a repeating Big Bang the process for a possible infinite amount of time…or theres a multiverse
@@aaronbritton2709 An 'infinite amount of time' is described with the word 'eternity', but we must think about what 'infinite' really means..
spaceandmotion
So here is one of the main problems of understanding..
People have a very poor understanding of what the word 'infinite' actually means.. This is not any kind of 'fault', but just that we have evolved within the confines of what appears to be a finite environment, and we thus try to look at things in finite ways, also justifying those 'finite' thoughts. When I first approached the 'problem' I had the same difficulties, so it takes our minds a lot of effort to reach another perspective of understanding, but it IS achievable..
Firstly, there cannot be more than one 'instance' of infinitude, otherwise a secondary 'thing' would render them both 'finite'. So we are describing a 'oneness'.. Also, it can have no 'beginning' nor 'ending' as these would also necessitate a secondary 'thing' (or the utter nonsense of a 'nothing'!), so we are describing 'eternity' when we apply 'time' concepts. Then, we have to admit that it can only be the one thing that interconnects all other 'things', and we deduce this to be 'Space', necessarily..
All references to 'size' or 'direction' do not apply to the nature of infinitude, and thus have no relevance to our understanding of the true nature of existence. 'Measurement' has limitations.. When we point to any position in Space, we effectively create a 'beginning' to any subsequent forms of measurement, which only has relevance to the entity desiring to understand said 'measurement'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective.
Misleading title, this was not 'why' it was 'how'
the video credits Edwin Hubble for realizing that spacetime is expanding, but doesn't credit Henrietta Swan Leavitt for coming up with the technique Hubble used to make his discovery
Nor does it credit Georges Lemaître for theorizing the Hubble-Lemaître law and calculating the Hubble constant 2 years ahead of Hubble himself.
@@duvels86 i was highlighting the nonrecognition of women in science but agree that recognizing Catholic priests is also important
@@ernestbruce I sense a sarcastic tone in that reply. I completely agree that without Henrietta Swan Leavitt the observation of Hubble was not possible. Credit where credit's due though, and Hubble did not theorize the Law named after him. For me, this is an overly anglocentric video. That's my point.
@@duvels86 oh, yes, it is anglocentric; i didnt mean to sound sarcastic; sadly, many, many of these types of videos ignore the contributions of women and scientists from places other than the US and Britain; they feature Einstein and others because, i suppose, the sheer genius and influence of their contributions to science; we need to work to change that
Could that extremely dense single point that preceded the Big Bang have been a black hole? Was there ever a universe that preceded the Big Bang? The theories and questions are endless. The idea of nothing existing just blows the mind.
Earth was formless and void ,you can,t have nothing full stop ,
What exploded and to really understand owt how can explosion exploded in to nothing from nothing ,
Do these clowns get in a room together and bet each other who can come up with the most stupid things
@@trudealcarpets4511 Sorry mate I have no idea what you’re going on about
yeah its kinda funny for me, the 2 ideas that "something" whatever that may be, has existed for eternity (eternity itself being unfathomable) vs the idea that something just popped into exitance from absolutely nothing.... are equally mind blowing.... as is the idea of a god, but lets not go there lol...
@@trudealcarpets4511 🤣
@@charliedavis8447 why not go there? Everything has a purpose. Why does the universe care that you want to eat in order to survive and live? Why are you programmed for that?
In order to follow the law of conservation, I have a gut feeling that it's possible there's a whole bunch of bubbles interacting with each other on a grand medium like oil in water where the density's separate the oil in perfect little circles and they can absorb each other and move and maybe black holes are grand recycling machines in the universe and the laws of conservation of matter aren't broken, they take a form of matter and they convert it to other forms of matter but it doesn't gain or disappear, it just alters, maybe into gas form or plasma who knows, they could travel through the black hole 🕳️ into another universe bubble and recycle ♻️ energy there still with the universe, or it could transfer to a different far off region of the same universe bubble? Maybe in different bubbles they all run by the same base laws but maybe in every bubble the factors to the power and the interactions of those base forces are randomly jumbled up, and there's many bubbles that are unstable, but through natural selection, you would come across stable bubbles but it would be like nature and evolution or if babies survive to past birth and childhood to adult hood... Idk just a random theory but of course nothing answers how that started I don't understand how we will ever figure that out and honestly I'm okay with that. I've found peace with finding that it's okay to not find the answers for everything, for certain things, maybe that's the point. It's probably impossible for us in our human perspective to figure out these questions and that's okay, nature has it's ways and I'm sure it will all work out in the end or else why would it function the way it does. Nature is very therapeutic for me. Observing the seasons as I hike with my dogs, how trees get recycled by fungi, interconnection within ecosystems. It all can teach us things about other things if we look at those things with the right Perspective.
