Wow I am gonna have to watch this 10x to still not understand it! Thanks for your efforts to make these well produced videos with so much data... and speculation! My brain feels nourished and inspired to learn more! Thx
I like the BOUNCE THEORY bc it’s more plausible given the way nature moves … > I can’t recall any linear formation in nature - > I think the earlier theories were based on geometry - Which is very helpful for constructing man made stuff ( mechanical engineering ) > If the products of the universe are all organic, it makes sense to me to have a theory based on organic qualities …💫
Great video once again Dr. Absolutely great content. Good animations and b roll support. Quick audio tip : Try to set your voice volume around -6db to -3db before the export. Louder vocals is better for these type of videos. It's good for audience retention. Keep up the good work!
Just as a minor note: I remember "Big Bang or Big Bounce" being debated in the 1960's! What's old is new again! 😀 (mind you, I was in junior high school at the time, so I don't remember the details. Just that there *was* a debate going on...)
I think there were a Scientific American article about it. Pretty much after the discovery of the accelerating universe nobody seriously brought it up again. Unless dark energy can be debunked not much hope in a bouncing universe.
Thanks not exactly because the bounce model’s scalar field can become dark energy just not a cosmological constant. Inflation has no such mechanism linking the two periods of accelerating Universe
Which do you think is more plausible: a Bounce from a previous universe’s collapse, or a Bang from a singularity? *Please subscribe to my TH-cam Channel and hit the notification 🔔*
I would not take a bet either way. Many absurd things turn out to be true. We have so little information to make an either/or guess. It might even be something else we cannot even imagine today.
@@andykeating791 Well let's go back to the title. It is not a new model, just a refined one. The bounce theory goes back to the beginning of big bang theory at least 60 years ago. The biggest problem is that each bounce increases entropy. The expansion of the universe assumes entropy also increases and is in one direction overall (when order is imposed it has an entropy cost someplace else). Go back in time and entropy approaches a vanishing point. Bounce theory can't explain that. Another big thorn in bounce is the accelerating universe. Even if true we have seen the last bounce.
Not Quite 🤔… In my own personal opinion skip “big bang,” since we just know of CMBR formation 380 thousand years after…but not necessarily before Also after blackholes would go > blackhole consolidation > more super massive black holes form and existing smb’s grow> cmbr temperature decrease > hawking radiation evaporates small blackholes but not larger ones fast enough > cmbr reaches lower than super massive blackhole temperatures > smb inflow becomes outflow > white-holes chain reaction rips apart space-time > cosmic balloon deflation > entropy spikes > saturation settles >…cooling > protons and electrons reform…cycle continues… Big bang singularity seems too isotropic for what we’re seeing, but a white-hole-fountain “chain big-bang” might be a more plausible solution to address the irregularities within CMBR and the Dark Flow, and many of the missing pieces from the current model. Don’t know for sure, actually looking right now to see if someone already math’ed this out in a refined theory, or even if such notion has already long passed debunked by now. Would like too learn more🤔
I think the big bang is like a point on the horizon where two railroad tracks converge. It only looks like a singularity from our vantage. If you were to move closer to it by moving backwards in time, you could never actually reach it, any more than you can reach the place where the two rails converge.. because they never actually do. As you get closer to what you think is the beginning, increments of time and space shrink, but they maintain their scalar relationship to the observer. The observer is not aware that their seconds and lengths are getting shorter as they move backwards in time. From their vantage nothing changes. This is similar to Penrose's CCC but without the necessity for a badly explained transition into a "new" universe. No collapse, no new funnel. Its the same universe it has always been and always will be. The scaling part is on point tho. The absence of detail of what happened at the earliest moments and exactly what it looked like, so to speak, is limited, literally, by our size and the the distance between us in both time and space to the thing we are attempting to understand and observe. If we were able to scale ourselves down to the correct relationship in that "hot dense state", we would have a lot of questions answered, but I expect "the begnning" will be just as far away as it ever was. That fraction of a planck second will now seem like billions of years. True singularities are not actually possible any where but the imagination.
I have seen models of the Big Bang, or begining of the Universe, that is like a funnel...until it gets near the begining and instead of collapsing to a point at the bottom of a cone, it rounds off and...I am not sure what that means, except it's...I dunno, I think, the space dimension becomes a time dimension and the time dimension..and there is no singularity.
I had postulated the existence of an "expanding" graviton. The expanding graviton is (1) the carrier of the physics constants, (2) the wave function psi (or more accurately, what wave functions are made of) and (3) expanding gravitons behave like water ripples that expand from a point into a 3D+1 sphere, at the speed of light, with a radius r = ct. If expanding gravitons exist, then EVERYTHING in experimental physics can be accounted for including quantum mechanics, relativity, quantum field theory and the standard model. The surface area of an expanding graviton is a virtual photon (or a real photon). The big bang began as a single graviton (with the outer surface of a photon) with energy equal to E = hf = energy of the big bang. New gravitons are constantly being created by either events or conditions of the previous state of the universe. The inflationary epoch of the big bang is caused by the extreme temperature/energy conditions created new gravitons at an accelerated pace. Inflatons are not necessary.
As we start to understand that the number of black holes is greater than we thought, we approach an answer to the "horizon problem." Black holes absorb light. The more black holes, the less of an issue the horizon problem becomes. Apparently all black holes are not merely centerpieces to galaxies.
Such a difficult to understand topic, and still so well presented. I would especially point out your habit of repeatedly mentioning the simple layman description of a problem, before you dive into the complicated stuff. Almost no one else does this, like you do. This makes it interesting to follow, even for people like me. I think this was a fantastic presentation, I enjoyed every minute if it. When it comes to your question - I am not qualified to have even an opinion. But it sounds plausible with this alternative approach. Albeit the problem of how it originally all started, seems to be unsolved. Or? Ingvar Nilsen, Norway (Amateur astronomer since I was a kid, I am 70 now) P.S. Keep up the good work, I enjoy every video you publish!
Surely the competing theories can be scored for their proximity to observations as stated and then analyzed in detail by an iterative process which then converges on the likely best candidate. At the moment everyone seems to present their models as having approximately satisfied each outstanding problem which does not enable one to choose>
He lost me at "patch size": I never heard a definition. I played it a second time. The first mention of "patch" was "a part of space"; the second was "corresponding to our observable universe". At that point it's described as "never connected in the past". At this point I'll just leave the discussion, since it's too jargon-heavy.
TWO QUESTIONS: 1. Are there an infinite number of contractions and bounces? I thought it has been determined that “bouncing models” can not be past eternal? 2. Would that mean that the assertions that the universe continues to expand and that there is insufficient mass or gravitational force to cause any future contraction is false?
