This presentation is mis-titled. It should have been called, "An Introductory Overview of Cosmology and the Big Bang". The speaker doesn't really start talking about inflation theory until the last ~10 minutes of the talk and simply lists some of the various models rather than discussing them. It's a nice talk, but it's an introductory presentation of cosmology for a lay audience, not a discussion about the merits of, and issues with, inflation theory.
0:31: 🌌 The universe was different before the hot Big Bang model, with everything closer, hotter, and denser. 5:42: 🌌 The speaker discusses the special nature of our universe, the concept of inflation, and the size and structure of the universe. 11:34: 🌌 The universe was very smooth and even when it was young, with only small variations in temperature. 16:49: 📡 The law stating that galaxies that are twice as far away are moving twice as fast is a result of the smoothness and uniformity of the universe. 22:13: 🌌 The image is being stretched to show the expansion of the universe, with galaxies maintaining their relative positions. 27:21: 🌌 The universe is expanding, with everything getting further away from each other as space-time itself grows. 32:59: 🌌 The speaker wants to show the expansion of the universe in a more realistic way. 37:55: 🌌 The universe is smooth and homogeneous, with everyone experiencing the same expansion from the Big Bang explosion. 43:10: 🌌 The homogeneity problem addresses why the universe is so smooth and homogeneous everywhere. 48:15: 📈 Exponential growth is illustrated by taking something and multiplying it by a number greater than one, causing acceleration in growth. 53:14: 🌌 Inflation theory explains the homogeneity and horizon problems in the universe. 57:43: 💫 Quantum fluctuations in the field during inflation give rise to the structure and formation of galaxies in the universe. 1:02:35: 🔬 Inflation in the universe can lead to Quantum fluctuations and the creation of disconnected bubble universes with different physics. Recap by Tammy AI
0:52 “ Everything in the universe is getting further and further away from everything else”. On a more human scale my socket set is absolute proof of this.
Thousands and thousands of super smart peeps dedicating their minds and lives to the question of nature mathematics and methodology. Finally we get close enough to the truth to know, THERE IS SO MUCH MORE TO LEARN. And it takes a huge human sized effort. We probably won't know "the lot" until we are all free to pursue pure thought endeavours. Not Celestine Prophecy, but something close to that. Open minded people, interested in the truth, unhindered by CRAPOLA. Focusing together on The Work.
The bucket of sand analogy always works well, what really does hit home though and how I explain the scale is by adding the fact that between each grain of sand is ~4 light years, and would take the fastest thing we have made, 73,000 years to make 1 single hope to the nearest star!! That's when you start to realise space is big, very big!" ;-)
What illustrates it even more impressively is that when you picture our nearest neighbor star and the Sun as two specks of sand, then Alpha Centauri would be located on a beach approximately 15 miles away.
None can *Know* anything of the past, given that to know is to directly immediately personally experience, as directly immediately and personally as pain. which obviously cannot be collective so no we know, and fortunately no we hurt or experience pain or we experience anything, there being no we.
But you *Don't* know Anything, do you? You are merely the dustbin in towhich witless wiseacres tip thewiseacreings as if you were a midden. When and *Only* when we has a headache can "We"know. it is rthe hallmark of the halfwit that he uses " we" know" we can no more know than we can have a headache -or -If only you would, jump from the top of the nearest tall building
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger which is the better explanation of gravity: invisible angels pull you down, or air is so heavy it pushes everything to the ground? Of course the answer is neither. So why do we hold on to an idea that requires 95% of the universe to be invisible to any kind of measurement? It is perfectly possible to go with "we don't know" over an idea that is broken.
Poor guy was nervous at s start. He realised that he fggot the bucket analogy wrong by a factor of 10, and while wondering about it said Stars instead of Galaxies in our observable universe.
He is a very good speaker. I find the mix of advanced topics and basic ones to be puzzling. He almost assumes that you are familiar with non-Euclidean geometries and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle but sketches out in a very basic way. I kept thinking yes yes but please get on with it and give the topic some depth
The hypothesis of inflation seems artificially forced in to salvage a theory of the early universe that just doesn't work. Sir Roger Penrose's hypothesis make a lot more sense.
@@thevikingwarrior I was gone during 2023 (or maybe '22) for a while. I think it's an iconic piece of furniture. Perhaps it went for refinishing, or some other upkeep of the hall.
