Eternal Universe: The New Theory that Might Change the Way we Think About the Universe
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 พ.ค. 2024
- Discover how a 1946 horror movie inspired three Cambridge lecturers to challenge the Big Bang Theory, leading to the development of the Steady-State Theory of the Universe. Let’s explore this cosmic debate!
Hey guys, PhD candidate in theoretical physics here, now cosmology is not exactly my area but I have somethings to add here. First even though Wilenchik doesn't like it, the doppler effect is indeed confirmed experimentally, even now as I'm using the internet and gps, the satellites need to consider the relativistic doppler effect in order to function, and what we observe in the universe is that the more distant the galaxy, the redder it looks (we compare the light from its stars to the expected spectrum of main sequence stars and whatnot). Second, the Doppler effect is not the only thing that we have to confirm the expansion of the universe, as Simon says we have this time anisotropy of the universe and other things like baryonic acoustic oscillations and polarization of cmb light by primordial gravitational waves, not counting the cmb itself of course.
No evidence against the big bang is considered, a constant stream of James Webb observations that defy nearly every prediction made by big bang cosmology is not enough to instill any deviance from absolute faith in the big bang,
This is really just absolute faith in prestigious persons and institutions but is not driven by evidence so is not driven by science but is driven by submission to FASHION, to disbelieve in the big bang is to be out of step with the latest institutional imperatives, no funding is provided to disprove the big bang but only to prove the big bang
Repeated failures to predict are just written off with ad hoc measures. No one will be able to fund a career by challenging the big bang therefor we should doubt the big bang all the more!
It is virtually taboo for academic insiders to question the big bang if they expect to be taken seriously by institutions and publishers so the real proof of the big bang is that is what all the funding and prestige coerces insiders to conclude or else.
@LeonMRr I tried Googling for time anisotropy, but couldn't find anything on it (besides just anisotropy). Do you understand time anisotropy? I would like to learn about it.
I think I've always been skeptical of the Big Bang theory. At the end of the day, all we have to go off of is the light that we receive. It's plausible that light loses energy after traveling millions of lightyears. We just don't know; we might never know...
Interestingly, old light is slower than new, also making a dappled shift
@@hillaryclinton1314 Okay, but what evidence do you have of that? I mean, I only have theories. What you say is plausible, but without proof you can't say that it is true
Aham. And then the Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems smacks the researchers in the face.
I'm going with the giant turtle theory.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Harry Potter universe is possible.
Magic with no scientific explanation, which is magic is..
Behold the turtle, and in his back he carries us all.
It's turtles all the way down.
Created by the Great Spaghetti Monster.
Fell for the clickbait, the word NEW.
lol, he is a good presenter!
Even WITH the beard!
Yeah I found it a total waste of time.
I am downvoting the video for wrong title.
I hate click bait, it is fundamentally dishonest, it steals views (and dollars) from more honest content creators. There is worse though, at least he didn't start with "Horrified scientists flee CERN in terror as a gateway to Hell opens...".
I watched 80%, realized essentially nothing was new, just a rehashing, then stopped. No upvote. I will continue to watch further videos, hoping he will quit doing this, but if he doesn't I will ignore him.
@@drx1xym154 Hmmmm...that beard is suspicious ngl. I wonder what he's hiding under there 🤔
"...all galaxies are red shifting." (OH, except Andromeda...and many others). Sooooo...not exactly ALL.
That's the problem with academia in general...a recognized scientist could say exactly that and there might be .01% of the population that would or even could say anything contradictory. The rest would just accept it as fact and move on.
Galaxies that are close to us are not moving away , they are moving closer to each other due to gravity , they will become one galaxy in the future, not everything is red shifted
@@velkylev4217 Then they shouldn't say, "all" galaxies are redshifting. They could say all super-clusters are reshifting/moving away from each other or something like that.
@@coginktattoos majority is red shifted few are not , who cares .
@@coginktattoos - exactly - unfortunately when scientists speak a natural language rather than math - they fall into the colloquial patterns - which in english includes 'all or nothing' expressions - either black or whilte without shades of gray - but if you confront a scientist about this - they will correct themselves easily enuf - they know that neighboring galaxies will be converging - and for that reason - some distant galaxies will be seen as oncoming - but the vast vast majority are moving outward - so think of it as rounding off when they say "all"
Bit of a click bait title, no?
A layman seeks attention and gets corrected. Big news.
Welcome to TH-cam
yes - more so than usual - this was about an old theory - fully discredited - with (in this video) a non-professional defending it
I agree but the algorithm forces this kind of thing it's better than another robotic AI video that says pretty much nothing.
As usual
The origin of _cosmological_ redshift is NOT the Doppler effect. It's not relative movement between galaxies (especially at large distances where this becomes negligible). It's due the space itself expanding & stretching the wavelengths of any light transiting through it.
The process is fundamentally different, even if the observables are similar.
Word!
Yes, and because all space os expanding everywhere, EVERYWHERE is the center of the universe
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
They are all just shadows on the wall of Plato's cave.
Question, does that mean that Space/time expands between the peaks of light's wave form?
The 'New' Theory clickbait.
Where's my lady fedora? Our consciousness is the only reason we view time as linear; technically, 'new' doesn't exist. This *has* all happened already. This *will* always be happening. It *has* always happened. Events are not genuinely new but part of an ongoing continuum. *Eternal recurrence* is the idea that time and events are cyclical or eternally repeating. We exist inside of the active Big Bang where time is only perceived because we have brain matter; our perception of time is a byproduct of our neurological structure.
Followed by 16 min of gobbledygook that doesn't really say anything. And like MOND there are approx. 3 scientists who take it serious.
Clickbait how so?
@@vlatepes1901 There's nothing new about it.
@@ArnoWalter ahh yeah I was just wondering but now I understand thank you
I 100% believe arguments like this can be healthy for science and scientists .
If science was religion, Which it is not religion requires no evidence , Science requires evidence, Personal opinion, incredulity and posting bullshit like this on TH-cam are not evidence and not the way about getting it reviewed.