Great post! It was funny to see someone filling out a tax form when you spoke about "problems" It would be nice for some sort of final tally sheet comparison showing the viewer the required components for the bouncing model. It got more than a bit confusing trying to keep track of all the possibilities you mentioned.
Nice, you have both hands available to gesture with now that you aren't using the clicker ...much more natural! But most importantly ...the context of the presentation was fresh, inspiring and taught in a digestible way. Keep the awesome content rolling Dr Brian!
Would not each cycle in a bouncing universe lose some energy, eventually ceasing to bounce at all? Also, what if there was not just one big bang but a huge number at once (or nearly at at the same time). For example, if the initial "bang" was more of a separation than a bang. That is to say parts of the initial matter/energy bundle broke up into smaller parts of that initial whatever it was, speeding away from each other in all directions like shrapnel from a bomb. These portions travel for some distance before exploding into more yet smaller units, and so on. Then they all finally explode a final time into the primordial soup of the initial universe. So the matter/energy are already "expanded" before any big bang. No expansion in pico-seconds needed. Of course this requires something outside of our universe. The mini big bangs may have gone off like a fission reaction with one triggering another in a geometric progression. Those explosions could have taken place much faster than might be thought since the speed of light may not have been a barrier to matter or radiation at that time. Could also be that those big bang mini-bundles exist in great numbers in whatever lies outside our universe. Every now and then one explodes (or something else explodes) setting off a chain reaction at FTL rates and seeding another universe.
Well what do you mean by expanding?😐like everyware ?🤔 and ether way you look at it it big rip, heat death Big Crunch all 3 of these require a Big Bang 😐however a problem with the Big Bang model is it states that the ENTIRE COSMOS is over 14 billion years old 😐anyone can simply say the Big Bang is true Beacuse our minds understand it 😑however your brain is a tool 😐to know the true wonder of the universe you have to understand the concept of life and death as a whole 😑meaning what do you remember before you were born?🤔that’s right nothing 😑 and now your living but when you die as your body decomposes what do you become? nothing again 😑we could have existed before in a different earth like planet 😐or a different timeline or who knows what else 😑 it almost feels as if the universe is not just random 😐but also deterministic 😐witch is why humans are not scattered all over the place 😑 but it does have some questions 🤔if we are just going to stay dead forever then why did this planet ever form in the first place ?😐even if the chances of complex life are infinitesimal that does not explain why at all it even happened in the first place 😐 also we have Ben dead for eons 😐now that we are alive it almost feels like yesterday how everything in the cosmos came to be 😐Strange right ? 😐
12:48 nice 🕶 Haha, when I saw the title I was afraid silliness might detract from the content, but this is perfect. This is excellent, serious, intriguing stuff, and you've made it a little bit fun without sacrificing any of that, only adding to it, like the beauty of a flower that Feynman talked about. Thanks for sharing this! edit: And I'll be honest, even though it gave me a kind of grinning eye-roll, the title DID draw me in, and I DID grin, so... it worked! Even for a skeptical anti-woo person. (Also I do see how silly it is for a "Lunatic Cultist" to critique seriousness in the first place. Ha.) Anyway, loved it, thanks again! Subscribed!
7:45 ~ 8:00 Quantum runaway. I'm not terribly keen to 'explain' that one because I think it's fact. Within our own universe, we have the 3rd law of thermodynamics. Energy maybe equals mass but energy is neither created nor destroyed. It can and does get altered and converted between forms, but nobody creates or destroys energy. I think when you start talking a multiverse and black holes that form a singularity at the centre, and the neutron-star mess gets forced onto the singularity like toothpaste, what happens is some of these sources of energy disappear, like quantum virtual particles, and others find a confluence of spatial and temporal dimensions, a potential universe, and they pop out there. There are some very big imbalances in this idea. There are many cases where large amounts of stuff & energy goes down a hole and vanishes, and there are other cases where you put 5 units of mass through a small hole, and you get 5 million units of mass come out of that hole. I think if you look at this on too small a scale, you see conflict with the conservation of energy, but if you expand your view to the largest scale, it all roughly works. I can't calculate that down to one decimal place but my intuition says on the largest & most inclusive scale, as long as you blur your sight a little, conservation of energy does work. My point ~ you don't need to 'avoid' quantum run-away to do that. Quantum Runaway is simply part of the explanation, much the way 'inflation' is part of our current explanation / standard model.
What about the singularities (blackholes) merging during the contraction phase? Did they suddenly give up to became a part of the problem and evoporated that freed all of the entropy that they collected?
I enjoyed this video, Dr. Keating. I wonder now why there is only one point of a phase of contraction in the Universe, and if there might be more that can happen in a single epoch to split, or possibly merge with other times the Universe contracted. It would be like having two or more contraction wedges at once at separate places in the Universe, like arms or limbs. Thanks again for explaining this Big Bounce model.
what i like about penrose idea is that at the end if we only have photons then however "big" the universe might expnad to, it's "size" is irrelevant and could be taken as zero again. you could say that the initial singularity of the big bang was infinitly large to begin with, we might picture a "singularity" as being infinitly small, but there is no reason it couldn'r be infinitely large, if it's the next aeon in the cycle (which in fact is the first, and only aeon, as time starts "now"). 4:30 do the guys at entagma know you're using their graphics?
Sounds like a most valid question. Until we see some evidence that the universe could contract this "theory" is little more than a novel idea to amuse yourself with. So far all evidence points to an ever expanding universe.
I don't think it has to contract or bounce as such, spacetime simply decays in context of accelerating expansion and a big rip. At that point there is no material universe left, just a thin soup of energy dominated by dark energy. The rip leads to an inflationary effect with a proliferation of virtual particles that separate before they can annihilate, presto bigbang. The whole cycle akin to a relaxation oscillator but with no net energy gain or loss. How's that!!
I fear the field is getting off track with theory on top of theory. If bounces back n forth truly doesn't answers anything but physics entropy ends in Nihlism
Hi, realy realy like it, if explain many problems, great potencial to be the best explanation, also realy like the way you explain the problems and the advantage of difrent possibilitys, all the best. ..
I’m unclear of the bounce mechanism. Is white-holes responsible for this bounce, presumably when CMBR temperature reaches lower than super massive black hole temperature, reversing the inflow to outflow…. Just a thought that I’ve enjoyed but looking for formal theory that may have come to this consideration already and/or if its already been hashed out or even debunked it. Still learning thank-you
This model has the same problem as the big bang with all the matter/energy in a small volume. Gravity should have won and everything would have collapse into gigantic black hole! The Brane theory doesn't require super inflation. The another view is our universe is the inside of a black hole and from the start matter is drawn to the to the black holes sphere giving us inflation and a hot start
I like the black hole idea. XD I always thought it was really cool. BUT I'm sure we would see white holes (that being the original universe.) Also, Colliding black holes can drag space but it doesn't seem to be able to completely eat it up. It's hard to say either way. I'm more partial to colliding branes creating matter from the energy transfer and then fizzling out over a googolplex years.