Great explanation sir !!
I kind of agree with you !!!
Well thank God that science isnt governed by "gut feelings"
Seems like there is no evidence for this but hey maybe
The communications delay between Earth and Mars is approximately 20 minutes. We're either viewing the light from Mars in the future, Einstein's past dimensions of space-time or in real time, which do you think is more logical? The speed of light according to Einstein's relativity is 186,000 miles per second, but according to physics if two mechanical watches were synchronized on earth and one traveled across the universe and back, there would be no difference in time between the mechanical watches proving the speed of light is instantaneous as the only way a mechanical watch will run slow is if you tighten the main spring :-). Big Bang, Einstein's relativity-time dilation and nearly all of science debunked. There are 7.7 billion people on planet Earth, yet I was the only one who knew I was viewing the light and images of the universe in real time, maybe I should be working for NASA or Elon Musk :-)
Light waves can stretch, bend-curve and occupy a state of superposition, whereas the hypothetical Einstein projectile light particle (photon), a particle that has never been observed cannot be both a particle and wave. There are no space-time fantasy unions or gravity waves that can join a particle, wave and time together then bend, curve and stretch them like a rubber band. Neither time nor mass can create itself into nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing simply because nothing has no properties. Time and space are independent of each other, not material bodies or fantasy unions that magically stretch time like a rubber band into space-time dimensions. The James Webb Space Telescope is not a time machine, you can’t travel back in time to view the beginning of the universe with telescopes that were made in the future :-). Light and electromagnetic waves are independent of each other.
The speed of light can be slowed from 186,000 miles per second down to 38 mph by shooting a laser through extremely cold sodium atoms acting as “optical molasses” If the universe were suddenly destroyed, collapsed or fell into a black hole do you honestly think slowing down the speed of light with sodium atoms would save the earth from being destroyed, giving people on earth time to find another planet to colonize and destroy :-). Using optical clocks, lasers and GPS to prove Einstein's time dilation-space-time curvature is like using a metal detector to find gold at Fort Knox. The closer you are to the electromagnetic fields, mass and gravity of the earth the more light bends aka gravitational lensing.
If black holes reside in a region of Einstein's theorized space-time where gravity and mass are so dense that nothing, neither mass-particles nor electromagnetic radiation such as light can escape then how could it be possible for the entire mass of our universe to escape the unimaginable density of the proposed Big Bang? According to general relativity sufficient compact mass-density will deform space-time to form a black hole which obviously debunks both Big Bang theory and relativity! Big Bang theorists rely on red shift to support the hypothesis that the universe is expanding, the very phenomena that supports the hypothesis of a (non-expanding static universe). You can duplicate the ion thruster jets of a black hole in a vacuum using a Tesla coil or build one using high voltage-an array of magnets-a CRT-TV yoke or inductor coil. Black holes are nothing but plasma driven vortex electromagnetic fields expanding electromagnetic waves in space. Since the vortex of black holes are thought to be at the center of all galaxies they might be the very force that created them.
Gravitational lensing occurs in all wavelengths of light including (red shift-microwave background radiation). Gravity from huge celestial objects of galaxies bend, curve and expand light giving the appearance of what Einstein wrongly theorized as time dilation-space-time-debunking the big bang. Mass from galaxies, planets and black hole electromagnet fields bend, curve and expand light giving the appearance of what Einstein wrongly theorized as time dilation-space-time dimensions. Light like all electromagnetic radiation and electricity is the result of moving electrons, as moving electrons of charged electromagnetic waves-light travel through the plasma of the universe each lump (or "quanta") of energy in the electromagnetic waves are charged then discharged to the next lump, eventually the energy dissipates causing the delay in radio communications giving the appearance of time dilation - the appearance of longer wavelengths in red shift. Light and electromagnetic waves are independent of each other.
