Cosmic Inflation
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2024
- In 1964, scientists discovered a faint radio hiss coming from the heavens and realized that the hiss wasn’t just noise. It was a message from eons ago; specifically the remnants of the primordial fireball, cooled to about 3 degrees above absolute zero. Subsequent research revealed that the radio hiss was the same in every direction. The temperature of the early universe was uniform to at better than a part in a hundred thousand.
And this was weird. According to the prevailing theory, the two sides of the universe have never been in contact. So how could two places that had never been in contact be so similar? One possible explanation was proposed in 1979. Called inflation, the theory required that early in the history of the universe, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. Confused? Watch this video as Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln makes sense of this mind-bending idea. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
the comments here are weird. He clearly states that Inflation is not definitive but many Physicists use it to help explain their models. Therefore, the theory is here to stay. So whats the point of calling this theory 'wrong' when no one has ever claimed that its right. Its simply (the) a leading explanation. Nothing more
I love to complain about these videos. This one is outstanding.
(2:25) Your "clone scenario" was an excellent way to convey your information.
+Fermilab
I like how you always wear a t-shirt with an image relevant to the subject on it :D
so if we know that we can slow down the speed of light why dont we account for this in astronomy?
@@richarddonovan3717 Distances in astronomy are with such a low precision that it doesnt affect the measurements at all
@@JessPlaysGames547 its not about small measurement if we are so far to one side we should see that side in far more detail then the other side, think about it your saying something a mile away should look the same as something 50 miles away
@@richarddonovan3717 the difference is so small compared to the distance it had to travel it has no real effect
Maybe the universe is way older than currently accepted (13.7 billion years). Or maybe an outside force shook everything uniform. Or maybe there's something going on we have no clue about.
Thank you fermi lab.. For this informative video. ❤
another concise, simple and informative video. great job!
Not whether we should believe it or not but whether we should accept it.
Love to watch you-very educational , and visual. Congratulations to you for this talent performance.
Thanks for that. I would be curious about what you think about Sir Penrose CCC. Pos and Cons to Inflation
Thanks, this really helped explain something that I just couldn't figure out -- how energy increased when space expanded.
Thank you so much for this!
Thank you so much, i have a report right now and i definitely clutch it
Excelente aula, muito esclarecedora. Keep the good work, and greetings from Brazil
Já tava achando q era o único brasileiro q assiste esse canal (mentira pensava n, mas n tinha visto antes um :^)
Love Fermilab's corny jokes. (no, not sarcastic)
that brackets though :D
you probably dont give a damn but does any of you know a method to log back into an instagram account??
I somehow forgot the password. I would love any assistance you can offer me.
@Jackson Jeremias instablaster ;)
@Eddie Matthias i really appreciate your reply. I got to the site thru google and Im waiting for the hacking stuff atm.
I see it takes quite some time so I will get back to you later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
Good series. (I assume this is a series, it's my first time watching).
Really wish I had a better background in science to understand everything smoothly. But it SOUNDED intelligible, haha.
THanks
Amazing video. You guys are getting better with each video :-)
I was having a bad time trying to understand the theory basing myself on scientific papers, this video is my salvation, thank you so much.
Great analysis, Don. As I understand it, finding gravitational waves would be the smoking gun Inflation advocates are waiting for. But as you know, there are other models (besides Inflation) that will explain (1) homogeneity and isotropy, (2) Flatness, where Omega = 1, and (3) the small nonuniformities (10 ppm) owing to quantum fluctuations. The model advanced by Steinhardt and Turok explains what we've observed equally well, but without the fine-tuning Inflation requires. Their model of the cyclic universe (M-theory cosmology or ekpyrotic universe) is an attractive alternative to Inflation.
+Kim M. Clark, OD
Hasn't the cyclic universe been disproved?
Pretty sure it has ...
But imagine the endless possibilities for new universes to come into existence in our universe after the big rip. Fractal multiverse! :)
Perhaps the universe isn't uniform? Just because the observable universe is uniform how does that mean the entire universe is? It seems like it is but we'll shall never know for sure will we?
True, but science only works with things that we can observe, whether directly or indirectly.