What if you can explain the big bang and expansion of the universe by assuming that spacetime is made of "expanding gravitons ". Expanding gravitons are continually created. They expand at the speed of light and overlap with other gravitons to create spacetime. Whatever the usual rate of creation of gravitons, the inflationary epoch can be explained by a surge in the number of gravitons that were created.
The Universe isn't expanding, it is always bouncing at points. Galaxies are the deflation points which move apart due to that deflation point. Gravity moves towards points, but at the same time divides boundaries, and parts in the middle.
Question from a complete laymen: Does this theory imply that entropy will cause our universe to reach a point at which there is no more possible interaction between energy states? If so, could it be that this leads to a sudden *decrease* in entropy, ultimately resulting in an increasingly *deflating* universe, triggering another sudden inflation, et cetera? Perhaps someone more literate than I can reflect on this (preferably in laymen speech) ;)
Would happen to have a good read that one could use to help go into this more? Preferably based on the philosophy providing the concepts discussed here? So I can connect the dots with the math and the equations.
So what if you didn't say or I misses that gets the previous contracting phase going? I vaguely get how cyclical conformal works but I'm not confident I could explain it to someone? Edit, erase, erase. What I wrote after this doesn't make sense? So let me rethink that. Well upon review, no I didn't miss something, that is you'd did say how the contraction gets going, nor did I see it in just glancing at the paper either? I can't be like as I originally was going to speculate the cyclic conformal theory, that wouldn't make sense because it requires ever expansion in order to finally lose hold of its 3rd dimension! Augy, San Diego
Very exciting ideas - great presentation, I think the music brainwashed me but didnt kill my liking for inflation or the multiverse. No good reason to support it other than random periods of acceleration certainly does not lose what we have observed. Did you refer to Neil Turok at all? He's now director at the Perimeter Institute - always been big on bounce short on inflation - I would hate to lose my belief in the Multiverse though... it just seems conform to happier acid ponderings - going to rewatch this again
Slow down, cowboy :) ..i had to watch it 3 times to follow it acousticty, in terms of,my brain couldnt keep up with the flow. Now i get it, and I wasnt really sober each time listening, you have to put a disclaimer upfront like "make sure you focus 120% sober" ...:) Kidding..its very good, thanks for new input, i will focus better
Constant rate of acceleration. Allegedly. A universe expanding at a steady rate would also appear to be accelerating and have a red shift. Explaining how we know the difference gets heady.
@@Ungtartog Red shift indicates a difference in velocity (just like doppler shift when a train goes by). So, I suppose we'd have to measure the rate of change of the red shift, right? If red shift remains a constant, then we can conclude that the rate of expansion is a constant.
@@glennpearson9348 To make my point more clear... if you have a piece of elastic with evenly spaced dots on it, and then stretch it at a steady rate, say 1mph.. the 1mph rate will only be what is apparent as the velocity of the closest dots to you.. but the dot beyond that is moving away from the dot closest to you at 1mph as well, so it appears to be moving at 2mph, even thought there is no change to the velocity of the stretch.. only APPARENT velocity from your own vantage. This makes it difficult to determine if the universe is actually expanding at an ever increasing rate, or its actually a steady rate that just looks like its accelerating via the aformentioned principal. I did have a cosmologist explain it to me once, and there are 3 data streams that support acceleration, but I'd have to go look it up to remember what they were. Red shift alone won't do the trick.
@@Ungtartog Interesting theory. So, it sounds like the line of questioning here is whether spacetime "stretches" according to some "spring constant," the way a spring or a rubber band does. It is curious to me that some have calculated the size of the observable universe at 93 billion light-years across, yet our best estimate for its age is only 13.8 billion years. If we begin with the notion that the universe began with a singularity that expanded, and we assume that the speed of light were as insurmountable then as it is today, then the universe would only be about 28 billion light-years across (give or take). Even if we begin with the notion that our universe was born through an extreme spacetime constriction, and the same assumptions about the speed of light, then we arrive at the same conundrum. Fascinating.
None of these models ever explain the absurd young age of the universe. The universe isn’t even one billionth its potential age according to most models. The reality: at 13.8 billion years, the universe is likely at least 10% of his potential age. Actually odds are it’s at 50% of its potential age. In contrast the heat death of the universe is measured in years with a Google of zeros. Cosmology is completely off the tracks when it comes to measuring either the current age of the universe or predicting the potential age of the universe. It’s baffling that cosmologists never address this issue.
Good Teachers and Students are best served with minimal supervision and "throwing in the Deep End" when they begin to show talent advisers know they do not have. Ie Commentary should probably have time limits?
There was always something, and always will be, rather than something from nothing or always nothing. Since we exist, I'm inclined to believe a bouncing theory.
In a sector that has suffered from stagnation I appreciate the diversion from official orthodoxy. Having said that, while I enjoy the content, this could be a little less click-bait.
NO, the UNIverse cycles through phase changes 'globally' on & off, maybe a phase in between the two? What would that be? "Maybe" = Potential? But it's definitely not a 'big bang'. Either way it is Consciousness not matter - consciousness, source, and space are the same creative function eternally fluctuating and cycling.
