There’s a "Problem" with the Big Bang…
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 มิ.ย. 2024
- Please join my mailing list here 👉 briankeating.com/list to win a meteorite 💥
What is the problem with the Big Bang?! Well, there’s actually a lot of problems with the Big Bang. In this clip, I go over them and demonstrate blackbody radiation.
Check out my full discourse lecture at the Royal Institution: • Charting the evolution...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @drbriankeating
📺 Watch my most popular videos:
Neil Turok • Why Neil Turok Believe...
Frank Wilczek • Nobel Prizewinner Fran...
➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms:
✖️ Twitter: / drbriankeating
🔔 TH-cam: th-cam.com/users/DrBrianKeatin...
📝 Join my mailing list: briankeating.com/mailing_list
✍️ Check out my blog: briankeating.com/blog.php
🎙️ Follow my podcast: briankeating.com/podcast
Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known.
Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode!
#intotheimpossible #briankeating #bigbang
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Plays the Race Card!"
• Neil DeGrasse Tyson Hi...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~ - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[UNCUT]"เศรษฐา" โดนบีบให้ลาออก เผยดีลลับ "ทักษิณ" ต้องต่อโปร ไม่งั้นเจอจุดจบ! I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XlH3k81dxmE/mqdefault.jpg)
I love when people question the "established" order. Very interesting talk.
I agree with you, but that is not at all what is going on here. This is all the consensus view among scientists, and has been for a long time now.
Yes, but when these people believe in God, it is some kind of a red flag.
First of all, what is claimed about the birth of the universe is like talking to 6-year-olds, who are supposedly the biggest visionaries and professionals in science. Because the theory of the age of the universe is just a deep guess of the human mind, like rolling dice and always trusting to get the right answer where all the sides have the same number. To be sure, it is still not clear to many people that all matter is a wave of learning, i.e. everything is a texture built from waves, one could ask if an artificial universe like the matrix could also in principle also be the core of everything, if not, what defines the mathematical laws of the wave function?
@@PATRICKJLM why?
@@mojojojo1529 Exactly.
love to see you in a lecture style setup teaching like this! more of these kinds of videos please.
what if the universe isn't getting bigger, we are just getting smaller
@@Anonymous-cc5pnBut everyone has limited understanding of these issues. Your scorn is unscientific.
Would not the cmb just as easily be explained as the remants of contructive and destructive interference paterns across time and space, seen as a culmination of all of the energy that has traversed the cosmos?
Yes. But of course it's convenient that it exists so that it can be used to prove a flimsy premise. All the red-shifting and blue-shifting and what have you that has lead to the conclusion that the universe is expanding is subject to the same complex interactions. The singularity from which the Universe is purported to have originated could easily be a mathematical artefact. From an expanded viewpoint: a steady-state universe, which has always existed, or one that spontaneously comes into being - which is the least likely? We can get our heads around neither, but one of them is an accepted reality.
Is it better to think of the big bang as 1. an event in space and time or 2. a boundary, a horizon that surrounds our reality, beyond which we have no way to confirm what's on the other side or 3. something else entirely?
I'm a person sitting on the 'universe simulation'-fence, since as far as we can confirm up to 50% likelihood, our reality is just a simulation (according to quantum mechanics) with absolutely zero scientific backing behind it. It's more or less a philosophical idea, since it's impossible to prove unless a 'Gods-equivalent' shows up and poofs new energy from nothing into existence, e.g. a bigbang-universe-capable-item in the palm of his hand.
As a complete layman waving flags on the side, with a belief that everything is fake and doesn't matter, I'll go for number 3 on your 1-2-3.
imo i dont think u should think of it like a event in space and time cause space and time was created after the big bang but a boundary or singularity like thinking is better
@@Jgill99911time is an illusion on the deepest level. It doesn’t exist
Scientists: let's dream up a hypothesis that totally goes against the Bible.
Logical person: Why?
Scientist: because the Bible is too on point.
The Bible is not on point at all, on multiple points. It is particularly weak on astronomy.
Mature Theologians refer to THE BEGINNING THAT HAS NO BEGINNING and THE END THAT HAS NO END.
A short and vibrant presentation with a fun demonstration of CMB. I agree with Brian there was a cosmic big bang. But, I strongly disagree with the assumption that the CMB itself has any relation to our cosmic birth and thus its age or size. Our cosmic age and frequency (alternating between max energy grid and max spatial grid phase) is orders of magnitudes larger.
So then, if not the mysterious afterglow of cosmic birth, then what is CMB about? CMB is about our own GALAXY, so we should call it GMB. CMB, rather GMB is a galactic speed related quantum phenomenon, generated around and by the stars (our own Sun) as they traverse the energy based galactic plane. Fancy, but how do we know CMB is related to local galactic speed and thus to distance to the galactic core?
We know this precisely because of the black body radiation curve of CMB. It is the alter ego of an identical plot, namely the plot of orbital speeds vs. distance of all stars in a galaxy due to Newtonian gravity. The shapes of both graphs are identical and must be! Why?
Because in the quantum world, Grid is energy and Clock is mass (Penrose 2019) and thus speed in the quantum world is defined as [J/kg = Nm/kg = m2/s2= Energy intensity]. And the ‘black body CMB graph’ is indeed an energy density plot! Now do we see? It is the must be alter ego compensating quantum graph of the rotational speed graph in spacetime terms. Since our Sun’s rotation speed (and distance) is constant, it discharges energy at the Oort cloud boundry around itself in all directions at the same intensity. The slight distortions in the CMB of the galactic plane are caused by the tiny energy distortions of the individual stars in our galactic arms (slightly further or closer to the galactic core), which is why our galactic arms themselves cause the distortion in the CMB spectrum and not galactic ‘schmutz’.