So, at 59:15, it's as if you're rendering an image starting with a very low resolution, like 1x1 pixel 🖥️. As you increase the resolution incrementally (exponentially - 2x2, 4x4, 8x8, ...), more details emerge, and the screen itself also expands exponentially. This process is powered by your city's power plant, which represents the inflaton field, giving you a substantial power budget at the start. These pixels represent the density of space across all points in space. Your initial power budget allows you to easily add new pixels and expand the screen size. Pixels fill in gaps that would otherwise be empty when increasing the screen size. These new pixels, which represent regions of space, have their colors determined by rolling a weighted dice. This biases their color towards neighboring pixels but introduces slight variations, representing quantum fluctuations in the density of space. As you keep increasing the resolution and expanding the screen, the power budget starts to deplete. Each new addition consumes more power, and the ability to add new pixels decreases-the power plant isn't able to increase its power output as quickly as it used to. Eventually, you reach a point where you can't afford to power any more new pixels, representing the end of inflation. At this moment, instead of just stopping, the power plant goes haywire-it becomes unstable! Instead of maintaining the typical 120 volts AC, the voltage shoots up dramatically, causing the screen to heat up intensely, melting the pixels down to a hot, dense plasma. This represents the reheating phase in cosmology, where the remaining potential energy of the inflaton field is converted into particles and radiation, significantly increasing the temperature of the universe. The power plant eventually catches up and stabilizes - but can no longer supply the expansion of pixels at the same rate. The pixels that melted to plasma begin clumping into regions of higher and lower density, and eventually cool back down as the power plant restabilizes to its nominal voltage. This is analogous to the transition from the hot radiation dominated Universe into our current "cooler" matter-dominated era, filled with clumps of regions of stars and galaxies. Does this analogy get the gist of it?
25:50 You could pick up three points in the space energy diagram and measure their angle, if they add up to 180 universe is flat, if they are more than 180° it is elliptical and if it is less than 180° it is spherical. Uh intersting isn't it. This idea I got from here. Hope I could work on this in future. Thanks 😊 Royal Institution and happy 225th birthday
Interesting is the cycling cosmos. My biggest concern is... Does each universe collapse into its own distinct bounce-out, or do all the universes in the "current" Cosmos collapse in together at some point/place/time? I can see an exponentially growing parameter space of COSMII in a scenario where every single U goes on to create a multitude of progeny. Who then go on to repeat the action.
8:00 ish. He says there are 100 billion to 400 billion stars in the universe. Obviously that's not right. He was trying to say how many galaxies there are in the universe, but I think the number he gave was for how many stars are in our Milky Way galaxy, and mixed things up a bit more.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger Poor diddums, will no-one play with poor diddums? I won't, I booted my results/children out when the were sixteen. Won't even mummy and daddy play with diddums?
@@jimheaven Not too old, too developed. Thoze things mean different things. What JWST reveals is that we don't fully understand galaxy formation yet. At least that's the most likely thing to come out of those findings.
Question if everything is expanding away from us. Please explain why the galaxy Andromeda will be joining our galaxy in the future to provide us with new places and stars to explore?
According to my understanding, Andromeda and Milky Way is "gravitationally bound". But I might be completely off. It's just a hobby for me to be honest.
@@saumalyasarkar7685 we are not going to be left alone in the universe for a very long time is my point. What you said had been said and other galaxies are also involved in the same attraction.
So, when 2 galaxies love each other very much, they come together to create 1 big galaxy. They vow to stay together until the heat death of the universe do them apart 😁 On a serious note, it's a misconception that the expansion of the universe is pulling EVERYTHING apart. That's happening only on massive distances. In shorter distances, such as between galaxy clusters, gravity wins keeping everything together. However, if the rate of expansion keeps increasing, then there will be a time in the distant future where galaxy clusters will be pulled apart. Then even more in the distancer future galaxies themselves will get ripped apart... Then solar systems... Then planets... Cosmologist don't know for sure if it's gonna happen. They think that the heat death is a more likely outcome. Anyways, they call it "the big rip". You can look it up on TH-cam.
I mean this with no sarcasm or hate: what an interesting accent. At times you sounded like you were from Northern Ireland, but at others almost RP or very upper class London, and it mixes in such an interesting way.
Agree. As I listened part of my brain was trying to work out where in the UK / Ireland the gentleman hails from. Wonderful voice and an interesting lecture if somewhat basic for anyone who's taken an interest in the topic. Not a criticism. A good refresher nonetheless. Having been lucky to live in a few different countries for extended periods my own voice sounds like a bit of this and a bit of that. Something I resisted by the way, but over time you pick up certain inflections. I dislike when people go abroad for two weeks and come home speaking in an affected manner.