Someone properly qualified.., has to say something about how the typical reductionist return to first principles reasoning, is to simply change the name of the identified phenomenon and, CCC is the optimal choice for the reality of equivalence in appearance of BBT and the NowEternal QM-TIME Instant. (Call that person "Sir Rodger" will do, but the inadequate change of concept to "bounce" is as inappropriate as "bang", ..equally lacking in the observational Completeness that must include the absolute continuity property of Reflection= Universal Spin) ----- If "Actual Intelligence" is derived from learning by doing, developing Intuition by discovering the personal awareness extending consciousness of a "beginning under-standing", then because "in the beginning" under these circumstances means starting with be-cause-effect = no-difference point positioning Timing-spacing sync connection containment states.., the absence of action-life, that is the "mystical" orientation to childhood commencement of studying the Universe, from the temporal superposition identification positioning of ONE-INFINITY Singularity. As we grow older we "condense" experience into skills and knowledge. The Ruler of Ancient era set the best standards for human management of available resources, so by Observable default reasoning the Ruler of the World is No-thing, the beginning of all active living things. Self-defining clocking condensation modulation cause-effect phase-locked coherence-cohesion Bose-Einsteinian Condensation logarithmic sync-duration chemical resonances, in holographic flat-space ground-state No-thing-defined eternally, Singularity. ("It's not what you say, it's how you say it", which is the essence of Teaching and Learning) Zero-infinity Kelvin i-reflection singularity positioning containment is Fine Tuning, by default. And a perceptions paradox observation of @.dt Eternity-now superposition ONE-INFINITY Singularity.., you can Not [tautology] get your head around nothing, "the beginning" RULE of self-defining instantaneously metastable everything floating in flat-space ground-state No-thing-defined.., but Holographicly supporting inside-outside eternal phase-shifting QM-TIME coordination. Ie it doesn't make actual physical sense except as an AdS/CFT CCC Holographic echo-chamber, i-reflection projection-drawing containment! Engineering Drawing Conception of the Exploded View projection-drawing of an Object turned insideout and aimed at an objective field vanishing point positioning is basic training for comprehending the Holographic Principle Imagery of QM-TIME Completeness cause-effect, "it's always NOW" in Everything Connected, AM-FM Communication In-form-ation Completeness of Einsteinian wave-packaging of Bose-Einsteinian Logarithmic Time Condensation of Fluxion-Integral superimposed line-of-sight positioning cause-effect, Actuality Calculus @.dt Eternity-now Interval. BBT is not "wrong" or incomplete Opinion-wise, but it is almost the worst way of thinking about Theoretical Calculus analysis of Quantum-fields pulse-evolution, because it's the equivalent of a movie picture of the Steady State Theory. Ie Non sense repetition of the same mis-take observation. All Scaling-proportioning is QM-TIME Relativity aka Number Theory relationship, LAW of superimposed 1-0 e-Pi-i sync-duration probability, all-ways all-at-once forever logarithmic condensation. The Math-Phys-Chem and Geometry development of Pure Dynamic Mathematics of WYSIWYG QM-TIME Completeness. The apparent separation=connection Infinity/Eternity->now Space-time wave-packaging Singularity, is the literal "hang-up" for absorbing any concept of Temporal Conception. Actual Intelligence cause-effect function requires that NO Labelling is attached to Pure Dynamic Mathematics concepts. Theory has to match Observation, so the holistic approach to an assembly of the proposed individualised abstractions provided is "simply" to understand projection-drawing vanishing-into-no-thing Holes in Black-body Holographic Principle Perspective, as Universal QM-TIME Singularity. "In the Beginning".
Gravity aint stromg enough and there is no evidence the universe is curved, thus there is no mechanism for a "big bounce". That aint it. Not a new model by the way. Very old concept.
I have got something for you brain Keating . Let go , the observable universe started with all the matter spread fairly evenly across it , then the matter starts to clump (gravitate) together all at the same time. The matter slowly accelerates outwards towards some really dense matter surrounding us , like water vapor in a bubble . You might be saying I'm breaking the speed of light , because I did. The light speed limit is a mathematical concept so I largely just ingnore it. When you divid by zero you know your answer is wrong but apparently Einstein didn't think so , not my problem though.
I would argue inflation should never have been taken as a fact in the first place (especially in recent history) given how many holes there are in the theory
There are no constants to me, cause all go by levels that is why they must change from one level to another say subatoms, atoms, cells, organs, the boddy, planets, stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies etc. say speed light, in an atom wont be the same as in a cell, nither the same in a cell, the body, planets,stars etc. so the same in any other thing you might want to call constant say 3.1416 - 1.618, 137 etc.
not a thing is infinite. - LIGHT BOUNCES or diffracts at different electromagnetic levels this ables to create gravity; such levels go from deep the atooms and below to clusters of clusters and way up as seen all over just look for the mushroom form from dna to big, big systems just click my logo to see it, the video is called LIGHT DIFFRACTION PRODUCES GRAVITY.
Well something I can say is even IF the universe goes the universe goes into a bounce 😐the chances of earth or a planet like earth forming again is infinitesimal😵 meaning that it should not have ever happened in the first place 😵 and yet anything in the past is set 😐so the question is why so specific? 😐are we the only carbon life forms in the whole cosmos?😐the year is 2022 😐but it almost feels as if living is just a dream 😐like how can this be?😐it’s like some how earth or this planet made complex life possible?😐 sure we will all die at some point 😐but rather the universe is finate or infinite ether way it’s like all of this and everything we see just poped out of nothing😐 strange…. if a planet like earth can form why can’t another?😐also what about consciousness? So many mystery’s so little time 😓
Wow I am gonna have to watch this 10x to still not understand it! Thanks for your efforts to make these well produced videos with so much data... and speculation! My brain feels nourished and inspired to learn more! Thx
I like the BOUNCE THEORY bc it’s more plausible given the way nature moves …
> I can’t recall any linear formation in nature -
> I think the earlier theories were based on geometry - Which is very helpful for constructing man made stuff ( mechanical engineering )
> If the products of the universe are all organic, it makes sense to me to have a theory based on organic qualities …💫
Great video once again Dr. Absolutely great content. Good animations and b roll support.
Quick audio tip : Try to set your voice volume around -6db to -3db before the export. Louder vocals is better for these type of videos. It's good for audience retention.
Keep up the good work!
Great to hear. Thanks for the tip
fantastic editing & visuals
Really a great progress in production, I think you should be also on netflix! Keep up the amazing Dr.Brian!
Thanks Marwa!
Just as a minor note: I remember "Big Bang or Big Bounce" being debated in the 1960's! What's old is new again! 😀 (mind you, I was in junior high school at the time, so I don't remember the details. Just that there *was* a debate going on...)
I think there were a Scientific American article about it. Pretty much after the discovery of the accelerating universe nobody seriously brought it up again. Unless dark energy can be debunked not much hope in a bouncing universe.
Thanks not exactly because the bounce model’s scalar field can become dark energy just not a cosmological constant. Inflation has no such mechanism linking the two periods of accelerating Universe
@@DrBrianKeating Ummm...will you please put that in a way a truck driver can understand?
@@oif3gunner I was trying to .... then I realised I have no idea how to drive a truck, which is probably for the best.
Which do you think is more plausible: a Bounce from a previous universe’s collapse, or a Bang from a singularity?
*Please subscribe to my TH-cam Channel and hit the notification 🔔*
How many times has it bounced and can life transcend the next bounce back.
I would not take a bet either way. Many absurd things turn out to be true. We have so little information to make an either/or guess. It might even be something else we cannot even imagine today.
If you start thinking that the universe continually bounces. Doesn't it lead you to the question of what caused the first bounce.
@@andykeating791 Well let's go back to the title. It is not a new model, just a refined one. The bounce theory goes back to the beginning of big bang theory at least 60 years ago. The biggest problem is that each bounce increases entropy. The expansion of the universe assumes entropy also increases and is in one direction overall (when order is imposed it has an entropy cost someplace else). Go back in time and entropy approaches a vanishing point. Bounce theory can't explain that.
Another big thorn in bounce is the accelerating universe. Even if true we have seen the last bounce.
I'm liking more & more Lee Smolins evolutionary universe . I like the concept of the physical laws evolving .