Thier is a reason god believer's use social media to PROVE their god instead of the methodology of science.
It is TH-cam and channel's like this that area damaging science.
NO! We've all got to believe the experts and not argue. There lies the truth!!!
@@jonathanpork-sausage617 this theory was disproven by the microwave background radiation in 1948.
The solutions to everything are already out there. The problem is, these are lost in some TH-cam thread with Zero views. Arguments like this I believe are stupid because 2 people with the ability to argue and the access to make the argument happen, is not the best use of our energy. What IS the best use is to find all the solutions that are already out there and actually list them all and check them all. If every single theory of the universe was listed on a single page, people could attribute supporting evidence to contradicting evidence and people could read through it and just find the solution that line up with every bit of evidence. But instead, 2 wrong people will argue with stupid ideas that waste eveyone's time. Not saying all arguments are like that but many are obviously wrong so why argue them. Argue the ones that are 99.9% accurate across the board. But they have to find them first.
Or they can waste time researching disproven science....
Funding well spent.
Yeah those 3 guys were smoking that Perfect Cosmological Principle
Ha Ha!!!!
I love PCP
I pSEEp what you did there.
New Simon Channel INCOMING!!!!! Moviegraphics :-)
No, Cinegraphics
Simon would actually need to WATCH movies for this to work 😂
@@captainspaulding5963 Yes. I imagine it more like Brain Blaze, where the writers send him scripts and he gets to react to them. Even do games of real/fake like they do with video games.
@mikeygallos5000 now this is a channel I'd be down to watch!!
He has a new channel, but won't tell us. He announced it on the members only brain blaze. He wants it to grow on its own merits.i have not found it yet.
My hypothesis is that our universe is too large and too old for us to determine its age or how it was created. I call it the We Don't Know theory.
I put the our universe at around 700,000,000,000,000 at least,
Our universe from images is very old as global clusters of galaxies and the highways between them show our universe is very old.
ANother half a trillion years and their will be no filaments of matter between super clusters,
Hubble's constant is tranvertsal velocity as a consequence of Bing Bang Velocity.
The truth is that nobody really knows. But experts in the field will not admit that they do not know because it makes them look clueless.
Why does the 'universe' have to have been created, rather than simply have been there for ever?
Big Bang and God/s are interchangeable terms and/or notions meaning exactly the same thing-
-which is, that nobody actually knows. Myself, I prefer "infinite" universe, and/or "cyclic" universe.
On the face of it that sounds like an almost religious comment - what implication should draw form that statement? Why bother trying, or but we learn so much by trying?
@@johnhough7738 something inside of has always gravitated towards a cyclical model, this isn't backed up by theory as far as I know, it's just my feeling. But does our current understanding go against that possibility? We infer the big bang to be a beginning of sorts, but could it just be part of a cycle that we cannot see past?
I think the fundamental thing for me is that I struggle with the concept of a beginning of everything, what was before? Is 'nothing' even a possible state, surely it cant be a state because it's nothing. I guess i just find an eternal cycle to be a much more tidy explanation.
When I saw the title of this video I was not expecting such an excellent discussion of the subject matter. I love that you frequently acknowledge the limits of your own understanding, while still conveying a lot of very technical information in a very clear way. My compliments to the scriptwriter for this one. I regularly watch PBS Space Time and consider myself to be reasonably knowledgeable about these subjects, and even so, I came away from this video feeling like I had learned some valuable things!
PBS spacetime is really not a great resource. Check out Floathead Physics for one of the best explainers of these incredibly complicated and unintuitive concepts.
Interesting! A long time ago, because I have no one I can talk to about these things, I went on Reddit's Astronomy subreddit and asked something like _"What if the Big Bang was not the beginning of everything but just a part of a cycle? What if the universe expanded and somewhere, something like a black hole attracted everything around, leaving nothing except what is now too far away to be observed due to the expansion and at some point, this black hole (or singularity) suddenly "exploded", creating a new big bang and because everything else is now too far away to be observed, we think that what we can see is all there is...?"_
I explained that I dropped out of high school, that all I know about astronomy is what I learned online and that I was there, not to claim anything but to learn from people who actually know about astronomy.
I was ridiculed, people said that questions starting with "what if" are pointless and basically, everyone made me feel like I was just an uneducated fool with idiotic ideas who got lost and ended up in "their" subreddit and that this wasn't a place for people like me.
Finally, my post was removed with the mention that I had posted "pseudoscience".
I might not have used the correct words and maybe it had nothing to do with a black hole but it looks like my initial hypothesis wasn't that wrong after all...
Well, a cyclical Universe is nothing new, even in scientific circles. Big Bang-Big Crunch-Big Bang cycles were being talked about even into the 90s. And then we calculated the expansion with new evidence from HST and other observatories. And we realized the expansion was accelerating instead of slowing down. Kinda put a nail in the Big Crunch, at least as it currently exists. I even remember having a book on it as a kid.
As for expanding beyond the visible horizon into new universes, that is possible, though we would expect to see shadows (for lack of a better word) towards the edges of our pocket of the Universe. For such bubbles to break off into their own separate 'verses, the problem would be how you contend with changes in physics where 'verses interact. If there is no interaction, then that implies that instead of being an isolated universe, they would just be very distant islands of gravitationally interacting material, but still part of the larger Universe.
There are tens of thousands of pages worth of literature covering the basics of the various hypothesis, and their merits. It's probably better to read some books on the subject rather than asking randoms on the internet. Even if no one stooped to ridicule, well written books should offer better explanations in most cases, and would give you the language to better communicate on the subjects. To take one of your points, we don't believe that what we can see is all there is (thus why "observable universe" is a term). There are no good reasons to believe that to be the case, and there are many good reasons to believe it definitely is not the case.
An important point to keep in mind is to always try to be aware of what are well founded theories, versus what are interesting but poorly supported hypothesis. The latter might be fun for thought experiments, but until supporting evidence is established that's all they are.
You can thank leftists who hate new ideas for your treatment. People should quit the group think and be kind to people whether they are right or wrong.