Furthermore, observable universe is the only thing we got to work with
It's only hard to understand how the universe can be uniform in all directions if you assume that the original condition was not uniform. Why do people think this was the case? Maybe everything was uniform to begin with, since all that existed in the beginning - to my knowledge - was energy, and later quarks and so on. If this was the case, then the analogy of dropping two different colours of liquid in the water is wrong, since the beginning condition was uniform. Why do people assume that the condition of the universe in the beginning was not uniform?
Hello Benjamin, we actually do believe the beginning of the universe was incredibly uniform. Back when the universe was extremely tiny, or sub-atomic, inflation says that every point in space was nearly perfectly uniform. However, when inflation began, shortly after the bang, this expansion was so fast that it stretched this sub-atomic uniformity to a much larger scale in a very short amount of time. Once inflation ended, the universe expanded normally but sense the uniformity of the universe was locked in, it still looks pretty much the same today - no matter which direction you look. Hopefully that answers your question :)
P.S. This is mentioned in the video around 4:20 - 4:30
The universe was so small before the inflation, that it didn't even have to try hard to be simultaneous. Even at the casuality speed (the speed of light) it would start momentarily everywhere. And quantum fluctuations probably resulted in small differences we see in the background raditation - and maybe in the existence of the galaxy clusters itself.
an explosion does not give a uniform result
@@nomoretalk2967 the universe in science theory didn't explode. It rapidly expanded from a point. That the expansion would still continue to this day. Would you say our universe is still exploding?
How could the universe possibly be infinite now if at some point in the past it was the size of a marble (or similar finite size)?
Great and vital information!!!
😂 that camera pan is perfect 👌
But what if the medium was uniform to start with? Remember, at the beginning, the universe was essentially a point - it would be uniform. So really the question isn't 'why isn't it different?' but rather, 'why would it not be the same?'
Is there any proposed mechanism for the cause of inflation or for why it stopped?
thank you!
Could the not-quite-perfect-but-awfully-darn-close CMB have arisen from something early in inflation (or expansion) that might have an analogy in Rayleigh-Taylor instability? That without a somewhat uniform gradient in density (or sharp enough discontinuities within, such as the formation of subatomic particles, etc), that instabilities inherently formed and are expressed in our observable CMB?
Okay, this shows that TH-cam videos sometimes can make things clearer than text. I finally grasp some things about Inflation. Some other things - well maybe some other time.
Fascinating talk. Thanks. One thing I am not clear on is why the negative energy of gravity would increase as the energy density of the universe increases. Is it because the increased energy itself increases the gravitational force present? Thanks again.
But wasn't everything the same at one point? How come they have never been in contact, yet at one point everything was in a single point?
(5:30) How fast did the expansion continue after inflation?
Mixing could happen at the speed of light in a 1 cm sized universe.
the expansion rate is accelerating
Since Einstein toldus the space and time are tied together, then does an expanding space imply an expanding or contracting time ?
Honest question that I've been thinking about lately. Is it at all possible that the redshift we see in other galaxies is actually a refractive effect by our heliosphere? I'm sure the answer is "no" but I would love to know how we can know that with such certainty without having looked at space from outside our heliosphere. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
What is a heliosphere
Could the different sides of the universe be similar despite communication speeds, just because the starting pieces were the same in both places anyway? if it's the same building blocks in all places, shouldn't they act the same way?
Not really. Imagine you have two gold bricks and the guy on your left makes gold coins out of it while guy on the right instead makes a statue - both had the same starting point, but made different things as they couldn't reach an agreement...
@@KuK137 Gotta admit I don't find your argument very compelling. Even aside from the questions that conscious choices raises, local variation is to be expected; only at the biggest scales is the universe homogeneous and isotropic.
These physicists are obviously far smarter than me, so I'm sure there's a good reason why inflation is necessary to explain it, but I don't think your rationalization works. I wish Fermilab went into a little more detail on the matter.
Would I sound stupid if I suggest it might be because of entropy of the system- universe? Like, it always increases nd hence there should be it's effect, no? Please correct me if I'm wrong and improve my answer if unclear.
Fascinating. Thanks!