Big bang-> expansion of energy-> cooling-> protons and electrons-> hydrogen-> stars-> supernova-> black holes-> repeat
#Facts
It's like a giant clock cycle. But what is it keeping track of and why?
Not Quite 🤔… In my own personal opinion skip “big bang,” since we just know of CMBR formation 380 thousand years after…but not necessarily before
Also after blackholes would go > blackhole consolidation > more super massive black holes form and existing smb’s grow> cmbr temperature decrease > hawking radiation evaporates small blackholes but not larger ones fast enough > cmbr reaches lower than super massive blackhole temperatures > smb inflow becomes outflow > white-holes chain reaction rips apart space-time > cosmic balloon deflation > entropy spikes > saturation settles >…cooling > protons and electrons reform…cycle continues…
Big bang singularity seems too isotropic for what we’re seeing, but a white-hole-fountain “chain big-bang” might be a more plausible solution to address the irregularities within CMBR and the Dark Flow, and many of the missing pieces from the current model.
Don’t know for sure, actually looking right now to see if someone already math’ed this out in a refined theory, or even if such notion has already long passed debunked by now. Would like too learn more🤔
I think the big bang is like a point on the horizon where two railroad tracks converge. It only looks like a singularity from our vantage. If you were to move closer to it by moving backwards in time, you could never actually reach it, any more than you can reach the place where the two rails converge.. because they never actually do. As you get closer to what you think is the beginning, increments of time and space shrink, but they maintain their scalar relationship to the observer. The observer is not aware that their seconds and lengths are getting shorter as they move backwards in time. From their vantage nothing changes. This is similar to Penrose's CCC but without the necessity for a badly explained transition into a "new" universe. No collapse, no new funnel. Its the same universe it has always been and always will be. The scaling part is on point tho. The absence of detail of what happened at the earliest moments and exactly what it looked like, so to speak, is limited, literally, by our size and the the distance between us in both time and space to the thing we are attempting to understand and observe. If we were able to scale ourselves down to the correct relationship in that "hot dense state", we would have a lot of questions answered, but I expect "the begnning" will be just as far away as it ever was. That fraction of a planck second will now seem like billions of years. True singularities are not actually possible any where but the imagination.
I have seen models of the Big Bang, or begining of the Universe, that is like a funnel...until it gets near the begining and instead of collapsing to a point at the bottom of a cone, it rounds off and...I am not sure what that means, except it's...I dunno, I think, the space dimension becomes a time dimension and the time dimension..and there is no singularity.
I had postulated the existence of an "expanding" graviton. The expanding graviton is (1) the carrier of the physics constants, (2) the wave function psi (or more accurately, what wave functions are made of) and (3) expanding gravitons behave like water ripples that expand from a point into a 3D+1 sphere, at the speed of light, with a radius r = ct. If expanding gravitons exist, then EVERYTHING in experimental physics can be accounted for including quantum mechanics, relativity, quantum field theory and the standard model. The surface area of an expanding graviton is a virtual photon (or a real photon). The big bang began as a single graviton (with the outer surface of a photon) with energy equal to E = hf = energy of the big bang. New gravitons are constantly being created by either events or conditions of the previous state of the universe. The inflationary epoch of the big bang is caused by the extreme temperature/energy conditions created new gravitons at an accelerated pace. Inflatons are not necessary.
As we start to understand that the number of black holes is greater than we thought, we approach an answer to the "horizon problem." Black holes absorb light. The more black holes, the less of an issue the horizon problem becomes. Apparently all black holes are not merely centerpieces to galaxies.
Maybe the known universe is just a never ending beating heart?
Maybe its not never ending though
Seems that your analogy just adds more humanism rather than keeping it objective
Love it! That's quite possible if what countless mystics down the ages have reported is correct.
I think it's a beating left toe
Such a difficult to understand topic, and still so well presented. I would especially point out your habit of repeatedly mentioning the simple layman description of a problem, before you dive into the complicated stuff. Almost no one else does this, like you do. This makes it interesting to follow, even for people like me.
I think this was a fantastic presentation, I enjoyed every minute if it.
When it comes to your question - I am not qualified to have even an opinion. But it sounds plausible with this alternative approach. Albeit the problem of how it originally all started, seems to be unsolved. Or?
Ingvar Nilsen, Norway (Amateur astronomer since I was a kid, I am 70 now)
P.S. Keep up the good work, I enjoy every video you publish!
Thank you, sooooo much!
Surely the competing theories can be scored for their proximity to observations as stated and then analyzed in detail by an iterative process which then converges on the likely best candidate. At the moment everyone seems to present their models as having approximately satisfied each outstanding problem which does not enable one to choose>
Thank you. It’s incredible that I can get this type of education from top educators almost for free. Support this channel!!!!
Thanks Tim!!!!
Have Anna Ijjas on. She is a great podcast guest with new ideas.
Agreed. She’s an amazing scientist
He lost me at "patch size": I never heard a definition. I played it a second time. The first mention of "patch" was "a part of space"; the second was "corresponding to our observable universe". At that point it's described as "never connected in the past". At this point I'll just leave the discussion, since it's too jargon-heavy.
TWO QUESTIONS:
1. Are there an infinite number of contractions and bounces? I thought it has been determined that “bouncing models” can not be past eternal?
2. Would that mean that the assertions that the universe continues to expand and that there is insufficient mass or gravitational force to cause any future contraction is false?
Great post! It was funny to see someone filling out a tax form when you spoke about "problems" It would be nice for some sort of final tally sheet comparison showing the viewer the required components for the bouncing model. It got more than a bit confusing trying to keep track of all the possibilities you mentioned.
Good suggestion for a follow up! Have a great weekend Walter
Nice, you have both hands available to gesture with now that you aren't using the clicker ...much more natural! But most importantly ...the context of the presentation was fresh, inspiring and taught in a digestible way. Keep the awesome content rolling Dr Brian!
Thanks very much Sebastian! Have a great weekend!
Thank you for the unbiased presentation ,everyone else seems to push politics ahead of the curve .
Would not each cycle in a bouncing universe lose some energy, eventually ceasing to bounce at all?
Also, what if there was not just one big bang but a huge number at once (or nearly at at the same time). For example, if the initial "bang" was more of a separation than a bang. That is to say parts of the initial matter/energy bundle broke up into smaller parts of that initial whatever it was, speeding away from each other in all directions like shrapnel from a bomb. These portions travel for some distance before exploding into more yet smaller units, and so on. Then they all finally explode a final time into the primordial soup of the initial universe. So the matter/energy are already "expanded" before any big bang. No expansion in pico-seconds needed. Of course this requires something outside of our universe. The mini big bangs may have gone off like a fission reaction with one triggering another in a geometric progression. Those explosions could have taken place much faster than might be thought since the speed of light may not have been a barrier to matter or radiation at that time. Could also be that those big bang mini-bundles exist in great numbers in whatever lies outside our universe. Every now and then one explodes (or something else explodes) setting off a chain reaction at FTL rates and seeding another universe.