I'll point out that even these TH-cam comments commenting on your comment contain dismissive, unintuitive rhetoric, so I'm not surprised r/astronomy Redditers are massive, primordial black hole jerks. They're caught up on the singularities related to the economics of a theoretical physics degree in 2023, and old Steve Martin comedies. This is all for me to say don't discount yourself. Ever. For someone who "dropped out of high school" you sure did write an intricate question and told a compelling story (at least to me, beauty to the beholder).
But. Let me answer your question a little by point out the Lorentz factor and ads-CFT correspondence (my contentious conviction). The Lorentz factor is the approximation of the singularity you seem to be hinting at in your question. Because the equation is written as 1/(sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)), you can draw out a graph that goes into infinity- can't divide by zero. The universe doesn't care. Past a black hole's event horizon, light/causality breakdown/invert, since our universe likes to break your old math teacher and go into a 1/0 for Lorentz. Bad generalization, of course, but the key is to understand why people even talk about singularities in the first place (Einstein and Lorentz, cool story too). And I personally think ads/CFT correspondence or The Holographic Universe is the correct answer, which would mean our universe is a black hole universe and black holes reproduce like people (Cosmological Natural Selection Hypothesis).
Hope this helps (or makes a pompous TH-camr angry) (I'll also point out quantum uncertanity, since I don't know if I'll hit cancel or reply; this comment will still end up in the black hole of my mind *notifications turned off thank you*)
Sounds like you experienced some Grade-A Primo gatekeeping. "What if" is bassically one of the foundations of science, the only difference between your what if & theirs being their own education/ expertise & their unwillingness to explore ideas not of their own origin. I've never used Reddit, but I assume it's like the rest of the interwebs: primarily populated w/ armchair experts & a few experts in training (students) that are afraid to explore thoughts outside of the accepted echo chamber.
There are 3 famous quotes/ sayings that sum up my opinion of "experts" (in any field):
A) "Out of the mouths of babes oft comes wisdom" being the one they seem to be ignoring in your case.
2) "You don't understand a thing unless you can explain it to a 5 year old" occasionally countered by "Well nobody *really* understands it, but we're trying" but usually met with some variation of "It takes years of study to understand so you must take our word for it".
&) "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". Similar to #2, but more reliant on jargon & the audience's own ignorance to make their point. IMO not very helpful to fostering interest in the field in question.
The commercial for the "Miracle air conditioner" some dude Tony Starked in his basement is a nice touch on a science video. Good lord, TH-cam.
Even I wrote a paper on using the Doppler Effect in the RF spectrum, that speeding ticket you got based on a "Lidar Gun" is real factual evidence that it works.
LIDAR measures the amount of time for light to bounce back from a moving object. Is that how red shift works?
@@DJDAVEKHEN Measuring distance and measuring speed are done differently. Speedometers evaluate Doppler-shifted light.
This guy denying Doppler shift is embarrassing.
Not exactly. The RADAR gun sends signals that come back at different time intervals based on your speed. It does NOT measure the actual Doppler shift of a single beam.
@@bobfleischmann5208 see doppler lidar , turns out stuff took a log longer to come out of the lab and into measurement/testing equipment.
Then there's also that spinning plate in the microwave but not in a normal oven or under a grill. Interference patterns become relevant at microwave frequencies. Surprised me too.
I really thought they would be covering the latest James Webb observations. The fact that it's heating up scientific debate right now on this very subject further confuses me.
I, for one, am loving it.
I dub it the Finnegan’s Wake theory of the universe. Not because it’s cyclical, because it’s impossible to follow.
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
You read that story too? Finnegan's wake is going back a while.
@@MountainFisherFinnegans wake* actually
@@bated_8247 Yes, there is no " ' " in the book title unless he refers to the song of the similar name
When I was growing up in the early 60's Simon, I was taught the Steady State model, not the Big Bang.
did you pass science - i learned about the big bang in school in the 60s - i loved science and stayed awake during the lectures - and while reading the textbook - i'm not sure if my classmates paid attention tho
@@johneyon5257 I wasn't taught the Big Bang until high school.
@hughb5092 yeah, you may wanna include that next time. Your original comment makes it seem like you weren't taught the big bang at all.
It’s one of many but can’t be finite by nature. If you have a box there’s still the area outside the box and by definition that is infinite regardless of its ability to be traversed
Big Bang doesn't say all matter was in a specific point of space-time. It states that space was the point that expanded into space-time. Big Bang started everywhere, in every single point of space-time.
An infinitely large universe cannot be reversed in time to form a singularity. This wrong idea drives me nuts every time I hear it. The universe may have exploded from a very dense initial state but was always infinitely large from the beginning. Think about it. If there was ever an edge to the universe it implies an already existing universe that our universe exploded into so we can then see an edge, and it also implies that there is a place we can locate in our universe where it all began, which there isn't. There was never a singularity and the state before the big bang was logically some sort of crazy dense medium that existed everywhere and then suddenly expanded to great extent allowing the laws physics and elements to form. It's only our observable universe that could conceivably look like a small sphere or point like singularity when time is run backwards.
@@garman1966 The term singularity doesn't always mean single point in space. In the case of a big bang, it refers to the point where lines on a Penrose Diagram terminate. In the case of the big bang, all space was compressed everywhere. Time and Space are linked, so when space began, so did time. The other way to think about it is the north pole. As you move "north" there is a point in where moving north no longer means anything. You have made it to the end of the north line. Here the same is true of time, all of time spreads out from the singularity. Space, which is everywhere, expands outwards.
@@absolutedisgrace Time is simply the chronological measurement of a change in state. If the entire universe were taken to absolute zero, by no experiment, measurement or any other evidence, could it be proved, that any "time" is/has passed. Without a change in state somewhere, Time is either non-existent, or irrelevant.
Space-Time is an oxymoron, as "Time" is a necessary component of everything in our "dimension" or existence. Photons, that should experience no passage of time due to speed, will still ultimately experience aging and death. Time is a condition of existence in our reality, and nothing escapes it.