By the way, the other remaining quantum effect, the virtual redshift of furthest galaxies (caused by our own galactic rotation, via 90 degrees inward Fraunhofer diffraction) is generated at the tangent edge of our galactic plane at the Perseus arm, which is about 15% further from the galactic core then where our Sun is. That’s why the ‘Hubble tension’ will eventually be pointing to 15% difference. The Hubble tension just reflects our distance to the galactic core , relative to the Perseus arm.
Interesting. Are you saying that if we were able to put a detector in the inter-galactic void outside our galaxy, we would not detect the CMB at all?
@@viralsheddingzombie5324 exactly. We can actually tested this idea on a slightly smaller scale, as we sent two spaceships , pioneer 10 and 11 towards the heliopause. Here ever so lightly we already see an increase of the energy as the grid phenomenon. The result is that they both spacecraft travelled less far in spacetime terms then they should, but slightly more in energy as the grid terms, which shows as both are slightly discharging thermal radiation around them as the energy grid intensifies. This is called the pioneer anomaly. Our star is no different.
Energy (vibrational frequency) can't be created or destroyed, so it is eternal.
Although it can't be created or destroyed, it CAN be transformed: Into light, sound, gravity, consciousness, etc. and matter (which isn't really all that physical since it the nucleus is only .000000001% of the atom?)
The "empty space" is actually filled with consciousness, right? (A particle observed behaves differently vs unobserved.)
Consciousness, at some point, expands... becomes self-aware and the process continues eternally through seven dimensions/densities.
The eighth dimension/density is infinity/eternity (no beginning/no end).
The aforementioned eternal conscious energy is beyond the "8".
Can we finally catch up to Penrose and laugh at the String Theory nonsense? Love the channel Brian💪
It seems too clever by half.
A lecture at the Ri must seem like standing in a sacred cathedral of science.
What I've never understood about the common description of the CMB, why is it the same in every direction? That would seem to imply we're in the center. And if radiation needs an emitter, and the emitter was an event, why is it continuous?
The idea is that everything in our observable universe was in a tiny subatomic volume so that all quantum fluctuations overlapped, until a rapid inflation occurred. This means that the energy density of the universe was the same, apart from tiny quantum fluctuations that grew overtime. We see these tiny fluctuations in the CMB, which has temperature fluctuations of about 1 part in 100,000 over small angles on the sky which we can see in the WMAP and Planck CMB images. It's not that we are in a special location (a centre) but that everything, in our observable universe, was in a causally linked tiny volume. Inflation has not been proven, and there are many different models of inflation, but there is some evidence for it. Extrapolating the big bang model back in time we get a volume of about 1.5 metres across for the universe when our physics is still valid.
To answer your second question, yes there was an event where photons were released from the plasma as it cooled to about 3000 Kelvin (first reionization, or recombination) and those photons are still travelling through space. The CMB photons that were emitted from our location (13.7 billion years ago) are still travelling or have since been absorbed, but the photons that left on their journey, in our direction, from the edge of our observable universe are still travelling towards us and they are being redshifted as they travel through expanding space.
@ 2:43, In reference to 4080 Mc/s, Megacycles is a unit of frequency used before we switched to SI Hertz.
Heinrich Hertz had an interesting middle name initial, look it up :p
He needed a bigger bang in the black body demonstration, that was a fizzle, not a bang. People who covered their ears were wondering what happened.
Scientist's don't believe in Miracles except for the one that made the Universe...
@@Anonymous-cc5pn nah I heard a scientist say it once 🤣
Personally I'm not against the idea of an intelegent designer or of gass lighting.
This reminds me of Iowa State's shameful firing of astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez. They presumably would have fired Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton too, believers who taught against the consensus view too. At least they didn't burn Gonzalez at the stake.
Didn't mention a few other problems of the big bang theory. The singularity mentioned, but honestly I don't think that is really required, what IS required is the 'inflation' epoch where matter spread out faster than the speed of light. There is no physics that can explain this part.
What are you talking about... mass can effectively travel 'faster than light' no problem when space itself is expanding. Physics totally has this part down just fine.
@@tobiasrietveld3819 If space itself is expanding at the speed of light space between me my screen and atoms in both would fly apart in an instant.
Pearlman YeC:
No ongoing cosmic expansion. see 'Pearlman vs Hubble.'
Steady State oscillation reconciled with a (not 'The) big bang (SPIRAL cosmological model) we are on the first plateau.
The heat at the initial hyper-density was much lower than if SCM-LCDM consensus based on current CMB temp. as the entire universe approximates the visible universe and the radius is 1B LY rounded up, based on a proportional to what is assumed in SCM. Reference/follow Pearlman YeC alignment of Torah testimony, science and ancient civ.
but if redshift is not from expansion, it's NOT expanding.
There is no evidence that redshift is not from expansion.
@@tonywells6990 What? To make that claim you would have to explain that the ONLY possible cause of that redshift (either know or unknown) is from expansion. You can't do that, you cannot even provide any science/physics evidence that it could be from expansion.
However, Einstein / gravitational shift fits exactly a redshift / distance relationship, and that effect can be observed and tested in a lab. It is known, understood and established physics.
Try again.
@@Darryl_Frost Not sure I get your last comment. Yes, general relativity predicts the expansion of the universe and redshift and observations fit with that. There is no evidence of any kind of tired light or other explanation for redshift.
@@tonywells6990 General relativity does no such thing, In fact it does not even address that issue. Gravitational shift is NOT tired light, however, expansion shift IS.
@@Darryl_Frost Why do you keep contradicting yourself?
'Einstein / gravitational shift fits exactly a redshift / distance relationship'
Exactly.
If you dislike a scientific idea just because it resembles a theological explanation, you're a bad scientist. If fact that kind of disqualifies you as a scientist. Science is all about evidence. There should be no likes or dislikes.
If Steven Weinberg wanted to dislike something there was nothing anyone could do about it. 🙃
@@cakemoss4664 You can dislike any idea you wish. It's just bad science. On the other hand it's part of human nature. We tend to lean towards ideas we like, despite the evidence. But as a scientist you should be able to overcome that.