And here am I thinking that one day we’ll find the giant tortoise on top of giant tortoises. Excellent presentation, many thanks.
Lol. Maybe!?!?
It actually is turtles all the way down... so to speak. No origin.
One big problem with a bouncing model: Observations. The expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down.
Yup exactly
Well what do you mean by expanding?😐like everyware ?🤔 and ether way you look at it it big rip, heat death Big Crunch all 3 of these require a Big Bang 😐however a problem with the Big Bang model is it states that the ENTIRE COSMOS is over 14 billion years old 😐anyone can simply say the Big Bang is true Beacuse our minds understand it 😑however your brain is a tool 😐to know the true wonder of the universe you have to understand the concept of life and death as a whole 😑meaning what do you remember before you were born?🤔that’s right nothing 😑 and now your living but when you die as your body decomposes what do you become? nothing again 😑we could have existed before in a different earth like planet 😐or a different timeline or who knows what else 😑 it almost feels as if the universe is not just random 😐but also deterministic 😐witch is why humans are not scattered all over the place 😑 but it does have some questions 🤔if we are just going to stay dead forever then why did this planet ever form in the first place ?😐even if the chances of complex life are infinitesimal that does not explain why at all it even happened in the first place 😐 also we have Ben dead for eons 😐now that we are alive it almost feels like yesterday how everything in the cosmos came to be 😐Strange right ? 😐
YES..... perfect tone and pace....you've hit the sweet spot 👍
Thanks Shaun. That means the Multiverse to me 😀
@@DrBrianKeating I'm sure all of "me" (throughout the multiverse) agree's ♾
Lol. Thanks Have a great weekend!
models, models everywhere.
Thank you! Again, another awesome video.
Great summaries
No multiverse?? I'm in.
Dr. Keating, this was a truly excellent presentation of this cosmological model. Kudos! ☺️
I have a theory were the Universe claps. Light travelling at c drags behind it a sound wave which "claps" when it reaches the sound barrier.
I'm glad I subscribed even though the knowledge shared is a leaf in the wind shearing over the roof of a speeding car.🍃
So glad to have you
@@DrBrianKeating The confusion is all mine.
12:48 nice 🕶
Haha, when I saw the title I was afraid silliness might detract from the content, but this is perfect. This is excellent, serious, intriguing stuff, and you've made it a little bit fun without sacrificing any of that, only adding to it, like the beauty of a flower that Feynman talked about. Thanks for sharing this!
edit: And I'll be honest, even though it gave me a kind of grinning eye-roll, the title DID draw me in, and I DID grin, so... it worked! Even for a skeptical anti-woo person. (Also I do see how silly it is for a "Lunatic Cultist" to critique seriousness in the first place. Ha.)
Anyway, loved it, thanks again! Subscribed!
7:45 ~ 8:00 Quantum runaway. I'm not terribly keen to 'explain' that one because I think it's fact.
Within our own universe, we have the 3rd law of thermodynamics. Energy maybe equals mass but energy is neither created nor destroyed. It can and does get altered and converted between forms, but nobody creates or destroys energy.
I think when you start talking a multiverse and black holes that form a singularity at the centre, and the neutron-star mess gets forced onto the singularity like toothpaste, what happens is some of these sources of energy disappear, like quantum virtual particles, and others find a confluence of spatial and temporal dimensions, a potential universe, and they pop out there. There are some very big imbalances in this idea. There are many cases where large amounts of stuff & energy goes down a hole and vanishes, and there are other cases where you put 5 units of mass through a small hole, and you get 5 million units of mass come out of that hole. I think if you look at this on too small a scale, you see conflict with the conservation of energy, but if you expand your view to the largest scale, it all roughly works. I can't calculate that down to one decimal place but my intuition says on the largest & most inclusive scale, as long as you blur your sight a little, conservation of energy does work. My point ~ you don't need to 'avoid' quantum run-away to do that. Quantum Runaway is simply part of the explanation, much the way 'inflation' is part of our current explanation / standard model.
Super exciting stuff well presented.
Thank you, very much
I was always in the bounce camp.
What about the singularities (blackholes) merging during the contraction phase? Did they suddenly give up to became a part of the problem and evoporated that freed all of the entropy that they collected?
I enjoyed this video, Dr. Keating. I wonder now why there is only one point of a phase of contraction in the Universe, and if there might be more that can happen in a single epoch to split, or possibly merge with other times the Universe contracted. It would be like having two or more contraction wedges at once at separate places in the Universe, like arms or limbs. Thanks again for explaining this Big Bounce model.
what i like about penrose idea is that at the end if we only have photons then however "big" the universe might expnad to, it's "size" is irrelevant and could be taken as zero again. you could say that the initial singularity of the big bang was infinitly large to begin with, we might picture a "singularity" as being infinitly small, but there is no reason it couldn'r be infinitely large, if it's the next aeon in the cycle (which in fact is the first, and only aeon, as time starts "now").
4:30 do the guys at entagma know you're using their graphics?
Maybe a stupid question, but what is it that will make our universe contract at some point?
Sounds like a most valid question.
Until we see some evidence that the universe could contract this "theory" is little more than a novel idea to amuse yourself with.
So far all evidence points to an ever expanding universe.
I don't think it has to contract or bounce as such, spacetime simply decays in context of accelerating expansion and a big rip. At that point there is no material universe left, just a thin soup of energy dominated by dark energy. The rip leads to an inflationary effect with a proliferation of virtual particles that separate before they can annihilate, presto bigbang. The whole cycle akin to a relaxation oscillator but with no net energy gain or loss. How's that!!
Wow these videos are awesome, thanks a lot!
You’re welcome Boris and Thank you, too!
So bright! You require shades! 👓
Nice shared, from my limited perspective SPIRAL still the cosmological model to beat..
I fear the field is getting off track with theory on top of theory. If bounces back n forth truly doesn't answers anything but physics entropy ends in Nihlism
NOT JUST BOTH, BUT ALL HAPPENED. THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION, A SINGULARITY, A BOUNCE,...
Hi, realy realy like it, if explain many problems, great potencial to be the best explanation, also realy like the way you explain the problems and the advantage of difrent possibilitys, all the best. ..
Thanks very much Nuno. Have a great week
@@DrBrianKeating Thanks just come back from France, spend some time whit my love family, all the best to you.
@@DrBrianKeating In the bounce theory, maybe dark energy have a mecanisme to compress, and relief the energy like a spring ..?..