But of course, that depends on whether time actually slows down with velocity. The problem is that our present methods to "prove" this, suffer from a confirmation bias. The "clocks/rulers" are susceptible to the effects they are trying to measure. The experiments are like having two cars race, but one has a straight lane, and the other has to navigate a slalom. With both cars doing the same speed, the car on the straight lane, will arrive before the other one. The reason is the difference in distance travelled, but both experienced Time, at exactly the same pace.
In the Macro, we are going in 1 direction, but everything in the micro spins, rotates, revolves and vibrates. My mind may have gone straight from A to B, but everything around me, went all over the place.
What you measure by, dictates the "effect", and until you can separate your Clock from the effects you are trying to measure, we can never be sure if Time marches to different speeds.
@@garman1966 '' If there was ever an edge to the universe it implies an already existing universe that our universe exploded into so we can then see an edge '' Or it can imply that the universe reside in a bubble/dimension that is not intrinsic with the universe itself. We can speculate matters act like water, flowing in the direction of less resistance. And we have no way of finding the '' corridors '' of the time-space the universe evolves in. Was the Big Bang a creation moment or the breach of a '' dam/edge '' ?
I think we are quick to picture the macro universe.
If you were to ping radar waves from water level in the Pacific in any direction, you would never discover the continents surrounding it. It is the same for the universe. There is a limit to how far we can see with '' pings '' and we know light, in all its spectrum, is a limited method of observations.
That's impossible. "Everywhere else" did not even exist yet.
This has to be the 4th or 5th channel I've subbed to with this dude as the host, gotta say, he is good at what he does
He is. However this video is probably one of the worst
@@lionelmessisburner7393 I agree. Too much for me to handle.
This man has like 12 channels.
Those are rookie numbers, lol
Simon is slowly taking over TH-cam.
No, papers have not "cast doubt on the big bang." There is a discrepancy between current models and new data from the JWST but these discrepancies don't invalidate the so-called big bang. Steady-state has so many problems (failing to make predictions that map to empirical observations, for example) that it's not a credible alternative. Nor is Penrose's idea of a conformal cyclic universe (it makes several assumptions we know to be invalid). Today, the only viable theory remains the big bang, though we can expect this to be improved over time as most theories are including the cornerstones of modern physics: general relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which are known to be incomplete. But incomplete is not the same as being invalidated.
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
I think the latest JWST findings regarding well developed galaxies being formed just hundreds of millions years after the Bing Bang is a bit more problematic than what you are acknowledging and I am surprised Simon didn't delve into it. We're missing something big particularly regarding Dark Matter and there's going to be some significant changes to our models of the early universe in the years. We're still at the stage where we don't know what we don't know aka the latest gravitational wave findings!
@@EJBert Correct me if I am mistaken, but weren't those findings using the images in different infrared frequencies but not actual spectroscopy so there is a larger range as to where the hydrogen line is? Didn't another paper come out indicating that based on that larger range the galaxies could still fit within the current model and that until spectroscopy was done to reduce the possible range it can't be confirmed as an issue with the current model?
I don't know if you've seen Dr. Becky, but she has a video titled "Has JWST shown the Universe is TWICE as old as we think" where she goes through the paper that seemed to make the news and indicates what I mentioned as why it may not be as big of news as it looked like.
Gotta agree. The one thing stead state doesn't seem to be talking about, unless it was mentioned somewhere and I missed it, how can matter be created? That would involve a major major major physics rewrite. The rest of it would at least still use mostly the same physics. But thats a fundamental law, "matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed."
Quantum theory states virtual particles popping in and out of existence, but they're virtual. Not at all the same thing. So it just doesn't work.
The story of science is the continuing overthrow of mainstream theory. I’m not at all convinced our current big bang theory with inflation, dark matter and dark energy, is for sure the correct one. It’s good to have both defenders of the current theory and those that are pushing new theories.
I can not disregard Halton Arp with the fascinating lecture that can be found on the Thunderbolts Project TH-cam channel.
As a grad student in astro back in the 80s, I was fascinated and perplexed by Arp's tenacious adherence to his own theory that redshifts were "non-cosmological" to disastrous effect on his otherwise "stellar" career.
Topics like these make my head hurt.
Especially the notion of an endless universe I can't comprehend. How can something be endless. But if it does have an end, what's beyond the end of the universe. And what beyond that. I shouldn't watch videos like this, it's bad for me. Yet so interesting
I hear JWT knocking harder every day. What I found interesting is what he didn't say about tired light and quasars. Such as how a highly red shifted quasar that's supposed to be ancient, appears in front of a less red shifted, much larger galaxy.
Or how quasars always just happen to appear as if they are spinning off from galaxies.
Plasma electric universe has some compelling arguments.
It's about time to challenge the theory of a Roman Catholic priest, who was influenced by the book of Genises.
Tired light was debunked ages ago.
The more I learn about the universe, the more I realize we really don't know that much, and everything about the creation to end is just assumptions and theories. It's humbling that we still can't figure out gravity.
Very interesting and argumented video. I wish I could discuss the subject with people like you. Regards
I enjoyed this. Thank you.
Tired light is like someone saying god is real because a book they read says so.
That book just happened to also say that god is "life" and that the universe had a beginning made of light ✅. It also explained the relevance of water in the formation of life ✅ and it described that the ocean was dark before life started ✅ and it described that life started with sea life, turned into flying creatures, and then land dwelling creatures ✅. Yea it said god is real but hey, many know god is real not because of a book and many dont know god is real despite reading said book. I dont know if light gets "tired" (probably not) but i know we dont know alot of things and id bet the bank on that fact.
You can neither prove nor disprove God.
This is one of the dumbest comments I have ever seen. I guess you don't buy anything from history books either, which is a category the bible would technically fall into. There is so much I can say here but I don't have all day.
That Wilenchik stuff has extremely strong hallmarks of quackery. It's dripping with it.
Extremely strong hallmarks of flat-earthery, at a cosmic scale, in particular!