From India: The Vedas - is supposed to - describe the condition - before the time of creation - of the universe. 'They have been shaped - in the form of books.' 'What existed then ? The same churning condition and the creation of the atom.' From: Ram Chandra. Vibration, sound and symbol. Complete Works, v. 2, p. 307. (PS: the One- becoming- many - (spiritual concept)). (Fare thee well)
Truth Eternal and Complete works 2 of Ram Chandra, p. 307. 'Veda is really that condition which was before the time of creation of the universe. May God give you the bliss of that condition.' - Heartfulness meditation literature. Fare thee well.@@schmetterling4477
Dear Butterfly - hope you are inspired - to think deep - about all these wonderful revelations - they make the heart soar i- with gratitude and awe. Fare thee well.@@schmetterling4477
Ok, think of our solar system. Why do we have planets? Why didn't the gravity of the sun gobble up the entire dust cloud? Because there are many things at the play: how evenly the dust is distributed; phenomena other than gravity such centrifugal force, outer radiation pressure, etc.
@@Mr.Anders0n_ Our, or any other, solar system is not equivalent to the density/pressure of the early pre-inflation universe, which is the timeframe I'm unclear about. I presume there is some hand-wavy explanation around how inflation makes it work out, but I'm hoping for clarity on that.
If the universe was initially non-uniform, wouldn't that be strange and demand explanation? Surely dis-uniformities would require a cause, whereas uniformity simply requires things to be left alone ... so I'm always going to be confused by this inflation debate I think.
I would assume that the conditions within the Primordial Object were such that everything that stems from it had the same start. And as such, look the freaking same.
Cosmologists feel that the expansion of space is due to dark energy overcoming the gravitational pull of matter in the universe. But I have to say that this is not nessicarally true, because although gravity pulls matter together, it does not mean that it pulls space together which matter occupies!
I was hoping to see a theory of how the universe began. These theories explain what happened AFTER it began. My question is, starting from nothing, how did all this then get started in the first place? How does existence arise from nothing? THAT is the question...then the rest is a matter of conjecture. But how does science explain how it all started?
If te words the universe are to have any meaning at all, it is axiomatic that the universe everything all things or the totality could not possibly have a beginning, because by definition the universe is unique, everything everywhere everywhen, or it is not the universe, but it is of course open to you to set out what conditions must be satisfied for whatever to attract the epithet the universe*If* you can. Quite why the followers of the religion scientism find semantics and epistemology utterly beyond them is interesting but it may be that to ask that question is to answer it
@@vhawk1951klYour reply reminds me of a line in Wittgenstein's Tractatus: "Of that which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence.", or words to that effect, indicating the limits of language. And in that context, I see your point. Nonetheless, we do experience feelings, and I think "wonder" is in that realm. And I can say I remain wonderous at the koan-like thought of what came before the beginning of space-time. But thanks for your reply !
@@JohnClulow Yes wonder and gratitude are feelings or the higher or finer end of the emotional spectrum. the emotions being axes or cleavers the feelings rapiers or scalpels to separate the fine from the coarse. I shall keep "of that which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence" as useful for later in my back pocket , ta.
@@vhawk1951kl Another Wittgenstein observation from the Tractatus, I believe section 6; "It is not how things are in the world that is the mystical, but _that_ it exists." Perhaps there are some fundamental, intractable mysteries like this, Heidegger's question in Intro to Metaphysics "Why are there essents rather than nothing.", and perhaps the most fundamental question of all, what is consciousness and how can it arise from purely biological phenomena. And, of course as in the present case, "How did the universe arise from nothing?"
With all that primordial nuclei in such close proximity, why didn't the early universe just collapse into a black hole? How could those primordial particles escape each other?
My theory is that previous universes end up being one big black hole, which equated to a singularly. Eventually, it cracked and our new universe was born. Everything will crack at some point.
Good question, the answer is it depends. The universe went through several phase transitions as it expanded and cooled, so initially we had all four forces unified at plank density and uh we're not really sure happens at those energies, but it consisted of a quarks gluon plasma and everything was bouncing off each other, as it expanded the forces separated, not to mention antimatter matter annihilation etc.
Well there's a bit of brilliant deduction for you….. The bits of the Universe are moving apart, so in the past they must have been closer together….. That must have taken a lot of working out?