Ok, but you also have to accept that those whom have told you stories about the formation of existence have a deeply vested interest in proving God. This is 2-way street that is trying to grow past other "bad science."
Or you can read what he actually said? Novel idea…he accepted the Big Bang….he accepted the evidence….he only mention on a philosophical note why the steady state was preferable. But the evidence did not support steady state and he abandoned it. Fortunately, you tube commentators don’t have any vote power on who receives a Nobel awards and who constitutes a good or bad scientist or worse yet…can disqualify you from your profession. The virologist notes viruses can evolve into more potentially dangerous forms…he does not like that…so should he be disqualified from his job?
if youre talking about steven weinberg's idea its not that it was disliked by good scientists cause it resembled a theological explanation rather that there was no real theory just assumptions cause of religious belief and it was just easier to assume the eternal universe before we knew it was expanding.
Thanks Doc!
If you try to contemplate something from nothing, your mind will collapse on itself if you are truly honest...
I know i may sound entitled (i think this is the correct word) but since it's only been 3 years since my deconversion, i would very much rather not to hear scientists in classrooms about being releligious. It triggers me a lot, while disgust me.
On an other note, i like dr.Brian!
Get over yourself.
I have the same reaction. Although as long as religious views of the scientist don't impact his/ hers work it's ok.
@@oskarskalski2982 Everybody's work is impacted by his religious views. Science is nothing but a method of trying to understand the physical universe. Treating it like a religion is just as dangerous as joining any other cult.
@@oskarskalski2982 I totally agree. THAT'S why I said "in classrooms". Apparently I wasn't clear enough
@@sadderwhiskeymann It is mentally healthier to accept provable reality and not ascribe our destiny to supernatural forces. We make our own plans.
Physics lectures with experiments are great.
JWST and other telescope raised flag on the following points:
1. Hubble tension
2. Ever increasing redshift observed
3. High redshift and High luminosity
4. Metalicity and carbon evolution
5. Largest galaxy at early universe
6. Milkyway like galaxies and large filaments in early universe
7. unexpected Morphology of galaxy at high and near to us
All the above concern points are related to Redshift but if redshift is not a distance indicator then researchers should think on a different framework.
Mainly Hoyle-Burbidge-Narlikar-Halton Arp believe on intrinsic redshift. All the above points can well explained using Variable mass hypotheses if Redshift is intrinsic , where non cosmological part is larger than cosmological part.
General relativity predicts that space expands (or contracts) and that redshift (or blueshift) of light is a consequence of that. Since general relativity has been proven to be such a perfect description of spacetime, and all our models rely on it, and every single piece of evidence supports the idea, then we accept that is the cause of redshift.
There is no observational evidence that any other model works.
@@tonywells6990 wolf effect explain redshift / blueshift without any movement between two objects but changes in environment. This is observed in laboratory .
@@user-yv2nc8fb9c That cannot explain redshift of light from stars.
In that model the CMB generating stage should have been the first thing to move beyond the cosmological horizon. It should be not possible to see the 'let there be light' moment of creation.
If the redshift / distance relationship is from gravitational shift, there is no expansion. If there is no expansion the is no evidence that a big bang ever happened.
The CMB is just foreground dust, being black body radiators at 2.7K.
The CMB light is constantly travelling towards us, and in every direction, since it formed so we can indeed see it! The redshift/distance relationship is from gravitational redshift which IS due the expansion of space and dust cannot create a uniform blackbody radiation in every direction.
@@tonywells6990 Im sorry, but you actually have that wrong. And, no, gravitational redshift has nothing to do with expansion.
Expansion redshift is a function of the wavelength of the light increasing as the space that light moves through expanding, that is not what gravitational redshift is.
@@Darryl_Frost Actually you have it wrong, according to every astrophysicist and cosmologist.
@@tonywells6990 So you asked them all? You might want to check with them again. That's not what they say at all. Sorry.
Great video, I have some questions.
The black body radiation is thermal energy "produced" by hydrogen atoms. It's not left over from a big bang, absorbing into hydrogen atoms then radiating away. Atoms constantly vibrate. In that process atoms produce low energy microwave radiation, CMB. That's why it's everywhere, all around us. All the matter in the universe is made of hydrogen atoms. Your desk, your monitor, the metal in your computer, all the matter in the universe radiates the same cold microwave energy. You don't think atoms floating in the vacuum of space will radiate hot microwaves do you? No, they vibrate and radiate cold, low energy microwaves. Why do you think scientists studying cold microwaves had to move their detectors into space? It was to get away from the low energy interference coming from hydrogen in Earth's atmosphere, water, air molecules, even the Earth. Everything vibrates the same cold microwave radiation, some warmer than others but they all radiate the same cold energy, especially when floating in the dark vacuum of space.
But get this, hydrogen gas is everywhere in the vacuum of space, popping into existence via virtual particles. Could that be why cold CMB radiation is coming from every direction? Why has no one questioned the claim CMB is evidence of a big bang if we know all the hydrogen atoms in the universe produce the same cold microwave energy? How can vibrating matter, radiating cold CMB energy be evidence of a big bang when the big bang is supposed to explain why the universe contains so much vibrating energy and matter? In my opinion, cold CMB as evidence for the big bang becomes a straw man argument. Cold CMB radiation is no more evidence of a big bang than it's evidence of a geocentric universe or a flat Earth or that my name is Fred.
Can anyone explain how the JWST is an infrared telescope, meaning it measures thermal energy, heat yet it can't detect the heat produced by the big bang, instead it find the CMB to be extremely cold, 3° above absolute zero? The rhetoric is the multimillion degree hot big bang can't be measured by a telescope but old large galaxies can that are not as hot right after the time of the big bang? why can it detect cold galaxies but not multibillion degree temperatures just a wee bit further?