If space was curved-warped according to Albert Einstein's curved-warped gravity theory, like a boat in the ocean these same gravity waves would affect time and the perfect balance in solar system orbital mechanics throwing planets off course-out of orbit in a collision course towards the sun where a planets gravity and time would increase and decrease with different velocity rates as they ascend and descend the curves of gravity waves. Using optical clocks and lasers to prove Einstein's time dilation-space-time curvature is like using a metal detector to find gold at Fort Knox. The closer you are to the electromagnetic fields, mass and gravity of the earth the more light bends aka gravitational lensing.
If gravity is the result of mass then before the universe came into being gravity couldn't have existed simply because mass was not yet created! Galaxies with massive gravity from the early Big Bang would have been gravitationally bound like the Andromeda galaxy is to the Milky Way galaxy, the sun, moon and planets in all solar systems in the universe yet these early galaxies were able to somehow escape these massive gravitational forces continuing to expand at an increasingly faster rate. Into what, nothing? Nothing has no properties! Neither the atom, universe nor time can be created or destroyed. Albert Einstein an autistic violinist patent clerk that had access to more papers than Suzanne Somers litter box yet creates theories with more bugs than Terminix. “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” a state of superposition where time, and gravity run inwardly, outwardly, in all directions in the same time frame, similar to the electromagnetic field having no beginning and no end.
If space was curved-warped according to Albert Einstein's curved-warped gravity theory, like a boat in the ocean these same gravity waves would effect time and the perfect balance in solar system orbital mechanics throwing planets off course-out of orbit in a collision course towards the sun where a planets gravity and time would increase and decrease with different velocity rates as they ascend and descend the curves of gravity waves. Using optical clocks and lasers to prove Einstein's time dilation-space-time curvature is like using a metal detector to find gold at Fort Knox. The closer you are to the electromagnetic fields, mass and gravity of the earth the more light bends aka gravitational lensing. Neither time nor mass can create itself into nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing simply because nothing has no properties. Time and space are independent of each other, not material bodies or fantasy unions that magically stretch time like a rubber band into space-time dimensions. Albert Einstein, an autistic violinist patent clerk that had access to more papers than Suzanne Somers litter box yet creates theories with more bugs than Terminix-Magnetron.
The theory of everything according to humans that believe their intellect evolved from a monkeys brain. If the light waves from the sun were 8 minutes and 20 seconds in a past dimension of Einstein's space-time then people on Earth are just imagining the infrared warmth of the sun coming up on the horizon. The communications delay between Earth and Mars is approximately 20 minutes. We're either viewing the light from Mars in the future, Einstein's past dimensions of space-time or in real time, which do you think is more logical? Einstein's relativity is wrong light has no limitation of speed; it cannot be slowed down because it isn't moving. From every vantage point in the universe light is omnidirectional-instantaneously traveling in both directions. Light and electromagnetic waves are independent of each other. According to Einstein's relativity-time dilation's, photos taken of the Earth from the Discovery Space station traveled from the past to the future violating the laws of physics, conservation of energy and common sense :-)
The speed of light according to Einstein's relativity is 186,000 miles per second, but according to physics if two mechanical watches were synchronized on earth and one traveled across the universe and back, there would be no difference in time between the mechanical watches proving the speed of light is instantaneous as the only way a mechanical watch will run slow is if you tighten the main spring. Big Bang, Einstein's relativity-time dilation and nearly all of science debunked. Using optical clocks, lasers and GPS to prove Einstein's time dilation-space-time curvature is like using a metal detector to find gold at Fort Knox. The closer you are to the electromagnetic fields, mass and gravity of the earth the more light bends aka gravitational lensing.
Light waves can stretch, bend-curve and occupy a state of superposition, whereas the hypothetical Einstein projectile light particle (photon), a particle that has never been observed cannot. Unlike a TV or computer monitor the images we are viewing in the universe are in real time, not a series of frames that create the appearance of a moving image. There are no DCU digital convergence circuits in space yet Einstein's disciples believe the light and moving images they see in the universe aren't really there, they're just video recorded images of the past 13.8 billion years. You could lead a cult to water, but you can't make them think. Neither time, energy nor mass can create itself into nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing simply because nothing has no properties. Time and space are independent of each other, not material bodies or fantasy unions that magically stretch Time, energy, and matter like a rubber band into space-time dimensions. Monkey see monkey do, the science of monkeys have brainwashed you.