There is a very obvious problem at 5:25. The universe goes from "a billionth of a proton to the size of a marble". A proton is about 10^-15 m, so it starts at 10^-15 / 10^9 m = 10^-24 m. The marble 10^-2 m. Thus it grows with the factor 10^-22. It doubles 100 times, thus 2^100 ≈ 10^30 times. Even if it is very approximative, the discrepancy is far too big, a factor 10^8. What happened?
How would one distinguish between cosmic inflation and the speed of light having been greater during the time described as being before and during inflation? If the speed of light was much faster during this time, it would also provide a mechanism for making everything uniform. The decrease in density due to ordinary expansion could have been the trigger for the change in the speed of light, so that it dropped from its initial high value through the time ascribed to inflation, to its present value, with even the densest objects accessible in the laboratory being nowhere near dense enough to cause a perceptible change in the speed of light; *maybe* a noticeable increase would happen in the cores of neutron stars, which might have measurable effects on neutron star seismology.
Awesome, as usual. I wonder who were the m.r.ns who did not like this...
The idea of inflation is a congruent concept with the function of a concave 3D lens such as might be formed by spherical layers of the kind of optical density that would make a point origin of light at the center of the sphere appear to be spread uniformly throughout the visible area; it's the same principle mathematically as the entanglement concept, and it's the same principle as eternal division/differentiation, and integration at temporal superposition constructed from time rate/duration / Quantum Fields, equivalent to optical densities, as is the process of connecting "bubble" phases of phases. Ie, the Banach Tarski Conjure in a structured omni-directional infinity of time in which the identifying elemental function is Mathematics.
if everything started as a single uniform point that expanded for some reason I would think it would be uniform. Like blowing up a pumpkin from the inside. Not like dropping food coloring in water. I still don't get why this is a problem. If it started out uniformly I'd just assume it would expand uniformly as it is doing now.
I have exactly the same doubt about inflation and the horizon problem. I'm not sure what's the answer, but it has to do with time. If the Universe has always been expanding at the same expansion rate, then the different regions of space would have evolved into different temperatures by the time of the Cosmic Microwave Background first appear. But what we observe in the CMB is that all the Universe has the same temperature and it couldn't be so unless a very short amount of time have passed between the origin of the Universe and the CMB (300,000 years after the Big Bang is not a very long time in a cosmic scale).
I would be very grateful if someone who understands the inflation theory could correct me if I'm wrong...
My understanding is that we assumed that until we realized quantum fluctuations would produce non-unifirmness. I think this was a question in a pbs space time episode.
I’m not sure how we reached that conclusion, but I’ve learned to trust that if and when I look into it that far, I’ll find it makes sense. It’s currently beyond me.
I hate to be a stickler, but with utmost respect, the animation at 7:38 is misleading. The negative universal gravitational energy black bar should get closer to zero (less negative) as the universe expands. You are amazing though!
The Hubble Constant is easily calculated from the following equation:- 2 X a Megaparsec X C, divided by Pi to the power of 21 = 71 K/S/MPS. This is known as "The Principle of Astrogeometry". The Hubble Constant is "fixed" at 71. There is no such thing as "dark energy".
Totally makes sense.
I think a more productive metaphor would be that the substrate of the universe is thickening.
Please explain: if inflation was finite in duration, how did this lead to an infinite size universe today? Or are you saying the universe is finite?
The video actually cleared up a lot what expansion tries to explains to me, but I always come away with plenty of unresolved questions. One of the problems I always can’t get past is when someone says something like the universe was the “size of a marble.” Since the Big Bang is the expansion of space itself, saying the universe has a particular size implies you are either outside measuring it, or inside it with a ruler measuring from one side to the other. I’ll watch the Big Bang video next.
By measuring the total matter, average temperature, diameter, and rate of expansion of the observable universe, you can extrapolate into the past just how small the observable portion we see could have been (relative to the size of a proton) during inflation. There certainly might be other components necessary to make that calculation but those are some basics.
So inflation slow down and the marble sized universe contains all the mass. If its not doing that crazy speed of inflation why doesn't it turn into a black hole?