There is more evidence contradicting the big bang than there is evidence supporting it. Take the old, fully grown galaxies in the early universe as an example. They debunked the big bang model completely. Why do you think astronomers refer to them as the Impossible Early Galaxy Problem? Because they completely debunk a single big bang, instant cosmic inflation, age of the universe, thermodynamics, relativity and the evolutionary cosmological model of the universe. Every theory used to describe the nature and evolution of our universe was shown to be wrong by the JWST. There is more.
In the first paperback book I published almost 3 months before the JWST was launched, I wrote how when the JWST finds old galaxies in the early universe it will become "The Mother of ALL Paradoxes". I knew the JWST would find old massive galaxies extremely far away. I'm the only theorist who accurately predicted them. I solved the impossible early galaxy problem before astronomers realized their theories and models were wrong. Nobody else accurately predicted them. Ask any qualified physicists what happens to the current accepted theories and models of the universe if the early universe contains old, massive galaxies more than 10 times larger and brighter than our own galaxy? Dr. Becky back in 2021 told me it would be the paradox of all paradoxes. So I referred to them as the mother of all paradoxes in the books I published before the JWST was launched.
NASA employees claimed the JWST was like a time machine, able to look into the past. They predicted young, dim, large, blue population III stars in tiny diffuse young galaxies forming right after the dark ages. The JWST discovered old, metal rich stars in fully developed, large, bright spiral shaped galaxies, some were more than 10 times larger than our own Milky Way but further than 14 billion light years away. Note the Hubble Tension here.
Maybe we should all ask ourselves why NASA predictions were wrong and mine right? Or at least take a look at my interpretations to see how I accurately derived at old, massive galaxies even further than 13.8 billion light years away. After all, I was right. I explained everything in great detail in the books published before the JWST was launched. I explain why theories are wrong and how to fix them to agree with all the motion telescopes observe, including the motion blamed on dark matter and dark energy. A tiny revision to the field equations on gravity fixed them.
I sure hope you have a great day. Watching your videos always make my day better. Thank you so much.
Hydrogen does not perfectly radiate all of its energy at a blackbody spectrum at a 1mm wavelength from every direction, I don't know why you would think that. You are just assuming something based on your limited knowledge that molecules radiate, but they radiate at many wavelengths.
The CMB matches predictions of the big bang theory, an expanding universe that gave off a light of about 3000K which is now visible as 3K, and nothing else can explain such a perfect and isotropic emission.
JWST is an infrared telescope, not a microwave telescope like Planck, and it can only detect 'heat' of a few thousand to about a hundred Kelvin. Extremely energetic photons were absorbed in the first minutes after the big bang, and until the CMB was emitted. Galaxies contain a lot of stars and dust and are therefore bright in UV, visible and infrared as well as X-ray and microwaves so we can see them with our telescopes.
Big bang model has not been debunked at all, the oldest galaxies are still older than about 100 million years which is predicted by theory. Maybe stop watching some of the awful JWST clickbait garbage.
The mission of JWST was to find the oldest galaxies, so I'm glad your prediction of it finding the oldest galaxies was found to be correct. Well done. Since you don't seem to understand the basics of quantum mechanics (first paragraph) I doubt you even studied physics.
JWST has not discovered any galaxies further than 14 billion light years away, and those carbon containing stars are actually about 350 million years after big bang. One of JWST's missions is to find the first stars and that is what it is doing.
@@tonywells6990 Thank you Tony. My cousin's name is also Tony Wells. Kool.
The JWST found galaxies with a redshift of z=20 and higher but astronomers don't speak much of them, possibly until they are confirmed by other methods. The distance to those galaxies can't really be confirmed, see the Hubble tension.
Sure, everything you've wrote was expected to be found, not to mention massive blue population III stars.
Infrared telescopes like the JWST peer right through gas and dust. Gas and dust in the early universe cannot block the infrared light JWST detects. Astronomers wanted to be able to see beyond the dark ages.
Why can't the JWST detect the extremely hot big bang?
I'd love it if someone could explain it.
Because if the energy from the big bang cooled off before reaching the Plank or WMAP satellites then why did thermal energy of distant galaxies not cool off too before reaching the JWST?
From that rhetoric the JWST should not be able to see the infrared light coming from the galaxies confirmed to be some 390 million years after the big bang, like Masie's.
Why can't the JWST detect an extremely hot big bang a mere 390 million light years further than the most distant galaxy CEERS-93316?
Is it okay for me to question the science?
Old, massive, fully formed into spiral galaxies further than 13.5 billion light years away, confirmed, that doesn't debunk a big bang? What happens when future telescopes confirm there are galaxies even further than 14 billion light years away? Will they not debunk a big bang either? What happens when surveys find galaxies are older and older with distance on one side of the universe from our perspective and on the opposite side of us the galaxy become smaller and smaller, younger and younger with distance? Would that not debunk a big bang? What about the velocity and trajectory of the stars in galaxies, each moving rapidly away from the central mass of every galaxy. Would that not debunk a big bang too? How would you explain these observations while keeping the big bang theory intact?
Research Galaxy HD1 it is 13.5 billion light years away with a redshift of z=13.2 and the supermassive black hole in it's core weighs an estimated 100 million times the solar mass of the sun, or 100 million solar masses. Which would be almost 25 times larger than the supermassive black hole Sgr A* in the core of the Milky Way galaxy.
Note, HD1 was spotted in 2022 by the Subaru telescope in Chile and it's distance was confirmed.
@@ronaldkemp3952 We cannot see anything through the thick plasma of the CMB (imagine looking through a star), any high energy X-rays or gamma rays will be absorbed by the plasma at some time in the first 380,000 years and any extremely high energy radiation would have been absorbed in the very early universe (by the quark gluon plasma for instance or converted into other particles) or redshifted to extremely long wavelengths before being absorbed by the CMB.
JWST can only see in infra-red wavelengths, not CMB microwaves.
