On is the correct preposition for what on the internet? I'm pretty sure Antonio was referring to the internet as a community. Using an incorrectly formated sentence to critique a perfectly fine 3 year old comment is too astute for my cingulus.
Has anyone noticed how Alan Guth politely listen’s to Q&A’s at Public Lectures? While nodding his head, Dr Guth is signalling a genuine interest towards someone that may or may not be at his intellectual level. A good lesson in listening, not just hearing him/her.
Excellent series of lectures, I feel I now have some idea where the science in the documentaries comes from (even though my maths was creaking a bit by lecture 14 ;o)
A similar theory was already developed in the Soviet Union by Alexei Starobinsky and published in 1979, before Alan Guth made hist first inflationary model.
at@ 14:00 Professor Guth states that the change in energy equals the original energy density times the change in volume. This could only be true if the increase in volume were incremental. Otherwise, the energy density would be lower with increased volume.
Nope. The whole point of vacuum energy density is that it does not decrease or increase with a change of volume. If it were an ordinary gas, it would have decreased. But since it's the vacuum, it simply cannot decrease without a large change in the field, a process which is too slow to consider in the circumstances of inflation
I'm a little confused about something. Around 9:43 prof. Guth says that d(rho)/dt = 0 because the scalar field is stuck at the false vaccum value. But rho represents the mass density of the Universe, not the energy density of the false vaccum, V(phi). I get that V(phi) is constant, but why does that implies that the mass density rho is constant as well ? EDIT : Maybe he is ignoring the relatively small mass density from matter ? So that rho is here only the masse density of the false vaccum energy density ?
At around 5:53, Prof. Guth says that there is no way that a particle here would tunnel at the same time as a particle over there. But couldn't they be entangled?
+Addy Raina I cringed every time he said "at the same time" when talking about distant events, because according to relativity there is no such thing as simultaneity. I guess he means something like "at the same time in a reference frame stationary relative to the cosmic microwave background".
I am constantly amazed that one of the top science and engineering schools in the world has such shitty chalk erasers. They are chalk smearing devices.
I thought this was a course on economics, not the early universe. Hahaha. Took me a few minutes
me too lol. do you study economics?
An excellent course. Thank you to MIT OCW and to Professor Guth for sharing this with the internet!
On is the correct preposition for what on the internet?
I'm pretty sure Antonio was referring to the internet as a community. Using an incorrectly formated sentence to critique a perfectly fine 3 year old comment is too astute for my cingulus.
Has anyone noticed how Alan Guth politely listen’s to Q&A’s at Public Lectures? While nodding his head, Dr Guth is signalling a genuine interest towards someone that may or may not be at his intellectual level. A good lesson in listening, not just hearing him/her.
Thanks to prof. Guth and MIT for the wonderful lecture course.
is special relativity also covered in the course?
Brilliant, kind of sad these came to an end.
Thank you professor and the teams that made this series of lectures possible.
Excellent series of lectures, I feel I now have some idea where the science in the documentaries comes from (even though my maths was creaking a bit by lecture 14 ;o)
55:00 - Yikes. A student finding a mistake in AG's equation. I guess he wasn't nodding off.
excellent lecture!!who would be better than "Guth" to explain inflationary universe, afterall he is the creator of Inflationary theory!!!
A similar theory was already developed in the Soviet Union by Alexei Starobinsky and published in 1979, before Alan Guth made hist first inflationary model.
36:40 In other words the conjecture is whether the perturbation expansion converges.
at@ 14:00 Professor Guth states that the change in energy equals the original energy density times the change in volume. This could only be true if the increase in volume were incremental. Otherwise, the energy density would be lower with increased volume.
Nope. The whole point of vacuum energy density is that it does not decrease or increase with a change of volume.
If it were an ordinary gas, it would have decreased. But since it's the vacuum, it simply cannot decrease without a large change in the field, a process which is too slow to consider in the circumstances of inflation
I'm a little confused about something. Around 9:43 prof. Guth says that d(rho)/dt = 0 because the scalar field is stuck at the false vaccum value. But rho represents the mass density of the Universe, not the energy density of the false vaccum, V(phi). I get that V(phi) is constant, but why does that implies that the mass density rho is constant as well ?
EDIT : Maybe he is ignoring the relatively small mass density from matter ? So that rho is here only the masse density of the false vaccum energy density ?
Absolutely well done and definitely keep it up!!! 👍👍👍👍👍
At around 5:53, Prof. Guth says that there is no way that a particle here would tunnel at the same time as a particle over there. But couldn't they be entangled?
+Addy Raina I cringed every time he said "at the same time" when talking about distant events, because according to relativity there is no such thing as simultaneity. I guess he means something like "at the same time in a reference frame stationary relative to the cosmic microwave background".
Yes, I concur David. Could not all things be relative to the CMB as you mentioned?
No: entanglement would not necessarily produce simultaneous tunneling. They are two separate phenomena.
i wanna start everything from basic so just wanna know does this series cover the basic part of general relativity
At the end of the course i don't know it's just me or the mic but prof. A. Guth pronounces the (P) as (B) in a lot of words.
When I heard "Inflationary Universe Model" I realized this is not about economics. I better save the playlist anyway, though!
Does the X-17 particle have a place in this version of cosmology, possibly as the inflation?
god himself might fail this class
super freak'n duper !
What a true joy!
I expected the inflation of economics 😂
What is he talking?
Is this not economics ?
Ohh
Space and the creation of it and its expansion.
Unlike my Physian he has a very good hand writing ✍.
Judging by the title I thought it was an economic class
The answer is obvious. We are in Euclidean space inside an elliptic plane. It's just light is red-shifted by elliptic gravity.
I am constantly amazed that one of the top science and engineering schools in the world has such shitty chalk erasers. They are chalk smearing devices.
There is no proof when you reach high courses 😂😂😂😂😂
This is fake
You are a fake.