Will the James Webb Telescope view the birth of the first galaxies? Nope, the universe goes on to infinity. Neither time, the atom, energy nor mass can create itself into nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing simply because nothing has no properties. The James Webb Space Telescope is not a time machine, you can’t travel back in time to view the beginning of the universe with telescopes that were made in the future :-). Light and electromagnetic waves are independent of each other. If science uses Einstein's wrongly theorized speed of light like an odometer to calculate past dimensions of distance and time, then using that same method to calculate forward dimensions of distance and time would mean the Big Bang was created and expanded in the future before time existed. Unlike a television or computer monitor the images we are viewing in the universe are in real time, not a series of still image frames that hypothetical Einstein projectile light particles photons create to give us the appearance of a moving image :-).
The speed of electromagnetic wave is 186,282 miles per second vs Einstein's projectile light particle proton at 186,000 miles per second. Is this a coincidence or did Einstein plagiarize yet another phenomenon to fit the math of relativity? Electromagnetic waves in space can neither slow down or speed up, this is consistent with the law of conservation of energy. If light slowed down, its energy would decrease, thereby violating the law of conservation of energy so the speed of light is instantaneous and cannot travel slower than it does. If Einstein's projectile light (particle photon) had mass it's light could not travel across the universe, high speed particles traveling at 186,000 miles per second would break the Hubble and James Webb telescope mirrors, debunking the speed of light, Big Bang, Einstein's relativity and any science that uses relativity in their theories.
Everyone knows cell phone electromagnetic radio waves travel both ways, yet Einstein's disciples believe time energy, mass and light can only travel one way back in time. If you simply run the Big Bang theory in reverse you reveal the insanity of Einstein's relativity and Big Bang theory. If the expansion of the Big Bang were true, time, energy, mass and light would be in the future from the vantage point of an expanding singularity-Big Bang and planet Earth would now reside in a past dimension of Einstein's time dilation (moving clocks run slow) space-time 13.8 billion years ago :-).
It's truly amazing how the science and politics of the left are able to keep people denying reality, there are no DCU digital convergence circuits in space, yet Einstein's disciples believe the light and moving images they see in the universe aren't really there, they're just recorded images of the past 13.8 billion years. Pretending not to notice the gross contradictions-pseudoscience in Relativity is typical of Einstein's disciples, devaluing the source of any information that's in contradiction with their beliefs-theories. You could lead a cult to water, but you can't make them think. If the light from the universe travels to past dimensions of time then it's light is also traveling into future dimensions of time (instantaneously). “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” a state of superposition where time and gravity run inwardly, outwardly, in all directions in the same time frame, similar to the electromagnetic field having no beginning and no end. "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End" Revelation 22:13. Disciples, remember thy 1st commandment, thou shalt not question thy lawgiver of relativity for blasphemers are the devil's pawn. Let thee not dwell in dissension of our Lord Albert, shun them, drive them back to their jungle lair amen.
Albert Einstein, an autistic violinist patent clerk that had access to more papers than Suzanne Somers litter box yet creates theories with more bugs than Terminix- Magnetron. View my paper on academia (Big Bang, Einstein's Relativity-Time dilation and nearly all of science debunked) You can also find me on Twitter, Facebook, Truth Social and Mewe
SPACE is expanding into TIME. This is the true nature of what SPACETIME is and why we don't go backwards in time.
We don't go any direction in time
@@morbidmanmusic Not We, just you.
I like this idea. Don't know if it's right, but it is beautiful.
@@morbidmanmusic how?
In the beginning of this piece they say "Why?" is not a good question, but rather "How". Actually, "why?" is a very good question; a question which is continually asked in all areas of science. Just because we have no idea of the "why?" doesn't make it a bad question.
The "how?" question is related. How did the infinitely small and hot singularity come to be is another way of putting it. Sometimes science just needs to be bluntly transparent; eg. "we haven't a clue". Yet most school text books put up a nebulous posture rather than the transparent, honest truth.
most often though, when religious people ask ''why did the big bang happen?'' they are presupposing that some God must have set it in motion. I think this is why Brian Cox prefers to say ''how''.
"Why" can be an unanswerable question. Maybe we don't have access to data that would allow us to answer it. That does not mean that no one has a clue. But don't expect to get latest ideas in any textbook until you're a PhD candidate. Search CZcams for videos with Roger Penrose is you want a sample. Be prepared to hang onto you hat.
I do love how the graphics show the "explosion" and expansion. The problem is there was nothing outside. No frame of reference to observe the big bang. Even the term nothing makes no sense in respect to this. I love telling people it happened everywhere. That really twists their noodle
The universe is expanding into the future.
its... really obvious, I wonder when the true implications will be discovered.