In fact in the beginning the inflation of super tiny singularity was a black-hole that happened to turn it's super powerful gravity on it's head into super powerful repulsive gravity that was doubling this super tiny universe along with it's mass until it was a black-hole the size of a marble that was moving much much faster then the speed of light when it stopped doubling turning this black-hole into a white-hole because of this super-very-fast way faster then speed of light momentum it still had.
@@sonnydey PBS Space Time would so slap you for assuming that. No, a black hole singularity is not a Big Bang singularity.
The answer is obvious. We are in Euclidean space inside an elliptic plane. It's just light is red-shifted by elliptic gravity.
If the universe is expanding from that point source....where is the centre and why isn’t there a big hole in the middle?
So if I understand correctly , the problem comes from the fact that the universe is so homogeneous and this doesn't make sense to some.
Exactly how is it supposed to be ? I was unaware we had a say in it.
what if light from distant galaxies is gravitationally lensed twice? how will we ever know about it?
This cosmic inflation is devaluing my money
I lost it from the part when you said Light from the clone can reach you but not the other clone...can you please explain that point?
Ajinkya Naik
They are on the opposite sides of the universe, so it took each end approximately 14 billion years to get to us. The distance between them however is double that, meaning that light hasn't reached it due to the age of the universe.
ohk...so the inflation of the universe is the reason why light takes longer to reach us...than it should.
Wait! What is outside of space? What was the barrier of space like when it was expanding?
This guy is so cheesy and juvenile, yet for some reason I cannot stop watching your videos!! Keep them up! Thank you
Juvenile?
If the universe is inflating, and everything relative to us is red shifting then how to galaxies collide. Does it mean they are traveling faster than the universe is expanding?
Brilliant, but assuming the ‘clones’ were standing next to each other and were uniform when the universe was a billionth the size of a proton, I still don’t get why it matters how quickly it expanded to get to where they are now on the left and right.
non physics major here, I though that the inflation field remained in a high potential energy state as space expanded really really fast and then "fell down" resulting in the conversion of energy into radiation/matter and stopped the massive cosmic expansion? so how could the inflation stop if matter existed before the expansion ?
okay so all energy, but when did the inflationary expansion happen? before or after we had matter/energy? I am ignoring the higgs field as I've read conflicting things about its role in cosmic inflation and more so trying to understand how inflation stopped and how it is consistent with the current observations
***** I thought higgs field inflation was considered unlikely ? I swear I've read something somewhere in either paul steinhardt or brian greene's books where they talk about the interaction being too weak. Nevertheless that description certainly makes more sense than my understanding did.
They proved the higgs field when they measured the 700Mev mass of the higgs boson. That was a few years ago where have you been?
Science ninja dude. Your comment have contradictions in the like when you you say scalar field. It is or it isn't. Your comments read like you are just stringing buzz words together in your sentence to sound like you have authority in the subject. Your ideas on the higgs field and mass of the particles also contradict them selves. Stop answering peoples questions with bull shit. There is enough of that on the internet with wanna be QP's.
Subatomic particle formed in a trillionth of a second. First atoms formed at about three minuets. The universe was smaller and hotter. At 380 thousand years the universe cooled enough for electrons to become attracted to the hydrogen and helium atoms, and they became true atoms. Higgs Boson is a fundamental particle, and the Higgs Boson Feild had formed with all the other sub atomic particles in that trillionth of a second.
so is the theory of inflation proposed because our universe is so uniform, and in order to be uniform there had to be mixing which is what inflation essentially is?
Could cosmic inflation happen as universe expansion accelerates to a very high level, or is inflation way beyond what a universe expansion acceleration can reach? Maybe multiple universes develop when old parts of universe break off and start to form own bubble. The old part of universe accomplishes ever higher expansion acceleration from dark energy which rips everything apart, leaving almost all space and maybe a tiny singularity here and there. Then when singularity develops it becomes subject to the cosmic inflation present from end of old universe; as the cosmic inflation rapidly expands the singularity, gravity (and perhaps other force) gets stronger until it slows inflation enough when big bang expansion occurs.
Light energy, E=h v=h c/λ, that means that when E goes 0 then λ grows to the infinity. That means when a light source is turning its light off, before the darkness the λ will be red shifted, then what dilatation of the Universe is this? Let's say the galaxy had moved to the side, even towards us, but its light had not yet reached us from the new position? If we see the light from the older position with the arriving of the last portions of light this light isn't going to be with less energy and for that reason to the red? I don't know but the Planck's formula for quanta of light energy is suggesting that explanation.