If stars, all be it huge stars, can create such density when they implode that they create "black holes", which have such gravity that they won't only not let anything escape but which have never been witnessed or even theorized to explode, then how the heck could a spot that holds all of the universe exist, and explode? The Big Bang theory is only based on the observance that things are red shifted.
The universe is big enough that, whatever we want to look for, we will find it. Observations about quasars are flawed. There's every possibility that actually they're younger, smaller and closer than we thought they were. That would change everything. And of course there are now the JWST observations of ancient, mature galaxies at the edges of the observable universe which "shouldn't exist". If these images had been available decades ago, I believe we would not have entertained any notion of a Big Bang.
Thank you Simon, for this video...
A movie themed channel might not be a bad idea…
Wait, we went from Pimaeval Atom to big bang? But Primaeval Atom sounds so much cooler. I am going to start using that now.
Well sort of. Primevil atom is what happened right after the big bang. It was a term used to describe leptons and muons or the early version of atoms before the universe cooled. 😎
But what happened before that? And what happens after that? Ergo, universe is eternal. There can be neither beginning nor end, only points before which and after which we have no frigging clue.
@TheComedyGeek, thank you.
Beautifully narrated!!
I didn't know the proponent of the "tired light" hypothesis was a lawyer, but it makes sense. Stating that light is not a wave might sound like an argument that could convince a jury, but not one to pass a scientific test.
I believe light has certain properties that sometimes make it look like a wave and sometimes like a particle. Since he was a lawyer, he may have been over-relying on the particle properties.
I think it's infinite and has no beginning. If there was ever truly nothing, then there would have been nothing to cause a change. With nothing to cause a change, then that nothing would remain nothing indefinitely.
👍👍
And so it did ... infinitely.
And then, in that Eternal (infinite~!) Nothing, something changed and created a (silent) immensely colossal vast explosion that popped us all (eventually) into existence.
Naaahhh, I can't go along with that one either.
Now, for anyone holding his breath to tell me all about good ole God ...
... where the Hell did good ol' God come from, hmmm? Created by a more Goddy god? Who in turn was created likewise by a more godier God (see where I'm going with this? You can finish it for me ... and good luck).
This is ultimately a philosophical issue, I think. It depends on whether or not one thinks that the "principle of sufficient reason" is true/has always been true. If it's true, then either it's infinite or there is a god. If not, all bets are off.
Nobody claims there was nothing before the BB, just that we can't possibly know what came before it, or even if that question makes sense. Like asking what's north of the north pole.
@@dittikke I'm not sure if it's possible to KNOW for CERTAIN or not, but I don't it's inconceivable that we might get to a point at which we could at least rank various possibilities by likelihood.
Popular Mechanics is not exactly a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It also published plans for building a birdhouse.
Great video to popularize cosmology, love your cheer, and clarity on the evidence.
The research on this video was not exactly stellar (pun intended). Yes, you got Lemaitre right and the important facts were okay (not great, but okay). But to even consider "Popular Mechanics" and some complete unknowns for cosmology topics is way off the mark when there is plenty of published literature by professionals. Pop.Mech. is great for Engineering, but not Astrophysics. Considering even the idea that light is particles and particles only is non-scientific at best and immediately disqualifies anything else the author says. The Steady State Theory is history and should be presented as such - there is no longer a debate. If you want to spice things up by challenging Big Bang - go for stuff like Cyclic Conformal Cosmology - at least there is a credible scientist behind that one.
Word!
I guess quantity vs quality. Like that weather change chart that was referring to nothing in the video.
I'd say, Simon needs to always start with the disclaimer, that everyone should do their own fact checking. Obvious, but needs to be vicalized.
But I like the variety of the topics and the fact that they are usually pretty good and also a nice starting point/direction to satisfy your quriousity.
But, yeah. I agree - a bit more quality control could've been beneficial for us, but I'm not sure if it would be the same financially for the creator
You guys saw the word might and saw it as the word will didn't ya
Too much AI, Simon has really overused it lately.
This video topic is total bs. It should be taken down.
Wait. Isn’t at least one galaxy blueshifted? We’re on a collision course with Andromeda galaxy so it’s light must be blueshifted? Yes?
Yes. Andromeda and (I think) a few other galaxies in the local group are blueshifted due to their particular motion in our general direction. I believe this may also be the case for a scant few galaxies in the next cluster over which just happen to be sliding slightly closer to us even as the majority of the cluster recedes. But please don't take my word for it. I am just going by memory.
Thousands of galaxies are all heading toward what they call the great attractor, their theories have problems
@@real_lostinthefogofwar and they are all being pulled by the Shapley Supercluster
@@OOL-UV2 Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
Well, you don't know what you don't know until you know. Great video much information. Thank you
Great overview.
The cosmological redshift has nothing to do with the Doppler-effect. The galaxies are not moving through space, but the space in between them is expanding, hence their emitted light is 'stretched' resulting in a decreasing frequency. Having said that, there in fact is a little Doppler effect as well, because galaxies are indeed moving through space, e.g. the Andromeda galaxy is moving towards us and will collide with the Milky Way in a few million years. This Doppler effect however is tiny. It's useful to detect the rotation of the galaxy, since parts of the distant galaxy rotate towards us while other parts move away. However, this effect is on top of the cosmological redshift and very tiny.
It's funny that you say Doppler red-shift is "tiny". I understand that this is relative to space expansion at the edges, but there is terrestrial technology that has to compensate for Doppler shifting at terrestrial speeds. Even our weather uses Doppler radar in order to track precipitation speeds. Important to tell if there's a swirl.
@@BenjaminCronce 'Tiny' in the sense that the galaxy's own movement through space is slow in comparison to the expansion rate of the universe.
do you realized you contradicted yourself - "galaxies are not moving" - " galaxies are indeed moving through space" - the term 'doppler effect' refers to the stretched sound or light wave - it has nothing to do with how the objects are being moved
@@johneyon5257 *do you realized you contradicted yourself - "galaxies are not moving" - " galaxies are indeed moving through space"*
Yes ;)
The cosmological Redshift has nothing to do with the Doppler effect, as the galaxies are *not moved through spacetime* by the expansion - like dots on a surface of a balloon do not change their positions, when you inflate the balloon; only the distance between the dots increases.