I like your idea, and interpret it as expanding spacetime implies time expanding - and time expansion is essentially it's arrow. Hence the 'tick' of time is merely an expansion from frame to frame.
Scientists have been really dumb in deciding initially that space was the vaccuum, and then only later finding that the vacuum has energy - essentially because one could not have a construct of space without an energy supporting it. And now they fail to take another leap to realize that time must have energy as well, and is not 'nothing'.
@@gregorysagegreene But tine is relative to space in mathamtical measurement standards..by no means is it a force if so where is time? ...dumb dumb
the universe is expanding into empty space.
@@gregorysagegreene yes this.
So here is one of the main problems of understanding..
People have a very poor understanding of what the word 'infinite' actually means.. This is not any kind of 'fault', but just that we have evolved within the confines of what appears to be a finite environment, and we thus try to look at things in finite ways, also justifying those 'finite' thoughts. When I first approached the 'problem' I had the same difficulties, so it takes our minds a lot of effort to reach another perspective of understanding, but it IS achievable..
Firstly, there cannot be more than one 'instance' of infinitude, otherwise a secondary 'thing' would render them both 'finite'. So we are describing a 'oneness'.. Also, it can have no 'beginning' nor 'ending' as these would also necessitate a secondary 'thing' (or the utter nonsense of a 'nothing'!), so we are describing 'eternity' when we apply 'time' concepts. Then, we have to admit that it can only be the one thing that interconnects all other 'things', and we deduce this to be 'Space', necessarily..
All references to 'size' or 'direction' do not apply to the nature of infinitude, and thus have no relevance to our understanding of the true nature of existence. 'Measurement' has limitations.. When we point to any position in Space, we effectively create a 'beginning' to any subsequent forms of measurement, which only has relevance to the entity desiring to understand said 'measurement'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective.
If time and space and everything. Started with the big bang, hen what did time and space expand in to in the first place ?
Do you have permission to use these clips?
The big bang is simply the point at which Einstein's math breaks down, in the same way that Newton's did.
I think Newtons Laws break down long before that don't they?
You have no say in this unless you can do math like Einstein. Which you cant so shut it
Because it is only a theory that does not hold up to genuine scrutiny.. spaceandmotion
@@fluentpiffle you dont know what a theory is. All theories hold up under scrutiny...every one of them.
Theory equals fact
@@diane6378 I didn't say scrutiny, I said genuine scrutiny.. If you knew what genuine scrutiny was you would not have made that mistake.. Same with your 'theory' theory..
But you have provided an excellent example (as if Brian Cox were not enough!) of how people like to miss out certain aspects they personally find distasteful, so their 'theories' appear more 'factual'...to them, and anyone they can dupe into listening to them..
If the universe is infinite then there can only be one universe. You can’t say there’s an infinite number of marbles in my hand, but one in my pocket.
In today’s climate the theory with the least attention is likely to be the closest to truth..
spaceandmotion
Lsd will help you connect to these parallel universes if used correctly
I like the idea that space was not created or pre-existed but began with time at Big Bang and continues to expand. this is not science but my Sunday Bible school stuff. I like it that scientists are coming full circle to the simple utter, "let there be light!"
Space is not a thing. It's the absence of things.
The big bang is only a theory yes it's interesting to think about but I still have to stop and think that you can't get something from nothing. What happens when you clap your hands together ? The impact results in many things happening one is the sound of the clap something came from something ! Something as simple as a clap of your hands can not happen the other way around you can't have the clap sound first then the impact of your hands together. The sound comes from an event not from nothing.
The Big Bang Theory doesn’t say something came from nothing. The Big Bang Theory explains what happened after the Big Bang happened.
@@captaingaza2389 Yes ! After is interesting.
To lead to this moment of my first comment. That might probably get a lot of likes.
Questions of science in reality (universe) always beyond answers of scientific reality.
What is dark energy, what is dark matter? Perhaps if we find this we will be big step closer to understanding it all, so much of the universe is unknown to us. But at this point of time there is so much knowledge shared globally and it makes me hopeful that somebody will figure it out.
Dark energy is just a idea, a theory a guess.
We're not designed to understand . If we knew all the answers we'd be as clever as God
@@michaelmarshall9132 as clever as someone who doesn't exist ? That's not hard
@@dextermorgan7439 thats your opinion and you're entitled to it . But it's also your loss
@@michaelmarshall9132 i can't choose what to believe in. I dont even believe in free will.
so how far away does a particle have to be before there is no time?
as long as an elephant trunk
Like a water fall could it be something similar? A mass amount of water carrying a massive flow of energy and dump it energy flow running out every where?