He said when you zoom in on anything it becomes smoother. I remember my math teacher showing us this with Integration and how you zoom in on a curved line and it becomes more straight. But this is not always the case. There can be what looks like a straight line from a distance but when you zoom in you see it is a high frequency sine wave or some other jiggling function. The Mandelbrot function never becomes a smooth line. Zn+1 = Zn2 + C . Then I thought of a circle. 2πr If you look up the definition of a circle , it has a center point and a radius and the circle is defined as all the points that distance from the center. But in the real world you have quantum fluctuations and the center of any circle is moving around and vibrating. The radius is also not a fixed distance because of the uncertainty principle. So now if you make a circle with these things in mind , and you zoom in on the circle line, you will see it as very wiggly and the distance around this circle will not be 2πr It will be higher. 2πr is the distance around a circle in a classical world where planks constant is zero. Which is obviously wrong. To get the actual distance of the circumference of a circle you have to use QM and do what Feynman did and add up every possible circle there could be and average out the circumference. The same things goes for addition like 1+1. You need to add up all the possible ways you could every add 1+1 together. If will be higher than the classical 2.
Okay. I always love those talks but where is te before the big bang part. There really are interesting theories before big bang and infation. That's what I was expecting
Typical science talk with a catchy title. They spend 95% of the time covering basics that nerds would already know. That's why I usually avoid videos with titles such as "a journey into a black hole" or "what's at the centre of a black hole?" Because nobody knows yet.
I love his accent, Irish + I don't know what, like sylvain guintoli, the motorbike racer, french + middle England (he lives in Derby) I like genealogy and accents.
The scale of that radiosphere and the galaxy are way of. It seem to cover over a fraction of the milky way. It doesn't. It's not even a fragment of a fraction of a fraction.
There seems to be a lot of focus on events taking place in the first second which are inaccessible to laboratory experiment. There is a neglected area of cosmology which supposedly took place around 378,000 years later called recombination. This is the weakest part of the Big Bang theory and the speculative hypothesis explains the suggested cause of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The hypothesis is that as the plasma cooled through the temperature of 3000 degrees Kelvin the universe went from being opaque to radiation to being transparent to radiation. Furthermore the explanation of why we see the CMBR coming from a look back time of 13.8 billion years is that the apparent distance of the event increases by one light year per year. This implies that we are looking for a flash of radiation. Also this explanation would imply that we should see the CMBR as isotropic but we see it as anisotropic. The temperature of 3000 degrees Kelvin comes not from plasma physics but from the projection back in time of the Big Bang model assumptions. It is well within the capabilities of modern technology to test the assumptions of recombination. If the experiment shows the hypothesis to be false then the Big Bang explanation for the cause of the CMBR is false. This is the one thing that constrains the supposed age of the universe at 13.8 billion years and we are then free to look at other models of the evolution of the universe. Richard
> There is a neglected area of cosmology which supposedly took place around 378,000 years later called recombination. Neglected??? There were TWO dedicated space missions (WMAP and Planck) to thoroughly measure it.
@@denysvlasenko1865 If you look at the wikipedia entry on the Milky Way galaxy you will see that the anisotropy of the CMB from our point of observation results in a velocity of around 552 km/sec relative to the CMB rest frame. Richard
@@sca04245 billion. Unless the numbers have changed since I kept track, there are between 100 billion and 400 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy, and there are some 400 billion (up to 2 trillion) galaxies in the observable universe.
It's not that no one is "allowed" to talk about it. It's probably just because people don't know, or care about your idea. If you want them to care then you need to become a part of the physics/math community. That takes a lot of work because you need to build up some trust by showing them that you've done the proper leg work. Do you have any idea how many random emails physicists and mathematicians get which proclaim to have upended the status quo? Some of them get literally hundreds every week.
@SpongeBobImagination that's a task a that goes beyond the scope of a youtube comment. but let's take, for the sake of example, the CMB (cosmic microwave background). it's a 2-dimensional image (only has width and height, no depth). it is often referred to but its relation to how our universe looks today is not perse clear. the link he puts there is that this is not just 2D, but can be seen like bubbles that expand over time: think of each dot in that image as a bubble that grows in all directions. it pushes everything further away as it grows. that makes the entire structure grow. because of very small differences these bubble do not grow at the same rate and also start pushing at each other. the differences are the color differences in the image. even the biggest difference in color is still a small change in temperature (that's what the CMB image shows) though. when you keep going on expanding these bubbles you get vast areas of "empty" space and a few places where the bubbles touch. these are the places where galaxies and stars are born. additions and corrections to this explanation are welcome!