The BICEP 2 Collaboration...
*Dom Mazetti has entered the chat*
"And this was weird. According to the prevailing theory, the two sides
of the universe have never been in contact. So how could two places
that had never been in contact be so similar?"
Instead of making up something as outlandish as inflation to answer this question, lets use an established law. In fact, the second law of thermodynamics. All actions in the universe are curtasy of the universes ordered state. As energy is used the universe gains entropy and goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one. Therefore, the amount of energy available for use in the universe is inversely proportional to its entropy. Since there is a lot (I mean a LOT) of energy available in the universe, the entropy is extremely low and must have been almost (but not quite) zero at the beginning of time. We know the entropy was not zero because then there would be infinite energy and this could not have been because the universe is cooling. You can not dilute and infinite amount of energy. So, practically zero entropy at the beginning of time implies that the order of the very early universe was extremely high which accounts for all places being very similar - high amount of order - by definition. We know it was not perfectly orderly because of the small amount of entropy and this accounts for the small variations in the BGR.
Now that there is a competing theory that perfectly explains the observations, lets take our Occam's Razor out of it's box and use it to cut off the ugly wart of Inflationary therory off of the Big Bang.
Remember, you heard it here from me first... lol.
Sounds plausible to me.
So you mean in the future, the Universe will be in an extremely disordered state.......and remember he said roughly on large scales, he didnt said that Universe looks alike everywhere you see, this means theres no relation of thermodynamics and entropy in this concept in which we are considering in rough aspects, while the energy you are considering of is probably the energy gained by the big bang explosion itself. Imagine drawing some spots on a balloon and then if you burst the balloon these spots will move away from each other away from a common centre of expansion and so basically it is inflating, at some point if we think these spots have their gravitational energy then the inflation effect will completely stop and soon these spots will start pulling each other and will again compress into a small balloon. So basically what I meant to say is that even if you Consider entropy it is a measurement of DISORDER not INCREASE IN DISTANCE, so the distance between the galaxies and all the matter in the Universe is increasing uniformly from a common centre (the place where Big Bang occurred) it is not so that the galaxies are expanding irregularly...so the matter in the universe have constant entropy at any point and so that its energy is constant too( As proven by studies, the amount of energy in Universe remains constant only its volume changes.)
That is not how entropy works.
LOLing that you think you were the first to propose this!
Joel, you don't understand how the second law of thermodynamics works. The reason that thermodynamic systems reach equilibrium and increase in entropy is because all of the parts of the system are interacting with each other. That's exactly why it's strange that the observable universe seems to be in equilibrium even without the parts interacting with each other.
Feels like the cosmos interest rate is too low.
The light from distant stars is older so doesn't bigger redshift mean that universe expanded faster in the past?
Can the mutual destruction of matter and anti-matter be the mechanism that fueled the inflation of the universe?
3:57!!was just funny
Question: if the universe was much smaller at the time of the Big Bang then it is now, it does not seem possible that a galaxy which, we say, was created at the dawn of the Big Bank (about 14 billion years ago) be reaching our telescopes for the first time today, Should not the first light from that galaxy have already reached and surpassed the (primordial) earth long, long ago? Does cosmic inflation have anything to do in answering this question?
Make a video on quantum entanglement!
He did. Its the last video from his playlist
Why does gravity have negative energy?
I thought you were Ellen Degeneres from the thumbnail of the video. :'D
Why assume that the universe wasn't uniform before inflation? If the universe was extremely hot and teeming with energy after the big bang, that hot state should have been enough to produce uniformity -- so why do we need inflation to homogenize the universe? Also, for inflation to produce a uniform universe, inflation would have to occur everywhere simultaneously. Otherwise, there would have been unevenness. How could inflation happen everywhere simultaneously? If it could happen everywhere simultaneously, then it seems like the universe must have been already uniform. How does inflation cause the expansion of space? I've never heard answers to these questions.