The redshift of the CMB is about 1100, then the first galaxies formed after about 100 million years which is a redshift of 30. JWST is unlikely to see beyond z=20, but what it has seen so far IS consistent with small, young galaxies, but they may have grown faster than thought. Another problem is that some of the first crude redshift estimates may have to be revised down, and some have been.
Supermassive black holes may have formed much faster than thought, by direct collapse of massive gas clouds.
There is a lot of misinformation about JWST results you should be aware of.
@@tonywells6990 The JWST doesn't detect visible light. So it's not measuring visible light. It measured thermal radiation that passes right through gas. Hot plasma would produce thermal radiation the JWST would detect. Thermal radiation would not be blocked by plasma if it was radiating it.
I don't believe in a big bang. I believe I know how matter and energy came to be. There is empirical evidence which supports the postulate, like high velocity dispersion of matter in galaxies, black holes radiating massive amounts of energy and matter from their surfaces per actual Doppler data of Sgr A*, and now the fully developed smooth galaxies found in the early universe. like HD1.
I accurately predicted them back in 2004 soon after I discovered mistakes and missing variables in Einstein's field equations on gravity. I revised them, trying to explain both dark matter and dark energy. The action causing gravity in mass sent Einstein's equations in a completely different direction.
Yes, the early redshift data if it doesn't agree with the big bang theory they'll try and revise the distant ladder in order to agree with the big bang theory. That's not how real science should be done. Thus is what led to the Hubble tension where different methods of measuring great distances results in different values.
I published several books prior to the launch of the JWST in 2021 to which they accurately predicted old massive galaxies in the early universe. Then in 2022 the Subaru telescope spotted HD1 some 13.5 billion light years away. It was evidence in support of my postulate.
Then the JWST released it's CEERS survey and confirmed it, the distant universe contains not one but hundreds of fully developed galaxies larger than our own Milky Way. Astronomers call them the impossible early galaxy problem.
Astronomers were relying on relativity's predictions of look back time and claimed the JWST was like a time machine. Saying the telescope would find young galaxies and stars in the distant universe, to prove the big bang hypothesis. But instead they found large, bright smooth (old) galaxies as far as the telescope was able to see, just as I predicted.
In my books I postulated that relativity's look back time is in error, to which I explained in great detail why. I was right again.
The science is never settled because we're always searching for the truth through new observations and experiments.
Scientists however love to make stuff up like dark matter and dark energy, especially after the fact when their predictions are shown to be wrong. Finding old galaxies in the early universe had the same result. Now scientists are trying to blame them on a dark matter big bang, more nonsense that can't be confirmed or refuted. That's not how science should be done, taking the easy route of making wild guesses so their ideals can't be refuted.
The big bang is a theory that requires observational evidence to support. Much of the evidence collected over the years contradicts the theory. So, I'm not sold on it. I also published a book titled BIG BANG: FACT OR FICTION? and cover many of the observations that contradict a big bang happening 13.8 billion years ago. Who knows, the universe might be hundreds of trillions of years old.
I suspect new, more sensitive telescopes will find even larger galaxies further than 14 billion light years away and scientists will have to adjust the distance ladder again so not to refute big bang happening 13.8 billion years ago again. Or they'll say it confirms multiple universes or an older universe. But what they won't be able to explain is what kept our Milky Way galaxy from forming after the big bang, if it happened longer than 13.8 billion years ago. What prevented the Milky Way from forming at the same time as all the other distant large galaxies? I explained why this happens in the first book I published called GRAVITY. The action causing gravity like I said, completely changed the predictions made by relativity and is what led me to accurately predict the old massive galaxies in the early universe. And I was spot on.
In 2004 I accurately predicted Saturn's young rings before Cassini confirmed them. 2010 I accurately predicted the outcome of the G02 gas cloud and in 2012 I accurately predicted Earth's gravity anomalies discovered by the GRACE satellites in 2015.
I'm pretty sure that my revisions to relativity are spot on, else none of the predictions would have come true.
We will just have to wait and see what future telescopes discover. I'm betting they will find galaxies even older and larger than our own galaxy but further back in time than the big bang happening, further than 14 billion light years away. In my book GRAVITY I predicted eventually telescopes will discover a galaxy having a supermassive black hole in it's core weighing a trillion solar masses. I wrote how all the other galaxies will eventually be found moving away from it, as if it is in the center where all matter and energy originally spawned.
I hope you have a great day Tony.
We are in Flux. And Constant Movement. Molecular Structure. On the most rudimentary lev
Level
I don't think it's possible for us to see the "past." there may be patterns and remnants of things in the universe that have persisted in some form, but we always see/detect them in the present.
Apparently the "oldest" galaxies are identified based on their distance from the Earth. That doesn't make sense and does not establish age. Age could only be measured using an absolute/initial reference....the big bang, t = 0 for the entire universe. But if you accept the idea that the entire universe has been expanding symmetrically, the distance from one galaxy to another galaxy has no meaning with respect to age. In a sense, everything in the "present" universe is the same age as related to the initial reference.
CMB !
It isn't very scientific to accept 'a miracle occurred' as a valid principle.. Nor to describe 95% of the Universe as 'dark' because we can't find it (or find the mistake in our current understanding) as if by labeling it we're doing science.
And don't get me started on the 'singularity'...
Whose beginning? How can an infinite cold become infinitely hot? If infinity exists how can one be here right now?
@6:20.. computers...eh..view. not God's eye view
What would happens if a giant "black hole" explode ? Can that originate a similar big bang event making galaxies move out from the explosion point ?
@Anonymous-cc5pn A false theory. You do not go from infinite small and insane heat to fundamental particles to then those fundemental cooled particles creating fusion producing insane heat. Universe would've already died of ''Heat Death'' theroy. Or it would've died at it's begining from ''The Big Crunch'' Theory.
Big Bang theory is holding science back.