@SpongeBobImaginationhi, Astrophyisics major here. I'm sure i'm not in the minority to say that, even for us, these subjects isn't formally taught up until, two years in, that said, simplifications might not do the concepts justice, and may lead to misinformation/misconceptions altogether. However, i'd try my level best to communicate it, do take it as trivial fun facts and nothing more though, and don't feel bad that you can't grasp everything completely, many of the informed technical words required basic understanding and or definition, as in dimension, vectors, ... such is cosmology.
Not bad though missing some version's of the start of the universe. That and the infinite from black hole singularity and the early universe infinity are cheats. Black holes evaporate and are finite. The universe doesn't have a white hole with flow and is finite and should be used as a natural limit. Inflation from string theory has the problems of gravitational lensing and the universe as a cutoff point. Besides a few other things. The universe in a black hole 12.5 light years in diameter. It would take over 6 years from the center out before the expansion one way. Though the gravitational sphere/field can be used for FTL in a medium. The fermionic, bosonic, neutrino layers in the gravitational field are more important. The correct solutions to black holes shows the brain states one way, and how particles smear across time as radiation in one reference frame and a particle in another frame and at the same point in time. But to another point. Why do we not hear of colliding sheets making the universe? Gravity, fermionic, bosonic, neutrino, photonic as field sheets or such? Or a break away primordial mass with our universe in the cutoff limit? Or dimensions collapsing pushing energy into our universe and creating it? 6.25+ years of super luminal cherenkov radiation along with nuclear radiation if from center to outer and in high time dilation. Though gravity melting a way would work for a type of inflation for me. FTL in a vacuum from the start I do not see working. PS remember infinity for black holes is a cheat.XD
why don't you that suppose him to be wonderful believe him? However the better question is why believe anything you are told. I suddenly recall that you savages sometimes use incredible which means not believable to mean jolly god but being savages you cannot help it you poor creatures that like parrots can reproduce words but have no idea what they mean.
Oh David got nervous when he said that there were about 400 billion stars in the observable universe when he meant 400 billion galaxies. Still mind-boggling, but wrong oops. The sand bucket was a great idea to help imagine.
There's no way that bucket had 100mln sand grains in it. If it had , surely, you'd need thousand , not hundred buckets of sand to demonstrate the scale of 100bn star galaxy. Not sure what else is not right in this presentation.
I watched the entire thing, and the questions I had before starting the video remain unanswered. Who can sate my hunger for answers about this god forsaken topic???
It doesn't seem like a mystery to me. I've always thought of it as noise in the system. Like the quantum fields themselves can't remain still, so they fluctuate producing virtual particles
It miraculously just inflates and everything started coming together from the chaos, from no design to exquisite design and functionality and a cosmos full of consciousness along with all the matter all by itself , figure that
There is no way to embed a four dimensional space-time in a Euclidean space with any less than six dimensions... so we simply can't show it as a visualization. It's like the mapmaker's problem... how to map the globe on a flat surface without distortions. That, too, can't be done.
@@schmetterling4477 So then it isn’t flat. Funny, the video said otherwise. Drawing a map of earth accurately isn’t possible because the earth is what? Flearthers use the term. The video said space is flat. Not round, drawn flat.
@@danielpaulson8838 It is flat in a mathematical sense (think of sum of angles in triangles). It's more of a hyperbolic surface in an embedding, but I am more than happy to admit that I can't imagine what a hyperbolic surface in six dimensions looks like. That's what the usual light cone diagrams are trying to simplify to a two-dimensional representation. Having said that, geometry in a non-static universe is a local thing, anyway. It is somewhat nonsensical to talk about angles in a triangle that will simply not "be there" in the future.
@@schmetterling4477 Using six dimensions as a scientific explanation is a logical fallacy unless somehow stated in a theory. Using it with a matter of fact tone of conviction that can only come from proof, isn't mentally far away from invoking God as an answer. You even said you can't imagine it. That should end it. They shot laser beams from different points on Earth, at 45 degree angles into space in a crossing pattern, and the beams converged at exactly 90 degrees. They call that flat. Yet we are in a growing bubble. The easiest explanation, (Occam's razor), would point to, it's so huge and we measured such a small space, it just looks flat. Like checking if the earth is round while using a two inch straight edge. In the cosmos, we are nano to the nano. And even smaller. Flat doesn't seem viable, but stays on the table till it can be visualized. Even if that does grow to different dimensions. But I will not invoke what I cannot see or understand.
@@danielpaulson8838 This is simply the mathematical result for the "mapmaker problem" in the case of the universe. If you want to show the universe "as it is" in a flat space, then you need at least six dimensions for the most simple case and more (probably ten) for the general case.