A bit puzzling. If during the Big Bang, the explosion was exerting the same force on all particles, then by right, the particles that formed the mass prior to Big Bang should be given the same amount of energy. Then, they should travel in at least the same speed. If every particle in the mass was having the same degree of the force, how to explain now our universe is having so many different galaxies at so big a space? Unless the mass was so huge that before the Big Bang, the mass was already something the size of the current universe. But, if the mass was so huge, the force generated by the Big Bang must be terrible. Would it be uniformly spread to every part of the mass? If the energy was so huge, the heat could be tremendous. So, would it be possible that the closer to the center of the explosion, the hotter it got?
Help me out here. Why does he say that two objects at either side of the universe, 14 billion one way and 14 billion the other, could not have interacted? Surely if the universe was at one time tiny then everything could have interacted with everything else at that time before racing off to opposite extremes of the universe? In other words they can't interact now but in the past they could have, hence the homogeneous nature of the universe. Why then do we need to introduce inflation? What am I not seeing here?
Sorry, noob question. Even if the most distant objects in the known universe are too far for any information to have reached each other, weren’t they much nearer to each other billions of years ago? Or is that factor already considered in the calculation, hence necessitating Inflation?
This has been bugging me even after watching several videos explaining Cosmic Inflation. Thanks to anyone who will help. Yes, I realize that this is a 7 year old video. But from my frame of reference, it’s pretty new 🙂
Correct if I'm wrong, but even if there was evidence that inflation did happen, it would still not confirm that the explanation of how inflation happened is the right one (inflaton and all that).
Alan Guth in his interview on Closer to Truth said that at the end of inflation the universe ballooned to the size of our observable universe. That's a lot bigger than the size of a marble. In any case the rest of your presentation and the ideas he expresses are the same. Of course we don't know if inflation even happened. Other physicists don't believe it. What else is new?
The trouble with inflation is, you need an assumption to turn it on at the right time, and another one to turn it off ... also at the right time. Because if it doesn’t turn off, then it goes on forever, and you have universes budding off from universes _ad infinitum_ . Some people don’t like this. But they are having a hard time making inflation produce just one universe.
But then, what would have turned off inflation? And why at that time, and not some other?
That’s how science works: you can assume what you like, but every assumption has consequences.
Most likely exotic particles would have existed just after the big bang with extremely high energies. These would have exerted a 'negative pressure' on the Universe to expand. They would have decayed quickly to matter particles, thus stopping the inflation.
Why does the the conformity of the universe have to arrise from "mixing"? Could it not just be that the reality we live in, with our physical laws, generates space that looks the same everywhere because that is the only way it can be?
and remember physics is everything
Or that everything is represented by it. however 99% is still unknown meaning everything we know and see in reality and the cosmos is only that level of comphrension, which explains my ex....
Evidence for cosmic inflation could be impossible to find. Uncertainties introduced by distance , time , size of early universe and past interactions make it difficult to accurately track past events or find credible evidence even if inflation actually happened. We do not even know big bang events have passed us and we are in a new universe. To create gravity we need matter and to creat negative gravitational energy we need energy to pull the matter from the gravitational hold of matter.where will this additional mass and energy come from.So we are back to square one.
no matter which way dr. lincoln turns, the chalkboard is the same. is that a quantum thing? i'm uncertain.
Wouldn't the light we now see coming from vastly different places once upon a time have been in the same place?
I've always pictured it as if we are observing the big bang from the inside, and because of the expansion of space, it makes it so that we see the same place no matter which direction we look, if we look far enough...
But Im no scientist, so it's probably wrong... :)
I stand to be corrected but I am of different opinion. I was analyzing nasim Haramains work and quantum mechanics where I noticed the aspect of an atom where an electron would at a point be visible and at another point disappear and then reappear. The same with protons if I recall correctly. I think the big bang theory is over simplified and that comes from our lack of dimensionalizing mathematics and limitations in physics as a science. One thing that is consistent through out nature is that everything is layered. So the universe must be layered. A given is the riple effect of gravity due to two large masses pulling each other and bending space as Einstein principle illustrated. AS such I believe there was no big bang but a big splash as the big bang theory is convenient. I am also to the opinion that Black holes are matter recyclers thus they suck out maters from our universe and spwewing it inside the universe inner layers. Further if at all there exist a black hole then by the law of symmetry there has to be an inverse of a black hole meaning something else thats spewing matter in our universe and hence dense dark matter which in reflection causes our universe to expand. The question though is that if the universe is layered, is it a layered bubble or a blob or a contained cocoon.???