If one can actually imagine an infinite universe, then "expansion" is likely a TINY local phenomenon. Try to picture a bunch of balloons in an endless void, constantly expanding and contracting into and away from each other. Truly amazing that most "scientists," that aren't religious, explain the existence of everything with a "creation" event. Isn't THAT religious?
Why so short?
And yes we are Corporeal
wouldn't it heat faster if you had put the light source in focal point at 4:10 ?? not so close maybe
Big Bangers are the Flat Earthers of Cosmology.
?? Bing bangers are the Globe Earthers.
El problema es muy facil de resolver Brian , el universo se CONTRAE dentro de un agujero negro.
The CMB wavelength can be deducted from temperature using Wien's displacement law. That also implies photons are everywhere according to Plank's black body radiation. That being said, it's far-fetched to assume it's from a past event like the Big Bang, since it's just the radiation we receive from space,; a map of the temperature distribution, that we clearly see is affected by the temperature in the Milky Way in its way, and probably the no so distant galaxies for example. This has more to do with thermodynamics than the Big Bang, the variations in general are micro-kelving, basically nothing.
That begs the question of why the universe is a homogeneous 2K black body, though. Especially since it's extremely diffuse.
There is no mechanism that can create an almost perfect, isotropic, blackbody radiation at that temperature, but it is a prediction of the Big Bang.
Why doesnt a state of infinite temperature simply collapse into a black hole? I suppose it has to do the lambda factor.
The universe was expanding rapidly and there was no gravitational curvature.
Makes more sense to me that instead of starting from infinitesimally small and 'building' towards big, bigger, biggest, that the biggest was the 'source' and and it developed and progressed inwards. From the primordial 'soup' of maximum potential and minimum form, refining it's internal constitution towards the more complex, the smaller and more intricate fractions of a fraction.
It's a bit to get your head around but hey, so is something coming from a singularity of nothingness and becoming everything and everywhere. While perfectly retaining the base line principles throughout the immeasurable orders of magnitude... Any imperfection or discrepancy in these principles would be ingrained into the fabric of reality and would rapidly compound upon itself until further expansion would lead to absolute chaos.
But...
If the base line principles are instilled in the first segregation of chaos into form, these principles can be perfectly preserved with each subsequent fractional re-itteration of the first form back into itself. Smaller and smaller indefinitely....
Makes more sense to my head anyway
Well said, only comment is I wouldn't call the first stages Chaos.. I find it brazen to assume that chaos can begit order.. Entropy was at its lowest in the begining so it was not only order but perfection.
but where did this biggest source come from?
@@Sean-fx9yn Beginingless and Uncreated.. "Come from" presuppose spatial and temporal setting external to the source which is invalid. Space and Time and everything is a consequence.
@@oOFedoOo if by perfection you mean the lowest rest state, yes. It is hard to use language that people can identify the intended meaning with.
@@Sean-fx9yn it is the existence of the absolute. The state of reality which is beyond the comprehension or discernment of the reality within it. To seek an understanding of the absolute reference frame is impossible as it places 'you' as the observer outside of it, which is impossible. (You can't measure and define something/anything from within it, you must be in a reference frame external to it to correctly incorporate a constant. Ie; What is absolute rest with regards to motion? :You can't know this without being external to the reference frame from which the motion is being inferred as you cannot know if you yourself are in motion.
We ignore galactic scale magnetic fields at our own peril. 😊
Hi Brian - why does it need to be an infinite amount of heat at BB rather than just very very hot?
If I ain't wrong, it is Einstein 's equations that produce those unwanted/unintuitive (and probably wrong) infinities
It's most likely not an infinite temperature or an infinitely small size. Some inflation models predict temperatures of up to 10^27 Kelvin and a size that was not infinitely small and maybe existed at that size (before inflation occurred) for a long time before the big bang. Temperature is a measure of the energy of motion of subatomic particles so is probably meaningless anyway at that time.
Hot as compared to what, or in relation to what exactly?... as there was NOTHING around anywhere in space or time at that instant to make a comparative temperature measurement against... abs. 0 perhaps? idk.
The problem with _any_ theory of origin is the Paradox of the First Cause: namely, what caused the first cause? I know of only three solutions: the Ray, the Line, and the Loop. The Ray theory posits an uncaused first cause. The Line posits an infinite regress of causation. The Loop posits circular causation. All three theories are abnormal. The Ray is chaotic, as it has a vital uncaused element. The Line is infinitely complex. The Loop is paradoxical. Normality is orderly, finite, and logical; therefore origin is abnormal. The Paradox of the First Cause is trouble for cosmology, but also for religion; for it is a problem in logic, which is prior to cosmology and religion.
it is easy to reconcile the materilistic origins of the universe with that of YHWH when you accept that as finite beings we see time differently than that of the creator. we see billions of years but HE sees time in a matter of moments because HE stands outside of it.
The way Americans pronounce atoms seems to point to the origin of matter, along with Adam and Eve.
Everything is just an excitation in many fields. Find out the frequencies and we’ll understand everything.
Love it!!!!!!!!!!
Galacty are closed systems. Separate from the vacuum space. We are in the vacuum not of the vacuum space. This I believe has always been the problem with toe. 2 different properties 2 different origin. This I believe was always the issue when trying to unify the 2 great theories. If you Separate you can unify I believe 💯 percent. All the big things are just collections of alot of tiny things. Basically. And the 2 meet at the blacksphere but never quite touch for a lack of better words at this hour lol. 2nd coffee.
Was it not loud enough? :)
5:13 That spectrum was developed from experiments with ovens. Is the Universe a giant oven?♨️🌌♨️ 😳
Woah
Woah woah woah, the fact that major scientists have either a pro-religion or anti-religion bias is concerning to say the least.
Find out what is out there!
If we find a God. Ok
If we don’t find a God. Ok
But to hear they preferred a theory because it least represented something in the bible?