I think the Expansion is limited to Space time and galaxies are not expanding but locked in a dark matter coagulation filament with condensed matter which is us being at the centre of the filamentous structure ...apperantly.... 59:03 1:00:04 1:00:19
He is speaking English with a north east regional accent, and plainly has no idea what he means by the universe; like a parrot he can repeat the words but has no idea what they mean. For some inexplicable reason such creatures imagine that they can observe the universe but it never crosses their minds what nonsense that is, any more than it crosses their mind to wonder what the words the universe mean because they are stupefied by their religion that others call scientism which stupefies its adherents as all religions stupefy their adherents; they are believers - they do not*know* anything.
Dark matter and dark energy are becoming controversial. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - the math works just shouldn't cut it. What if the formula is wrong?
Dark matter has been observed for almost eighty years now... not sure how much more evidence you need? Dark energy is a bit more questionable, but we will have better results soon enough.
The emotion due to that famous desk had a role, I guess. At 35:26 - 35:29 he said "when the universe was 400 billions years old" while he meant "400,000 years old" as a rounding of the more accurate "380,000 year old" as shown on the slide. At 8:00 - 8:10 he said "there are 100-400 billion stars in the observable universe" while he meant "galaxies" (an estimate that is growing constantly these days BTW, and depends on which study you trust the most). At 7:31 - 7:44 he said "100 buckets" while he should have said "1000" (100b stars / 100m grains).
@@Amethyst_Friendin the bucket of sand demonstration, the presenter misspeaks. He says that there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way, and then he says there are around 400 billion stars in our observable universe. This would mean there would be ~4 galaxies worth of stars, if those galaxies were similar to ours in size. I believe he meant that there are 400 billion galaxies in our observable universe (estimates range from ~100 billion up to two trillion galaxies in the observable universe)
What he means, is that everyone who is worthy of their stations doesn't believe in these so called "woke galaxies", when every knows they're not far away, they're just really small, and black holes are just magnetic monopoles, designed to get you hooked on gluten.
What about the thought that the universe exists. Nothing more, nothing less. It never began, it will never end. Not meaning that nothing happens in the universe. Of course a lot happened, and still happens. Maybe a topic for another lecture? It would be surprisingly interesting to hear the philosophy about that kinda possibility.
Impossible. There had to be a point where light couldn’t travel around and atoms couldn’t stick together to explain the cosmic background we see. Only thing that works is the time before inflation and the time during and the time after. We can clearly see the moment the universe went from opaque to “clear” if you will.
If the universe never had a beginning, it would have existed for an infinite amount of time, and therefore an infinite amount of time would have had to pass for us to reach the present moment, which is not possible.
What about all the pieces of evidence that tell us both the universe had a beginning and it will end one day in the distant future? Einstein himself thought the universe was eternal at some point, but had to concede and change his mind when the evidence proved this to be wrong. The universe doesn't care how you feel it should be. It is what it is.
If the words the universe are to have any meaning at all it is axiomatic that the universe could not have a beginning because the universe that is not everywhen is not the universe, or what you have in mind is something*other* than the universe.
Who created everything??? the molecules, the atoms the gases??? if I am going to cook a meatloaf following the recipe I first need the ingredients. where did the ingredients come from to make the universe? If it came from another universe, where did that universe get its stuff from? It’s on unsolvable question. we start this presentation with ingredients…. fair enough. But if there was nothing to begin with, how did we get something out of nothing?
The molecules came from atoms, the atoms from nuclei and electrons, the nuclei from protons and neutrons, the protons and neutrons from quarks, the quarks from a QGP, etc. with the original matter coming from energy. There originally was energy and not atoms or molecules. Simply put, matter can be created from energy according to Einstein's E = mc^2.
@@5cloudwalker So I answered your question, and now you want more. Back to your first questions, provide that logic that tells you there is a WHO behind it.
The uncertainty principle suggests that it‘s not possible to have nothing at all. Even in „nothingness“ are virtual particles (see casimir effect), so it‘s basically impossible to have a absolute nothing.
This presentation is mis-titled. It should have been called, "An Introductory Overview of Cosmology and the Big Bang". The speaker doesn't really start talking about inflation theory until the last ~10 minutes of the talk and simply lists some of the various models rather than discussing them. It's a nice talk, but it's an introductory presentation of cosmology for a lay audience, not a discussion about the merits of, and issues with, inflation theory.
Clickbait
Yes very basic, I still listened but kind of a waste of time
Thanks for the info. I was waiting for some deep understanding of inflation.