If you dont like 1 question resulting in multiple answers then you wont like the UAP Field
Awesome explanation. Many thanks! 👍
I’m unclear of the bounce mechanism. Is white-holes responsible for this bounce, presumably when CMBR temperature reaches lower than super massive black hole temperature, reversing the inflow to outflow…. Just a thought that I’ve enjoyed but looking for formal theory that may have come to this consideration already and/or if its already been hashed out or even debunked it. Still learning thank-you
Gap,gap.,gap,---------gaps,fill in the blanks, interesting, puzzling,no end ,it goes on,goes on
I admit that I am drawn to bouncing cosmology purely on instinct. Nice to know there is a bit of scientific support.
great vid, gonna go contrarian and stick with Inflation as I don't like Quantum Gravity.
Thanks Jim!
This model has the same problem as the big bang with all the matter/energy in a small volume. Gravity should have won and everything would have collapse into gigantic black hole! The Brane theory doesn't require super inflation. The another view is our universe is the inside of a black hole and from the start matter is drawn to the to the black holes sphere giving us inflation and a hot start
I like the black hole idea. XD I always thought it was really cool. BUT I'm sure we would see white holes (that being the original universe.)
Also, Colliding black holes can drag space but it doesn't seem to be able to completely eat it up. It's hard to say either way. I'm more partial to colliding branes creating matter from the energy transfer and then fizzling out over a googolplex years.
when I was kid, wayback, I was told the Higgs could be the inflaton. That's out, right? If so, what is?
What if you can explain the big bang and expansion of the universe by assuming that spacetime is made of "expanding gravitons ". Expanding gravitons are continually created. They expand at the speed of light and overlap with other gravitons to create spacetime. Whatever the usual rate of creation of gravitons, the inflationary epoch can be explained by a surge in the number of gravitons that were created.
The Universe isn't expanding, it is always bouncing at points. Galaxies are the deflation points which move apart due to that deflation point. Gravity moves towards points, but at the same time divides boundaries, and parts in the middle.
Big if true
Question from a complete laymen:
Does this theory imply that entropy will cause our universe to reach a point at which there is no more possible interaction between energy states?
If so, could it be that this leads to a sudden *decrease* in entropy, ultimately resulting in an increasingly *deflating* universe, triggering another sudden inflation, et cetera?
Perhaps someone more literate than I can reflect on this (preferably in laymen speech) ;)
Why isn’t this titled “Debunking the Big Bang”? “Debunk” takes a direct object, so what is the “on” for?
Would happen to have a good read that one could use to help go into this more? Preferably based on the philosophy providing the concepts discussed here? So I can connect the dots with the math and the equations.
no you have to understand everybody is in the dark no pun intended
@@silent00planet lol!
Cosmic bounces, amazing
So what if you didn't say or I misses that gets the previous contracting phase going? I vaguely get how cyclical conformal works but I'm not confident I could explain it to someone? Edit, erase, erase. What I wrote after this doesn't make sense? So let me rethink that.
Well upon review, no I didn't miss something, that is you'd did say how the contraction gets going, nor did I see it in just glancing at the paper either? I can't be like as I originally was going to speculate the cyclic conformal theory, that wouldn't make sense because it requires ever expansion in order to finally lose hold of its 3rd dimension!
Augy,
San Diego
does the singularity need to be a point? Why can't it be infinite in extent, and then expand accordingly.
Very exciting ideas - great presentation, I think the music brainwashed me but didnt kill my liking for inflation or the multiverse. No good reason to support it other than random periods of acceleration certainly does not lose what we have observed. Did you refer to Neil Turok at all? He's now director at the Perimeter Institute - always been big on bounce short on inflation - I would hate to lose my belief in the Multiverse though... it just seems conform to happier acid ponderings - going to rewatch this again
the PR boys of String Theory Inflation and the Multiverse will never allow Alternative theories to be allowed equal billing.
This only shifts the problem.
Slow down, cowboy :) ..i had to watch it 3 times to follow it acousticty, in terms of,my brain couldnt keep up with the flow. Now i get it, and I wasnt really sober each time listening, you have to put a disclaimer upfront like "make sure you focus 120% sober" ...:) Kidding..its very good, thanks for new input, i will focus better
How do we consider the "Hubble Constant," as it "changes over time?" Doesn't that mean it isn't a constant?
Constant rate of acceleration. Allegedly. A universe expanding at a steady rate would also appear to be accelerating and have a red shift. Explaining how we know the difference gets heady.
@@Ungtartog Red shift indicates a difference in velocity (just like doppler shift when a train goes by). So, I suppose we'd have to measure the rate of change of the red shift, right? If red shift remains a constant, then we can conclude that the rate of expansion is a constant.
@@glennpearson9348 To make my point more clear... if you have a piece of elastic with evenly spaced dots on it, and then stretch it at a steady rate, say 1mph.. the 1mph rate will only be what is apparent as the velocity of the closest dots to you.. but the dot beyond that is moving away from the dot closest to you at 1mph as well, so it appears to be moving at 2mph, even thought there is no change to the velocity of the stretch.. only APPARENT velocity from your own vantage. This makes it difficult to determine if the universe is actually expanding at an ever increasing rate, or its actually a steady rate that just looks like its accelerating via the aformentioned principal. I did have a cosmologist explain it to me once, and there are 3 data streams that support acceleration, but I'd have to go look it up to remember what they were. Red shift alone won't do the trick.
@@Ungtartog Interesting theory. So, it sounds like the line of questioning here is whether spacetime "stretches" according to some "spring constant," the way a spring or a rubber band does. It is curious to me that some have calculated the size of the observable universe at 93 billion light-years across, yet our best estimate for its age is only 13.8 billion years.
If we begin with the notion that the universe began with a singularity that expanded, and we assume that the speed of light were as insurmountable then as it is today, then the universe would only be about 28 billion light-years across (give or take).
Even if we begin with the notion that our universe was born through an extreme spacetime constriction, and the same assumptions about the speed of light, then we arrive at the same conundrum.
Fascinating.
None of these models ever explain the absurd young age of the universe. The universe isn’t even one billionth its potential age according to most models. The reality: at 13.8 billion years, the universe is likely at least 10% of his potential age. Actually odds are it’s at 50% of its potential age. In contrast the heat death of the universe is measured in years with a Google of zeros. Cosmology is completely off the tracks when it comes to measuring either the current age of the universe or predicting the potential age of the universe. It’s baffling that cosmologists never address this issue.
...Initial conditions
How do you get a contraction phase out of dark energy accelerated expansion?
The big boing!
Good Teachers and Students are best served with minimal supervision and "throwing in the Deep End" when they begin to show talent advisers know they do not have. Ie Commentary should probably have time limits?
Why must the singularity be small....why can't the singularity at the big bang be larger than the observable universe?
so what does Sir Roger say?
There was always something, and always will be, rather than something from nothing or always nothing. Since we exist, I'm inclined to believe a bouncing theory.