However, each galaxy has its proper motion through spacetime in relation to an observer due to interactions with other galaxies and galaxy-clusters, and this proper motion causes a Doppler effect.
@@cyanah5979 - you are contradicting yourself thru out this post too - there's no point in trying to get you straightened out - but know that only the shallow and gullible are going to be taken in by your ramblings
You need to cross reference all of your channels, will help the algorithm massively.
Solid!
Top KEK!
Peace be with you.
"Dead of Night" is in my list of best film noir ever.
It seems ludicrous that finite creatures could ever really define what is infinite.
Hey our matter is also infinite.
DNA is designed for permanent existence.
I would flip that on its head - it's ludicrous that any part of an infinite continuum could define something as finite.
Utter nonsense. We can define eternity, what we cannot do is comprehend the infinite though we can apprehend the concept. The fact that we have a word for infinity shows we can define it. If something exists now then something has always existed since eternity past. If at anytime there was nothing (nonexistence) there wouldn't be anything still, but there is something so the past is infinite. Just like we can conceive of nothing we can conceive of infinity, we just cannot visualize or comprehend either concept. It is why words mean things that cannot be visualized, but can be conceptualized unless you're a physicist who despises philosophy all the while using piss poor philosophy.
Well guess what, intelligence is OP.
Standard Doctrine should be challenged in all things. It's how we grow and learn and is a core tenant of science. There is a quote from Einstein that comes to mind... 'No amount of experimentation can prove me right, but one experiment can prove me wrong' I believe he was challenging everyone to 'prove him wrong'. So yeah, got evidence of a steady state universe? let's see it. If the theory of the big bang is wrong it will not be a bad day for Cosmology, It'll be a Great day because we've learned something new.
Debate should always be welcomed as it is the best way to challenge or confirm theories. Change will always happen on some level as knowledge improves AND (also) proves the validity of the scientific method,
Shoutout to Yuri Balashov! He taught me Intro to Logic at UGA. Good professor : D
"The reason why the universe is eternal is that it does not live for itself; it gives life to others as it transforms."
-- Lao Tzu
"Scooby dooby doo !"
- Scooby Doo
Another point against Steady State is that, if the universe is infinite and _doesn't_ expand, we wouldn't see points of light in the darkness, light would be EVERYWHERE.
not if tired light is the case
@@billwesley And event horizon says no as well. There isn't light everywhere we look because the vast majority of stellar matter is so far away the light has yet to reach here.
yet we could still be completely wrong with the big bang
Definitely glad for the on going debate! Science only works through constant questioning, debating, observing and testing 😁
The reason why the big bang is the accepted theory is how much it explains and how it fits into the standmodel. There are incredible amount of experiments done to test different aspects of it. Its similar to proving evolution through natural selection. Its not one test, but many, of many different properties. And the more evidence is collected the more it seems to be tge right theiry.
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Sadly this is just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
It's wrong. The microwave background is just light from extremely distant galaxies.
Oh really? Then explain why 1) the universe expanded much faster than the speed of light only for a fraction of a second, then slowed way down, and 2) why we would be so lucky to find ourselves at the center of it.
@phillipsusi1791 We are not "in the center" of the universe..... Seriously. That's like third grade level stuff.
Why would you think we are "in the center?"
@@anderslarsen4412 go outside tonight at look.
I think that several of the current theories of everything are simply anthropomorphic interpretations. We see/feel/think one way and then extrapolate that this must be true everywhere. We take ordinal finite math designed around counting sheep for our bartering systems and push it out to ridiculous lengths. All the while trying gain dominance over the unknown by putting into a neat and understandable box.
Nothing of what you said actually serves to undermine or gainsay the power of our "finite math", or any other of our finite faculties or tools, to describe or understand circumstances or phenomena besides counting sheep.
It works until it's proven not to.
Emphasis on "proven".
well, everywhere we look, we see same things. Same stars, same Supernova, same spectres, same Microwave background. This is in my eyes very strong observable evidence, that the laws of the universe, at least in the observable universe, are the same.
And there is no observation, i'm aware of, which indicates anything else, so in my opinion, it is best the explanation, even when looking at it unbiased
It is almost in a way back to Plato’s cave. We ‘see’ via a pair of 3mm holes that expose rods and cones sensitive to a narrow range of electromagnetic spectrum. The number of photons we never detect far out weighs the paltry few we convert to sodium ion signals in our brains. My point is that we seem to be too invested in being right/right now.
All of our physics are based on specific assumptions natively to our intelligence but not necessarily the actual physics. Heck we made up the concept of time and proceeded to shoehorn all of our physics into an interval that is based upon Galileo‘s heart rate in earth’s gravitational field.
@@benanddadmechanical6573 hm, for me, physics isn't necessarily about being right, but about making useful predictions. We use little data we have to derive hypophysis, and if they start making useful predictions, they are elevated to theories. No one should insist on them being the truth.
Same with Quantum Mechanics, something doesn't add up (probabilty wave collapse, anyone), but it is just too useful to build tools like computers to not use it 😎
@@benanddadmechanical6573 to conclude, keeping this in mind should make us humble enough to admit, that what we know is just our currently best theorie, can be be replaced with a better one. On the other hand, If we knew everything, how boring would that be?... 😁
What we know about the origins of the universe, is merely a placeholder for the truth that has yet to be revealed.
The eternal timeline, string theory, theory of relativity, dark matter; I lose sleep over these things, in a good way. If I could go back in my perceived time and study quantum mechanics for a living I'd do it. Shout out to those of you who dedicated your life to theoretical studies, my kind of peeps.
Alternative cosmological theory papers never make it past the gatekeepers. There are some solid ideas that ride more on observational evidence as opposed to mathematics alone, but established science keeps the general public ignorant in order to protect thier own egos and livelihood.