THEY ARE JUST NOT SURE ABOUT ANYTHING TO TALK IN DETAIL. ITS ALL HYPOTHESIS AT BEST & PLAIN GUESSWORK TO THE LEAST⚛️
I watched this a year ago. Watching it again, but I'm a caveman, so I like the talk.
0:31: 🌌 The universe was different before the hot Big Bang model, with everything closer, hotter, and denser.
5:42: 🌌 The speaker discusses the special nature of our universe, the concept of inflation, and the size and structure of the universe.
11:34: 🌌 The universe was very smooth and even when it was young, with only small variations in temperature.
16:49: 📡 The law stating that galaxies that are twice as far away are moving twice as fast is a result of the smoothness and uniformity of the universe.
22:13: 🌌 The image is being stretched to show the expansion of the universe, with galaxies maintaining their relative positions.
27:21: 🌌 The universe is expanding, with everything getting further away from each other as space-time itself grows.
32:59: 🌌 The speaker wants to show the expansion of the universe in a more realistic way.
37:55: 🌌 The universe is smooth and homogeneous, with everyone experiencing the same expansion from the Big Bang explosion.
43:10: 🌌 The homogeneity problem addresses why the universe is so smooth and homogeneous everywhere.
48:15: 📈 Exponential growth is illustrated by taking something and multiplying it by a number greater than one, causing acceleration in growth.
53:14: 🌌 Inflation theory explains the homogeneity and horizon problems in the universe.
57:43: 💫 Quantum fluctuations in the field during inflation give rise to the structure and formation of galaxies in the universe.
1:02:35: 🔬 Inflation in the universe can lead to Quantum fluctuations and the creation of disconnected bubble universes with different physics.
Recap by Tammy AI
Just what time-starved folks like me need. Thank you Tammy AI!
Hot and smart 😍
Ai 🪄
For those , with some basic PS knowledge , skip to 36:09 . That`s where he gets on the topic of his lecture.
0:52 “ Everything in the universe is getting further and further away from everything else”.
On a more human scale my socket set is absolute proof of this.
15:40 the way the whole universe is summed is beautiful to watch.
We felt very small in this comparison 😂
It's amazing that we worked any of this out.
nothing is worked out, nothing he's said has any proof actually, they are just spit balling and guessing and pretending its real science.
Thousands and thousands of super smart peeps dedicating their minds and lives to the question of nature mathematics and methodology. Finally we get close enough to the truth to know, THERE IS SO MUCH MORE TO LEARN. And it takes a huge human sized effort.
We probably won't know "the lot" until we are all free to pursue pure thought endeavours.
Not Celestine Prophecy, but something close to that. Open minded people, interested in the truth, unhindered by CRAPOLA. Focusing together on The Work.
ahahahahaha
I guess it did take a lot of imagination.
Kind of a bummer that I'm about to spend an hour watching this and I already know how it ends.
The bucket of sand analogy always works well, what really does hit home though and how I explain the scale is by adding the fact that between each grain of sand is ~4 light years, and would take the fastest thing we have made, 73,000 years to make 1 single hope to the nearest star!! That's when you start to realise space is big, very big!" ;-)
What illustrates it even more impressively is that when you picture our nearest neighbor star and the Sun as two specks of sand, then Alpha Centauri would be located on a beach approximately 15 miles away.
Amazing explanation 😮👍
This is such an awesome presentation on what we know about the ultimate “origin story” = the Big Bang!
Sup BK?
None can *Know* anything of the past, given that to know is to directly immediately personally experience, as directly immediately and personally as pain. which obviously cannot be collective so no we know, and fortunately no we hurt or experience pain or we experience anything, there being no we.
But you *Don't* know Anything, do you? You are merely the dustbin in towhich witless wiseacres tip thewiseacreings as if you were a midden.
When and *Only* when we has a headache can "We"know. it is rthe hallmark of the halfwit that he uses " we" know"
we can no more know than we can have a headache -or -If only you would, jump from the top of the nearest tall building
31:30 somehow I can't shed the feeling that if we have to invoke 95% spooks and ghouls, we might need to reconsider our model.
Propose a working alternative. No one stops you.
@@denysvlasenko1865 There's plenty alternative ideas, but they get dismissed rather quickly.
@@SojournerDidimus So there are no better alternatives.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger which is the better explanation of gravity: invisible angels pull you down, or air is so heavy it pushes everything to the ground? Of course the answer is neither. So why do we hold on to an idea that requires 95% of the universe to be invisible to any kind of measurement? It is perfectly possible to go with "we don't know" over an idea that is broken.