That does not qualify as a great scientist.
reality is paradoxical embrace this fact and save yourself endless searching
your reply is both pointless and a pointed argument
Genesis says in the beginning God created Heaven and the Earth. I don't know if that includes the universe. It would help to know Hebrew. It's a fascinating language. The important thing to realize about that is that God is a creator. Later in Genesis it says God created man in his image. He created us to be creators. Then he created all the animals. But he created only adam (man and woman) in his image and also able to create.
We are not like the animals. We're unique. We can create, like our creator. That's why we were sent to Earth. To create. Here's another fascinating observation...the word "things" in Hebrew doesn't only mean things as in matter, but it also means to speak. "In the beginning was the word, and the word was God." All of the things we have on Earth...all the material things...the things you make in your life, you make them because of the things you tell yourself.
What is nothing?
The opposite of something.
Yet,,for something to exist that once did not implied that nothingness had at least potential to be something which in itself is something so now that things exist how could true nothingness have ever existed.
@@spaceinyourface we might never know whether there is true nothingness.
But once I am aware of my own conciousness, there might never be true nothingness.
@@sethanon6778 potential to exist before existence,,,is still something.
You don't look back in time. The Bible gives us History. ✝️
Enki
Great speech indeed!!!
I would like to share two things:
i) What about this new hypothesis of two big bangs? Could this get today on anyone's nerves because of the "possible existence" of two or more gods?
ii) As far back as 1999, there was a very deep (and amusing) exchange between S Weinberg (as physicist and thinker) and J Polkinghorne (as physicist and theologian) at NYAS, addressing several issues related to God, the Universe, .... & all that. It is in vol 950 of the Annals of the NYAS (2001). From my point of view, a highly recommended reading.
Everyone has a position on this topic, although keeping God and Science apart seems better to me.
Misunderstanding of redshift. Expansion of the universe is slowing.
God created the Universe , we can only try to understand how.
There is a multitude of possibilities Intelligent Design Hypothesis for the cosmos is a possibility Random Natural Processes is another possibility pre existing universes multi universes infinite space eternal so much we still don't know whatever is is whatever is not is not the Cosmology field is a totally separate area from Manmade Theological Mythologies which many people confuse
Um Brian, God wouldn't have seen the edge of the milky way surrounding the universe. 🤔
Short one. Question Mark Is this a "Sonar ping"? I just subscribed and I do respond to the title of the story. Lets just say the perspective is I am "a" Senior NCO of a nuclear event situation. I have a set of experiences yet I do not have the Credits to qualify my statements. Reason for responding is in the events themselves. The situation is real the events are nuclear in nature and it is a WEAPONS SYSTEM" A temporal weapons system. Go figure.
You're a really engaging lecturer, Brian.
Best science podcast I've ever seen. Should gave 5 million followers
There was no big bang
Albert was no Einstein and Hawking was all wrong. Neil and Michio are just plain clueless.
The Universe is Electromagnetic. Not gravity and fusion. What we currently can see occurring in the part of the Universe we can observe is very simple. Plasma + Electric Currents + Magnetic Fields + Matter + Motion = The Universe doing what comes naturally. No Expansion. No Big Bang, No Black Holes, No Dark Matter/Energy, No Ice Ball Comets, No Fusion Burning Sun….. No Erroneous Assumptions.
Neither expanding universe nor Big Bang is true. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics. The sensitivity of Wilson etc equipment falls far short of the ability to measure anything but the local radiation. So,no.
It was a portal not a bank more of a entery
There was never a big bang , it was God, YAHWAY, King of the Universe, he is the one who created everything......
So the Milky Way is slightly hotter than the rest of the universe. What a surprise.
The Bible talks of the beginning of the world we live in. It says nothing about the beginning of the universe. It is metaphor.
I'll take "Things That Go Bang!" for $100, Brian.
The CMB is a remnant of the visible light created on day 3 and which expanded from the visible range into the space we know today. Was it thermal radiation from a blackbody? No!
The only difference between visible light and thermal radiation is frequency.
@@JCO2002 How so? Black Body Radiation manifests in the visible range at its peak.
@@Kenneth-ts7bp Black-body radiation has its peak in the visible range? Always, no matter the temperature of the emitting body? No. At 5,000 K, it does. At 500 K, it doesn't.
@JCO2002 What's your point? Does the big bang claim the CMB was visible light or not?
Day 138 million actually...
U = (m- + m+)²
You don't really need the squared but it's an homage to the Great Programmer Deity that he made us all *from nothing* to be *nothing once again*. Hence the nothing² being the actual most correct answer. 😶🌫
It's anti scientific to lie about data just because you don't want to lend credit to something.
The big bangs issue is lack of humor and laugh track abuse
Wait a second here, why did it start at infinite temperature and pressure to begin with? Why can't that have come right after?
When we keep adding heat and pressure to a system, let's say water, we get ice7, ice18 where all the electrons are in a lattice where hydrogen can freely float around making it highly conductive like metal, but at some point you won't be speaking about water anymore, because there is no hydrogen anymore, the electrons turned into neutrons, then all the protons turn into neutrons, and at some point you'll be talking about a quark-gluon plasma, because there are no protons and neutrons anymore, so why would those 2 be the end of that track? my best guess is, at some point you won't be talking about a quark-gluon plasma anymore, because the quark field got symmetric again, just a gluon plasma then? Then the gluon field becomes symmetric again, now where is all the heat and pressure gone to? Why can't that have converted back into some type of energy? I mean, you can theoretically have glueballs, which have mass, can cause pressure, but how did they form, decay of gravitons?, did dark matter already played a significant role here? what if this ancient field everything separated from, is not just for baryonic matter?