Get Timothy Nguyen on :) Eric too! Please stop avoiding it.
Big Bang just does not add up literally +- the Math just does not Support it.
In a sector that has suffered from stagnation I appreciate the diversion from official orthodoxy. Having said that, while I enjoy the content, this could be a little less click-bait.
NO, the UNIverse cycles through phase changes 'globally' on & off, maybe a phase in between the two? What would that be? "Maybe" = Potential? But it's definitely not a 'big bang'. Either way it is Consciousness not matter - consciousness, source, and space are the same creative function eternally fluctuating and cycling.
simulation
Someone properly qualified.., has to say something about how the typical reductionist return to first principles reasoning, is to simply change the name of the identified phenomenon and, CCC is the optimal choice for the reality of equivalence in appearance of BBT and the NowEternal QM-TIME Instant.
(Call that person "Sir Rodger" will do, but the inadequate change of concept to "bounce" is as inappropriate as "bang", ..equally lacking in the observational Completeness that must include the absolute continuity property of Reflection= Universal Spin)
-----
If "Actual Intelligence" is derived from learning by doing, developing Intuition by discovering the personal awareness extending consciousness of a "beginning under-standing", then because "in the beginning" under these circumstances means starting with be-cause-effect = no-difference point positioning Timing-spacing sync connection containment states.., the absence of action-life, that is the "mystical" orientation to childhood commencement of studying the Universe, from the temporal superposition identification positioning of ONE-INFINITY Singularity. As we grow older we "condense" experience into skills and knowledge.
The Ruler of Ancient era set the best standards for human management of available resources, so by Observable default reasoning the Ruler of the World is No-thing, the beginning of all active living things. Self-defining clocking condensation modulation cause-effect phase-locked coherence-cohesion Bose-Einsteinian Condensation logarithmic sync-duration chemical resonances, in holographic flat-space ground-state No-thing-defined eternally, Singularity. ("It's not what you say, it's how you say it", which is the essence of Teaching and Learning)
Zero-infinity Kelvin i-reflection singularity positioning containment is Fine Tuning, by default.
And a perceptions paradox observation of @.dt Eternity-now superposition ONE-INFINITY Singularity.., you can Not [tautology] get your head around nothing, "the beginning" RULE of self-defining instantaneously metastable everything floating in flat-space ground-state No-thing-defined.., but Holographicly supporting inside-outside eternal phase-shifting QM-TIME coordination. Ie it doesn't make actual physical sense except as an AdS/CFT CCC Holographic echo-chamber, i-reflection projection-drawing containment!
Engineering Drawing Conception of the Exploded View projection-drawing of an Object turned insideout and aimed at an objective field vanishing point positioning is basic training for comprehending the Holographic Principle Imagery of QM-TIME Completeness cause-effect, "it's always NOW" in Everything Connected, AM-FM Communication In-form-ation Completeness of Einsteinian wave-packaging of Bose-Einsteinian Logarithmic Time Condensation of Fluxion-Integral superimposed line-of-sight positioning cause-effect, Actuality Calculus @.dt Eternity-now Interval.
BBT is not "wrong" or incomplete Opinion-wise, but it is almost the worst way of thinking about Theoretical Calculus analysis of Quantum-fields pulse-evolution, because it's the equivalent of a movie picture of the Steady State Theory. Ie Non sense repetition of the same mis-take observation.
All Scaling-proportioning is QM-TIME Relativity aka Number Theory relationship, LAW of superimposed 1-0 e-Pi-i sync-duration probability, all-ways all-at-once forever logarithmic condensation. The Math-Phys-Chem and Geometry development of Pure Dynamic Mathematics of WYSIWYG QM-TIME Completeness.
The apparent separation=connection Infinity/Eternity->now Space-time wave-packaging Singularity, is the literal "hang-up" for absorbing any concept of Temporal Conception.
Actual Intelligence cause-effect function requires that NO Labelling is attached to Pure Dynamic Mathematics concepts.
Theory has to match Observation, so the holistic approach to an assembly of the proposed individualised abstractions provided is "simply" to understand projection-drawing vanishing-into-no-thing Holes in Black-body Holographic Principle Perspective, as Universal QM-TIME Singularity. "In the Beginning".
infinity questions
Gravity aint stromg enough and there is no evidence the universe is curved, thus there is no mechanism for a "big bounce". That aint it. Not a new model by the way. Very old concept.
I have got something for you brain Keating . Let go , the observable universe started with all the matter spread fairly evenly across it , then the matter starts to clump (gravitate) together all at the same time. The matter slowly accelerates outwards towards some really dense matter surrounding us , like water vapor in a bubble . You might be saying I'm breaking the speed of light , because I did. The light speed limit is a mathematical concept so I largely just ingnore it. When you divid by zero you know your answer is wrong but apparently Einstein didn't think so , not my problem though.
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
New speculations replace old facts. Yuppie...
As if new speculation doesn’t lead to new facts
real facts don't change
I would argue inflation should never have been taken as a fact in the first place (especially in recent history) given how many holes there are in the theory
@@johnathanwalker7781 Do the holes affect the inflation ?
Dr. Keating talks too fast. There is too little time too think deeply about a given factoid.
Sorry Dean. I’ll try to slowwwwwwww down but it’s not in my nature
CCC
There are no constants to me, cause all go by levels that is why they must change from one level to another say subatoms, atoms, cells, organs, the boddy, planets, stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies etc. say speed light, in an atom wont be the same as in a cell, nither the same in a cell, the body, planets,stars etc. so the same in any other thing you might want to call constant say 3.1416 - 1.618, 137 etc.
I prefer the big boioiong
Folx call my arms the "2 bicep incident"
not a thing is infinite. - LIGHT BOUNCES or diffracts at different electromagnetic levels this ables to create gravity; such levels go from deep the atooms and below to clusters of clusters and way up as seen all over just look for the mushroom form from dna to big, big systems just click my logo to see it, the video is called LIGHT DIFFRACTION PRODUCES GRAVITY.
HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Well something I can say is even IF the universe goes the universe goes into a bounce 😐the chances of earth or a planet like earth forming again is infinitesimal😵 meaning that it should not have ever happened in the first place 😵 and yet anything in the past is set 😐so the question is why so specific? 😐are we the only carbon life forms in the whole cosmos?😐the year is 2022 😐but it almost feels as if living is just a dream 😐like how can this be?😐it’s like some how earth or this planet made complex life possible?😐 sure we will all die at some point 😐but rather the universe is finate or infinite ether way it’s like all of this and everything we see just poped out of nothing😐 strange…. if a planet like earth can form why can’t another?😐also what about consciousness? So many mystery’s so little time 😓
666 likes! Yikes!
Lol
🇺🇳20:00
Unsubbed.
Ah too bad. Now I only have 34,003 amazing subscribers
+1 Funny