Mr Professor Universe cells is, has Bigbang? as in new restart nuclear by sound as light in human ground same?
The part of the universe we know about is meniscule in comparison to what we don’t know about.
Here is my theory: The universe goes on forever…. Has been here forever….. life as we recognize it and life as we wouldn’t recognize it also exists throughout the universe.
Life has gone on forever before we became aware of it and life will go on forever after our galaxy is gone.
The stars too numerous to count , grow exponentially and are responsible for all life and planets and galaxies here and far far away and the cycle of life never ends but we only live once.
Realities are not always imaginable and all imagination need not be Real.
I'm wondering what the random black&white shot of Amsterdam at 8:22 has to do with the rest of the video :D
weed musings.
Disappointing when in mid program they interjected speculative nonsense about the multiverse. Their rationale for accepting it without evidence was absurd.
Brian Cox - Why Did The Big Bang Happen? If I were to take my "HDV" hypothesis as correct, i.e. not destroyed by the masters of physics, then to the question "why did the Big Bang happen" with the logic of my hypothesis, I would say that the logic is very simple in the cyclical behavior (see Penrose) of dimensional warping changes: Big-bang is here as a sharp "lightning" interface of a) state of 3+3D flat, uncurved space-time, i.e. the curvature of all dimensions is zero, until "the end of genesis" (those curvatures) through the cross-section of the unfolding of the universe, the unfolding of the 3+3 dimensions of space-time, i.e. until b) again to the "big-cruich", when the curvatures will be smoothed out (thus the disappearance of gravity, the disappearance of other forces and the disappearance of matter as well, and the flow of time), then b) will occur again after the total smoothing out of every curvature "anywhere" to the new big-bang a). It is an endless carousel of dimensional curvature changes. However, in such a way that the smoothing is slow-gradual and the big-bang is absolutely instantaneous, an immediate change from zero curvature to incredibly high curvature (plasma, boiling vacuum) - - This interpretation can be refined to perfection with simple improvements... I like it I'll leave it for another time.
What we miss out, is that, what is sustaining everything now? What is keeping all the atoms moving now?
What are you missing? Why matter is stable? It isn't. All of what you see now is just meta-stable and will eventually decay.
if there is more than one universe what is between them? it can't be paper. is there any real difference between infinitely small or big, it seems that one becomes both a bit like Schrodinger's cat?
I would say: Recursive function (without exit condition) relative to available data.....
Baaad programmer!
@@gregorysagegreene well, this breaks any notion of "intelligent" design :-)
There was no singularity where all matter was compressed, matter came later, so did light, photons were the result of hydrogen and helium doing the nuclear fusion thing. There was no point the size of an atom representative of the center of the universe, the silent bang happened everywhere in the same instant, the universe was bigger than an atom, it was more like an empty, deflated balloon that was suddenly full of heat. The singularity wasn't a physical thing that represented the beginning of space, space already existed, it represented the beginning of time via entropy.
Prove it
you say this like you were there! these are just some assumptions based on some more assumptions that is according to some other assumptions and so on. this is not science just a belief nothing more!
@@lonewolf5533 "You weren't there, it's all nonsense and lies", You sound like Ray Comfort. There is plenty of factual evidence going all the way down to Planck Time a zeptosecond after the Big Bang. That's a 10 followed by 21 0s fraction of a second. Planck Time can be measured down to 10 to the 44th fraction.
Love to hear your explanation, "Let there be light", amirite? Don't make me school you on nuclear fission and ionizing radiation.
@@ll7868 exactly. no one was there, that's why what "those" scientists say is not scientific. it's not observable, repeatable.... it is just a wishful belief just like religion is a belief so let's not fool ourselves in the name of science. it's actually voodoo science! worse than magic!
please study the DNA, DNA alone disproves evolution, randomness and proves God!
how about the soft tissue of T-Rex with blood that the secular scientists have found and can't explain and scratch their heads? that's real operational, observable science! the truth is right in their face but they don't want to believe it. because it shows the word of God is true and it demands moral responsibility.
yeah I love Ray Comfort because he tells the truth.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." 1 Corinthians 1:18
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.
romans 1:25
btw christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship! God himself doesn't like religion. it was the religious people who killed Jesus! there is so much garbage in religion. so please don't throw out the baby with the bath water brother. God bless you
how can they say the planets etc arent getting bigger, just the space between when everything originated from the size of an atom? We have only observed a few hundred years, it could be that everything including every single solid particle could be double the size in another 15 billion years? we would never know
I agree, asking Science to explain 'why' something happens is not really their job. Science works by measurement and observation and 'why' supposes there is some measurable reason for everything. Why does the Universe exist in the first place? Who knows?