Inflation theory sounds Like a plot device to me
Space expands faster than light can go. Here's how it works. If your car, (i.e. light), can go only 180 mph, and,
if you had enough road builders, the road, (i.e. space), can be built faster than your car can go.
Not sure how uniformity is defined. I wonder what an example is of non-uniformity.
Space may not be subject to general relativity (nothing can go faster than the speed of light) but the matter (sub-atomic - particles) in it is. Its a bit like the sun revolves around the earth because that's what it looked like to the ancients. Are scientists looking at inflation in the same way because of what we see through our telescopes?
OK, Douglas Adams said it's "really big", and Terry Prattchett said that there's the "speed of the Dark" which always is there ahead of the light. Eternal superposition means that the result is simultaneous with the change of quantum shape.
The casual use of description, like "an elephant is equal to a hundred strong men", in a tugo'war..., and "equally", "the universe is closed cycle of nothing becoming something and dissipating to nothing in a Big Bang"..., is not quite absurd, but it is just a habit of speech, misused without sufficient specificity.
The Quantum of strain in the connection between elephant and men is balanced, and the dynamic inflation-integration of the Quantum Fields of temporal superposition information, is inherently balanced, ..but the observable universe is an image of an explosion. The math says otherwise, in completeness.
So if Dark Matter and Energy are a reasonable concept to hypothesize, so is Dark Space, (and Tachyons).
Mathematical consistency requires the use of "i", because there is no interactive existence without somewhere to put "it", the quantum-objective, temporal superposition. IMO/hypothesis.
And that would be why, what we see is what we see, has only the properties of condensed information from an infinite supply, in the context of eternal quantum fields. Inflation applies to the observable dimensions of observable space, and Dark properties are in the shadow, knowable mathematically (?) Really "Big Time"
Fun to imagine "i" think.
2:42 Is it not possible that gravity 14 billion years ago, and Gravitational Lensing at this distance has caused all light to turn back on itself. So any direction you look in you're seeing generally the same field of view. Check to see if any parts overlay match. Thank you and I'am a fan of Inflation, but need to chew on it a while...
SND, So it would seem more likely that the Universe suddenly appears into existence everywhere at once or maybe what they see is like a holographic image inside out, mirroring the image at the point where the physical laws come into effect. We are looking backwards in time. I'll think on this and thank you for checking it out, it would be cool to see a map of the universe at its furthest distance in a composite...
Jack Pullen los panchosr
Since this is now an 8 year old video, a more recent episode may contain more conclusive evidence, pro or con. So to Don…time maybe for an update, or is one more recent already out there somewhere…?
I feel like I am watching an early morning children’s show. Why so much fluff?
Could anyone explain negative energy of gravity pls?
My understanding is that potential energy has to be stored somewhere and it is directly proportional to the height of an object off of a surface, so potential energy is stored in gravitational fields. It's also negative because work was done by the gravitational field to get the object to that height. Hopefully I'm remembering it right, I recommend you pursue the question further in case I made mistakes.
Negative energy is something very different, it has to do with dark energy and other very complicated subjects. Plus its not even real, its only an hypothesis.
space inflation, as I see, is it possible by all the gravity's in deep space around us? that visual let us think space inflation is as it is.
But I think there is a forgotten option, mass of so many gravity and this is resulting into Redshift! between us and the more further away sources.
light >> gravity Redshift >> gravity Redshift >> gravity Redshift >> and that by so many gravity objects and distance let us think as we see the space is expanding .
Love this guy but every time I hear a physicist talk about a universe that is the a fraction of the size of a grain of sand I dont know whether to ask him to seek medical attention or to ask him to get back to physics.
Then question becomes what dose it inflate in too ;)
ALAN JOHNSON!!!!!!!!! :D
As Prof. Lawrence Krauss says, "Space can do what it wants."
Space doesn't have a want it just does.
So many assumptions without any real proof. Science