So just assuming the universe started as a hot dense point, I think, is a little quick if there are no real theories out there, that a lot of physicists have a consensus about, that also include dark matter and dark energy in that big bang model if it was a big bang in that model. I think gravity becomes symmetric again the colder it gets, goes from 3D to 2D to etc... in a black hole nothing can radiate out of the core, it just can't get fast enough, so no heat, the bigger the black hole, the colder the core, that is what I read and what bing chat told me 🙂 (it also aced Dr. Hossenfelder's test a couple time, but don't tell her 😛) I even suggested an experiment on how to "prove" that, by sending an experiment to a lagrange point, where we keep cooling a BEC to near absolute zero, before we release it out of a magnetic trap, we shape it, then we time how long it takes for it to form a sphere again by the influence of just gravity. If we find at some point a threshold where it takes significantly longer for the BEC to form a sphere again, I just might be right at gravity 🙂
Time is an infinite expansion. Ofcourse time always existed.
Not before the BB
Nor did space itself…
More data needs to be collected. Instead of assumptions, what we really need to do is collect red shift data correlated with standard candle measurements from the most distant detectable galactic clusters. Then we can generate a best fit model that can tell us something relevant about this with no assumptions required.
It's weird how the accepted cosmic background radiation map is super false. We got billions of lightyears between ''first'' galaxies we can see meaning every lightyear is different time since we're looking back in time when we look further. Measuring that background radiation would be impossible since 13billion years of all the other background in infront of us. It's like trying to take a mesurement of your forehead temperature while there's 13 billion you with different temperatures of forehear standing infront of you.
It all looks like a bunch of squabbling cats than open minded scientists..
Physicist Sabine Hossenfrugalfenderbender already debunked this horse sheep
We may want to treat the universe as a system and redefine the big bang as a phase transition of the system to another state. Corresponding to degeneracy and stress energy as non conserved energy in the system developed. Matter is just the part of the stress energy which is conserved. If dark energy and dark matter is in fact exist it may just non conserved energy still consistent
IMO space is infinite and timeless. While the universe began as a tiny finite unit of energy. The formation of light atomic nuclei indicate there was in fact a time before the CMB was formed.
Now as to what created this energy in space I haven't a clue. I try not to invoke god to explain things as that just denotes a lack of a deeper understanding. It's not unfit to believe god created the deeper understanding.
So why do they organize well first you need an EMF to contain. Blah blah blah as spanky likes to say. Peace ✌️
Interesting how religion has jumped on the science bandwagon now that it’s undisputed.
🤣🤣🤣 undisputed..now thats funny. You really think science is undisputed...🤣 ever wonder why scientists are still looking for dark matter? Dark matter is just a term they came up with because what their model predicted didnt match what they observed. Yet they faithfully hang on to it.
Pseudo-science at its finest
There's no problem if you understand that consciousness is fundamental, and a quantum phenomena. God designed the 12D string merkaba as an individualized tricorder, letting each soul experience and participate in the evolution of the Big Bang duoverse and subsequent rrfrains, the first physical universe purgatory and the first remedial hell. Then God just had to keep the game interesting enough to attract more players to leave a heaven that had too many bored whiny brats who thought they knew better than God
Chicken or egg first ?
By asking this , consciousness is formed.
But it still keep me curious to explore again and again what is conciousness?
It does not matter , God as you implies might be just as bored as well.
@@sethanon6778 In a sea of eggs the least chicken wins the race to rule the roost. All others need fly the coop to recoup their own universe of creation
people concentrate on useless factors, why don't we focus on the MAIN and more important key factor, which is "THE SOURCE CODE" of the recipe, What the the Efficiency Threshold State for which the big-bang contininuosly blasted during its life cycle(a loop of blasts) untill it resolved to success? It should've carried a special flag defining a constant named "GOOD STATE" to which it MUST compare the result of the current state and deduce if is efficient enough to break the loop
but the dark spots turned out not to be empty, each newer better telescope. so CMB is an assumption that proves itself by cherry picking data which is probably why some surveys came up with very different results.
it is also basing the existence tying to the big bang. a circular argument.. alternately, it could be more stuff out there that we cant see. same as each time we get a better telescope.
100% this...
The 'dark spots' (blue) are not empty, just slightly less dense and warmer than average (by about 1 part in 100,000), with the colder red spots are slightly more dense than average. CMB is not an assumption, it is an observation of the early universe as it was when it was in a hot dense state (literally glowing as hot as a star in every direction) and when the first photons freely travelled through space without interacting with matter. I suppose you could say we assume it was hot and dense, but that is what matches the observation, it is a blackbody radiation which is produced by a surface that is giving off heat of a certain temperature.
@@tonywells6990 of course it is not an assumption, it is an observation. The conclusion that the CMB is from the big bang is however an assumption.
@@Darryl_Frost What other explanation is there for the CMB?
@@tonywells6990 what we observe, foreground matter (dust). It's all we have observed. There is no evidence that it is anything but that. And you don't need some special /magic/physics to explain it.
Your argument is the same as saying 'life on earth, therefore god', that might be true but it would only be true if there was no other possible mechanism for life on earth.
I can demonstrate that there is a reasonable mechanism for the CMB that does not require a big bang.
You lost me as soon as you mentioned stiff from bible
Polluting the truth of science with the lies of religion.
Fake
This made no points.
As soon as you bring up the invisible man's storybook I'm out. It has been demonstrated time and again that the order of creation in Genesis is clearly not the way things happened. I don't understand why people put so much stock in a book written by the ignorant, thousands of years ago. At least now I know to block your channel now
It was never a big bang but the eternal cosmic egg being fertilized by FATHER whose art is heaven ! “ The wisdom and spirit of the universe - that soul that is the eternity of thought that gives TO IMAGES AND FORMS a BREATH AND EVERLASTING MOTION”EMERSON
Technically, a singularity would be the coldest thing ever, not the hottest. Heat requires vibration. A singularity would have almost none.
Also, Weinberg was basically saying that one's view should be based on whether it defies the Bible. Choosing whatever view best suits your sensibilities is not how science works.