Lots of great info!
Before the video started, came a pay advert from PETA describing the horrific conditions a monkey is being kept in confinement in a tiny solitary box for the past 16 ....16!!!!!!!...years!!! For research porpuses in a lab. It brought the most deep painfull tears I've cried in the past 10 years or so. After seing that cry for help from PETA, I really couldn't pay any attention to this clip about the Big Bang.
I just hope the Big Bang didn't happen, in order for us humans, to do this cruelty actions over other animals.
I'm sorry about my comment....but believe me, I'm still crying like a baby :(
The how and the why puzzled me once. Not any more
How did the singularity come into existence? Is Big Bang cyclic? Is there ever a possibility that the universe which is expanding at an accelerated pace will ever contract, and collapse to form another singularity?
I think so. That is infinity. Expanding and contracting with no loss of energy, just transformations.
@@Misses-Hippy First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another.
Boom I solved it.
@@Haha-bu7bi Fascinating, isn't it?
@@Misses-Hippy
How do we get here from infinity? We can't.
It's an oxymoron.
Logically there must be a beginning of every natural thing.
@@andrewdouglas1963I guess you start with space gas, star stuff, but we probably go back further to another universal flux. I consider amoeba my early cousins.
So when a singularity is assumed as the beginning where exactly was the singularity? Of course I don't know for a fact but if I was to guess I would say that the singularity is the result of the beginning not the cause. I would also say that space is a different medium separate. I myself believe that blacksphere's are singularities and when the first one was born it was as small as it could get compared to the space that surrounds it. Very small in deed. As we were not here to observe it size is irrelevant.
I believe your question was specifically answered in the video. The singularity took place EVERYWHERE. That point was the only "where" which existed, in any sense of existence that we can understand.
@@starfishsystems you see if we actually did rewind time I think you find gas just gases. All these galaxies we see wouldn't have formed yet. So I think there was a starting position a single star that started the process of entropy to what we see now. From the first star and the meganova that occur a singularity was left and that's a blacksphere ( hole) so looking at it from that perspective the theory does have merit. The known universe did start after that blacksphere was born. And the first galaxy as a result. The meganova is what caused star formation from that point to today. All the stars after that first star are population 3 stars how do we know that's where the helium came from the first star produced helium and that's all it produced. How does that sound pretty good?
So this is where I have a small problem with the size of a singularity ? People say it was smaller then a grain of sand well that's impossibly and QM says nothing can infinitely small. But that's not entirely true. You see a blacksphere is infinitely small it can't get any smaller that's as small as anything can get. It doesn't matter how big it is to us. The definition is correct and if space was already there then how big would that blacksphere actually be compared to infinite space smaller then a grain of sand very small indeed. So really it just depends on how you interpret the theory your perspective 🤔 and who's perspective is correct. That's how I interpret the theory. So the theory? I think that maybe it's not the wrong theory I think it's trying to make something harder than it is. If you look at it from my point of view you don't have to add anything the theory holds up and if u don't need to add anything and it adds up maybe it might have some merit to it. Something to think about eh.
My idea so I get to name it! Voyager 1 is now in interstellar TIME! (Mikey's Time) Think of it like Alvin and the chipmunks. "Vyger's" message is fine. It's just sped up now that it's outside our suns time bubble or "Terran Time." It would be faster still if "Vyger" sent a message from beyond the Milky Way's time bubble. That name is still up for grabs. Outside the Local Group TIME is open, too. Now that "Vyger" is in interstellar space, it's also in the Milky Way's STANDARD, faster moving, interstellar TIME or "Mikey's Time."
•Our sun's TIME bubble: "Terran Time" we know and have measured.
•Milky Way's TIME bubble or "Mikey's Time." The rate/flow of TIME outside any influence but within the Milky Way: We just got there and are still figuring. Wild guess I'd say time will increase in speed, now and until Vyger is outside the Ort cloud .007-.07% faster, maybe. Just for reference.