Exactly plasma electric and magnetic universe theories are banned by the evil gatekeepers
Well, you got one thing wrong. Not all Galaxy's are going away from us. The Milky Way Galaxy is supposed to collide with the Andromeda Galaxy in approximately 4.5 billion years, so it is going away from us? Then how can we collide with it. If i'm wrong, please explain how. I'm not criticizing or meaning to sound like I'm criticizing. I enjoy your videos very much. I hope you keep making them.
You're right.
unfortunately when scientists speak a natural language rather than math - they fall into colloquial patterns - which in english includes 'all or nothing' expressions - things are said to be black or white without shades of gray - but if you confront a scientist about this - they will correct themselves easily enuf - they know that neighboring galaxies will be converging - and for that reason - some distant galaxies will be seen as oncoming - but the vast vast majority are moving outward - so think of it as rounding off when they say "all"
I've always disliked referring to the big bang or the steady state as the "universe". It's just what we can see. There was a time when we thought the Milky Way was the universe and there will be a time in the distant future when galaxies will be too far apart to see, and who knows if any intelligent inhabitants will also consider everything they can see as the "universe" but if they do, we in the past would certainly know that they're wrong.
Several points: 1( the red shift is not caused by a copper shift, but rather the expansion of the space the photons are traveling in. 2) the irony is that expanding space is supposed to have the same vacuum energy content as the pre-existing space, so that energy has to come from somewhere. I think this aspect of current cosmology has something in common with Hoyle's idea of creation of new matter. Curiouser and curiouser!
The name "Big Bang" was given by a detractor of the theory. However, in no way does the theory actually imply any type of "explosion" at the creation of the universe. There was a dramatic expansion of space. Not an explosion of any "primordial atom" .. which itself is also not implied by the theory.
Actually Hoyle meant Bang as in fucking. He was really being derogatory.
@@MountainFisher It's amazing your comment goes through while every attempt I make to politely reply and explain things to people gets insta-banned.
@@MountainFisherthanks for your insightful comment. I didn't know that was the etymology of the phrase.
@@jeffreygordon7194 That was exactly what Hoyle meant. First time it was pointed out to me by a speaker at my astronomy club we all laughed.
@@THE-X-Force Possibly no one flagged me?
I think we humans know as much about the universe as my dogs know where on earth they are located. We still don't even know how much we can detect or see or how much we are missing. Where did the matter for the big bang come from? And into what did the universe expand? If anyone has the ability to fly to the end of the known universe if there is an end, what is after that end? So much we just really don't understand.
they are not aware that they are not aware of their own unawareness, this is why all these funny sci-fi theories lol
@@KM-gt5is exactly, that's what I was trying to say. You worded it perfectly.
‘Were we wrong!?’ Yeah we’re wrong about mostly everything in science, that’s a good thing though
11:26”You’d be forgiven for thinking the *matter* has settled”😂
Great video, always good reconsider the whole reality in which we live. I made a video in which our reality on another planet is reconsidered😊
Yess❤
👏🏻👏🏻
Yeah is good to reconsider our reality
This video is straight pseudo science and theories that have been conclusively disproven over a hundred years ago
So it has no beginning, and no end, it just gets recycled. A woke universe.
Ha ha ha 🤣
In 80 years we went from Germ theory to origin of everything theory.
It's the only model that makes any sense, frankly. The universe "just is", it always "has been", and it will always "just be", because anything as an alternative requires a state of "not being" at some time along the chain of causality, implying that the universe that "is" popped out of "isn't", lol, which breaks the chain of causality, and the whole thing slams into an unreasonable logical barrier.
This isn't to say that the Big Bang didn't take place, it just isn't the beginning of anything at all!
I keep hearing that all the other galaxies are moving away from us yet isn’t Andromeda headed towards us?
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Sadly this is just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
Andromeda is very close by on a cosmological scale. All part of the "local cluster". The universe's expansion is on universal scales.
@THE-X-Force you did not answer the question.
@@Patrick-kq9fyandromeda close expansion far
@@Patrick-kq9fy You don't understand the question or the answer.
12:52 - the “tired light model” is not only “incompatible with the Big Bang,” but it’s also incompatible with Special Relativity: Photons can’t lose energy over the ages, because, traveling at the speed of light, they do not age. Time does not pass for photons.
Also, 13:40 - the question of whether light is a particle or a wave, isn’t even a question; it is both and neither. You can’t think about such objects through “classical physics” eyes.
Also the law of conservation of energy.
As I understand it the Milky Way Galaxy is accelerating towards Andromeda Galaxy, and are entire local group is accelerating towards other local groups, which are accelerating to the center of the cosmic supercluster. So that explains why we thing the universe is accelerating apart.
“We were wrong?”
An apt thumbnail quote.
Redshift must be an artifact of large distances. The idea that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light sounds like bad science fiction.
Ha Ha!!!! EXACTLY!!! Sadly this is just hyped up old nonsense to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
The SPACE is expanding faster than the speed of light. The objects with mass in it are not.
@@THE-X-Force Only the space further away from us than the cosmic horizon is expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. Space near by is hardly expanding at all.
@@phillipsusi1791 I don't know where you studied astrophysics, but consider asking for a refund. "Local" space is no different than the rest of space. That doesn't mean that objects compelled by gravity won't interact.
Clickbait, "The New Theory" is nearly 100years old
It's incredible how much curiosity and intrigue these phenomena generate. For those as captivated by these mysteries as I am, I love creating content about various intriguing phenomena, including Alien and UFO sightings, on my channel, ORBIT - BEYOND THE BLUE. It's amazing to see such a strong community of enthusiasts and researchers sharing their findings and theories. Keep up the great work, and let's continue exploring the unknown together!
"Tired light" or "photon drag" does happen in fiber optics and hence is proven to be viable. However, whoever said that the Dopler effect hasn't been proven, hasn't taken, failed or otherwise, a collage physics course. Since physics is for sale, the bigger the bang, the more funding it will get, and any third option will only be studied in Si-fi.