•Local Group's TIME bubble or the rate/flow of time outside of any influence but within the Local Group: Name still open and unknown. Wild guess .08% to a couple seconds faster, maybe. Used just for reference.
•Outside any influence in True interstellar TIME: Name still open and unknown. ???? Here is where surfing time is SO choice.
A minute is a minute in all. It's the rate/flow I'm talking about.
Pass it on, please and thank you.
How could it all be compressed in an atom, it's unbelievable to get it.
Where did the matter come from?
Does it ‘matter’?😆
I see the Big Bang as an unformatted harddisk, where the moment of formatting is the Big Bang. At that moment, spacetime equals formatted space, on a harddisk that was there already.
I understand the analogy in some sense, but i dont perceive the big bang the same way, because you cannot extract any information from a formated hard drive because contains all zeros and the big bang theory tell us that all matter and energy was condense in a single point, and there was some property on that state that allow the expansion, so some information was there, how the information was there in the first place we absolutely have no idea.
@@joaoviana9643 In math zero's are not nothing but something e.g. -1 + 1 = 0. Both -1 and 1 are something to create zero. Also: information on a quantum level could be observed as all matter and energy together at the point of the Big Bang, e.g as the anomaly that started the Big Bang, or: the formatting for our universe was ready.
@@lowket Im was not talking about math. If u have a completed formatted hard drive the actual bit values in memory are all zeros and on a binary language that means zero information can be extracted from that hard drive.
Actualy i agree with u that before the big bang there was information, what i cannot link the analogy is that the big bang add more information, formatting deletes information.
@@joaoviana9643 The universe is nót a hard drive; it acts like one from the observer's point (we as humans) when thinking about the origin of the Big Bang. The universe is not a hologram, it is real to us, the observer. The most probable theory on the Big Bang is this:
the Big Bang is the starting point of our universe, the beginning of our spacetime. The Big Bang anomaly could be a white hole: the exit point of a supermassive black hole in another universe. Supermassive black holes in our universe can in time create their own black holes and thus create other universes, and so on. We get our information at the start of the Big Bang from all the information collected by the black hole in the other universe. Our universe was already there, inside the black hole, but only formed when there was enough information to expand into the white hole, thus starting the Big Bang and our universe.
Another theory is that of the branes, which is mostly the same theory, but where two branes collide or connect, a new universe is formed. I can imagine but of them, but only one single theory can be true and i am convinced that within a few hundred years, we will know for sure what and how started the Big Bang. Lately we've seen information got thrown back into our own universe by a black hole: czcams.com/video/tukvxwSJeaM/video.html
My hypothesis is that this information that escaped the black hole is equal to gunpowder vapor after a gun fired. In this case, the black hole 'fired' all absorbed information into the white hole, creating a new universe. The 'gunpowder vapor' is a remnant of that proces. And in case we ourselves live inside a black hole, then there must be proof of information leaking out of our universe, which it does. This is also a popular theory, but we are talking about the Big Bang itself and the simple comparison with a harddisk formatting.
Since space and time are interconnected, both the brane theory as the white hole theory are the most logical answers for the Big Bang in our universe, for us as observers. In the case of the connecting branes, a simple addition of the 4th dimension to the existing other 3 should have started our universe. In the case of the white hole, the anomaly in the Schwarzshield geometry should be the answer.
Maybe the CMB is the fingerprint for our universe and defines us from a myriad of other universes throughout the vastness of infinite emptiness. Our SM and it's physics are applicable only to our universe. Each universe will have it's own unique signature and physics, which defines it from others and the dynamics, mechanics, content etc will be completely incomprehensible for our intelligence.
Mathematics is a tool of measurement. It does not describe events, it only measures them. Then there is the question of 'interpretation', which can be done a number of ways. The genuine scientific method is deduction from necessity and plausibility..Also known as 'Occam's razor'.
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world)
"Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman)
"Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe)
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla)
“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
"All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954)
"‘Mainstream’, ‘standard model’ or politically funded ‘scientists’ make the great claim that they are “Standing on the shoulders of giants” when the reality is that they are pissing on their graves.. - It is individuals that care about things, and thus truth is revealed to those who care enough about it.." (truth)
Who are we to even talk about this subject in OUR language. When we don't actually speak the language of the Universe. We will never know how or why we became. We will NEVER KNOW.
21:30
Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and then We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?
What forces holds us to this sheet his mentioning ?