Am i the only person who has always thought that the big bang theory sounds like complete bullshit? It's like a scientist was trying to make up a bedtime story for his kids and somehow accidentally submitted it for peer review and they just went with it...😂
that's not how science works
Apparently it is. And when you can't balance the books you invent fairie dust, like, oh, I don't know, Dark Matter. I just hope that I live long enough to see them eat a big slice of humble pie.
@@SkYsLiDeR9000 you're delusional
Eternal universe isn't a new theory. This is an old theory repackaged.
That's literally what the video is about
Well done. Have a cookie
EXACTLY!!! Just hyped up to rake in dollars. Didn't even bother to fact check the AI generated drivel.
I find it rather amusing watching so many smart people arguing over something that truly doesn't matter.
It does matter bc if such discussion do not happen then we will be stuck with myths and made up religious stories that keep us in ignorance in many other matters.
@@eldwdubu6968 The discussion might matter but the actual facts do not. That's the point. We'll have scientists, theologians, philosophers and generally low IQ people all with their thoughts, feelings, beliefs and opinions and NONE of them matter to anyone but them. Explain to me how your life will be in ANY way different if you know for 100% certain (and had proof) that the big bang was how it started or if the universe is static. Seriously, please let me know. Same thing goes for if we know for 100% certain that there is intelligent alien life out there. How is your life honestly different?
@@Enjoymentboy If that was the attitude everyone took, there would be no discoveries, no investigations, no science, nothing to push the boundaries of our understanding of the universe, because people would give up such pursuits thinking "what does it matter if we know or not?" No archaeology, because does it matter if we know about the ancient Pharaohs or Sheng Dynasty? Is my life any better for having read "Gilgamesh" and what went into translating it? Does my life somehow change if I know the sun is made of gas, or if it's actually a red dragon, or a chariot of the gods? Am I in any way different for learning that bacteria causes diseases, or should scientists have shrugged it off hundreds of years ago, thinking "how is life in ANY way different if you know for 100% certain"? Am I changed, in any way, having learned that my mother was wrong, that her church was wrong, that dinosaur bones are in fact NOT placed there by Satan to mislead the unfaithful, and the world actually is NOT 7000 years old? Does that knowledge change my life?
I argue.... YES! I am INSPIRED by such revelations. As a writer and a musician, these sorts of discoveries actually DO change my life. The smallest discoveries now that may seem pointless to you could end up making a world of difference in a few decades, much like how discovering that illnesses were not caused by "humors" but by bacteria and viruses, thus saving millions of lives.
If you aren't also inspired by science and debates like this make no difference in your life, that's on you. It's okay if you PERSONALLY are not inspired by the pursuit of knowledge. But thinking no one else is, that this doesn't change human civilization and inspire the human mind in creative ways... well... that's just not true.
@@rhov-anion I see you have confused something being important to you with it actually being important. Most people actually have no understanding of what truly is important and that is a "them problem". I still like to ask how knowing something happened to someone else thousands of years ago affects you today? It actually doesn't but people like to delude themselves into thinking they somehow have a connection to something that they were never, and will never, be involved in. But this is ok. You do not have to agree nor understand. I've found that the vast majority of people are happy to wander around blissfully ignorant and allow others to tell them what is and is not important. It's easier than having to figure it out in their own. Why drive when you can just hand over the keys and have someone else decide your destination?
Realy I like this video its interestyng
Yes yes yes I am a fan of this theory, also I honestly would like the idea of combining both.
I like this series, because as far as i can judge (and for this topic i can), it is always investigated brilliantly. And Simon is also easy to understand for an non native speaker (although he talks very quickly).
at this point i'd like to pinpoint to the ideas of Roger Penrose
You need professor Sean Carroll to proofread your scripts. The information here was good for the most part, but as others have highlighted already a few things could definitely have been better. As a lover of astronomy and astrophysics, I’m glad this channel exists.
Beautiful thumbnail design on the video.
Any theory of the universe, any theory of anything is entirely conditioned, indeed made by the limited means human brains have to observe and experience any phenomena.
Note: while most things are red-shifted and, I believe, getting redder all the time as the expansion of spacetime appears to be accelerating, some things are blue-shifting. In our case, that would be the M31 galaxy, a/k/a, Andromeda, which will be "colliding with" our Milky Way in about 4.5 billion years.
I just watched a full episode of Nova on this very subject.
Really facanating stuff.
The photons might get tired from interacting with virtual particles.
This explains the why it appears to be red shifted.
Another thing is that due the conservation of energy/matter, some particles will be generated in the process, homogenise the universe a bit.
You said all galaxies are redshift, but isn't Andromeda blueshift (coming towards us)?
@@echisbonza3565 objects closer/moving towards us will be blue shifted. Objects farther away/moving will be red shifted. How I understand it.
The problem with any theory about how big the universe is or how old it is, is that we have no real reference point. Why is everything moving away from the earth? That would either suggest that the earth is in fact the center of the universe, or half the universe is moving towards us. Somehow that simple logic is never mentioned in any of the research we hear about. Then there is the guesswork about the distance between objects. To find size you have to know distance. To find distance you have to know the size. Try judging the distance of an object that is really far away and that you don’t know the size of. If you put a large object at a far distance you can put a smaller version closer and they will look like the same size object at the same distance. To compensate for that you have to be able to triangulate the object. You can’t do that from earth out to the distance of cosmic scale. You simply don’t have enough distance between observation points. It helps if you can picture an inverted cone of observation.
In conclusion. All those wonderful theories are based on guessing and bullshit.
That light is a wave was demonstrated as long ago as 1801 when Thomas Young built the first interferometer
Every time I see Simon pop up in my youtube feed, I wonder just how much of a hoot he would be in the the pub, playing darts, and sharing a few pints.
Just when I thought I had every Whistlerverse channel. Astrographics
So can we look forward to a whole new sitcom about Sheldon and his friends?
I like this. This is what i love about science and the intellectual adventure it creates.
Thank you.