@@SojournerDidimus Logical fallacy: false analogy.
You can't provide a better explanation. You lose. Run along now, little child.
Thanks!
Poor guy was nervous at s start. He realised that he fggot the bucket analogy wrong by a factor of 10, and while wondering about it said Stars instead of Galaxies in our observable universe.
Poor guy? Lucky guy for having such a great job and giving this presentation. Making mistakes = learning.
I noticed that, but I'm sharp enough to realize it was a simple gaffe. Forgive..
He is a very good speaker. I find the mix of advanced topics and basic ones to be puzzling. He almost assumes that you are familiar with non-Euclidean geometries and Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle but sketches out in a very basic way. I kept thinking yes yes but please get on with it and give the topic some depth
The hypothesis of inflation seems artificially forced in to salvage a theory of the early universe that just doesn't work. Sir Roger Penrose's hypothesis make a lot more sense.
The famous desk looks great! Glad to see it's back home.
I thought that it was always there. Did it goes walkies?
@@thevikingwarrior I was gone during 2023 (or maybe '22) for a while. I think it's an iconic piece of furniture. Perhaps it went for refinishing, or some other upkeep of the hall.
The universe never had to inflate , it never was as small as a Singularity primeval atom. It was already inflated at the beginning.
Is it possible to have a big bang in middle of university to see what would happen.
Are they going to revise all these lectures in light of the latest Webb discoveries?
So, at 59:15, it's as if you're rendering an image starting with a very low resolution, like 1x1 pixel 🖥️. As you increase the resolution incrementally (exponentially - 2x2, 4x4, 8x8, ...), more details emerge, and the screen itself also expands exponentially. This process is powered by your city's power plant, which represents the inflaton field, giving you a substantial power budget at the start. These pixels represent the density of space across all points in space.
Your initial power budget allows you to easily add new pixels and expand the screen size. Pixels fill in gaps that would otherwise be empty when increasing the screen size. These new pixels, which represent regions of space, have their colors determined by rolling a weighted dice. This biases their color towards neighboring pixels but introduces slight variations, representing quantum fluctuations in the density of space.
As you keep increasing the resolution and expanding the screen, the power budget starts to deplete. Each new addition consumes more power, and the ability to add new pixels decreases-the power plant isn't able to increase its power output as quickly as it used to. Eventually, you reach a point where you can't afford to power any more new pixels, representing the end of inflation.
At this moment, instead of just stopping, the power plant goes haywire-it becomes unstable! Instead of maintaining the typical 120 volts AC, the voltage shoots up dramatically, causing the screen to heat up intensely, melting the pixels down to a hot, dense plasma. This represents the reheating phase in cosmology, where the remaining potential energy of the inflaton field is converted into particles and radiation, significantly increasing the temperature of the universe.
The power plant eventually catches up and stabilizes - but can no longer supply the expansion of pixels at the same rate. The pixels that melted to plasma begin clumping into regions of higher and lower density, and eventually cool back down as the power plant restabilizes to its nominal voltage. This is analogous to the transition from the hot radiation dominated Universe into our current "cooler" matter-dominated era, filled with clumps of regions of stars and galaxies.
Does this analogy get the gist of it?
Lovely presentation. Thank you.
25:50
You could pick up three points in the space energy diagram and measure their angle, if they add up to 180 universe is flat, if they are more than 180° it is elliptical and if it is less than 180° it is spherical.
Uh intersting isn't it.
This idea I got from here.
Hope I could work on this in future.
Thanks 😊 Royal Institution and happy 225th birthday
Interesting is the cycling cosmos. My biggest concern is...
Does each universe collapse into its own distinct bounce-out, or do all the universes in the "current" Cosmos collapse in together at some point/place/time?
I can see an exponentially growing parameter space of COSMII in a scenario where every single U goes on to create a multitude of progeny. Who then go on to repeat the action.
It's unlikely that anything ever collapses. Eternal inflation sounds like the far better concept.
8:00 ish. He says there are 100 billion to 400 billion stars in the universe. Obviously that's not right. He was trying to say how many galaxies there are in the universe, but I think the number he gave was for how many stars are in our Milky Way galaxy, and mixed things up a bit more.
Or Jesus might say" In my father's house there are many mansions"
@@vhawk1951kl Or as Obi Wan might say, "May the force be with you"
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger Not a chap with whom I am familiar, some sort of chinaman perhaps?
@@vhawk1951kl Same for that fictional character you alluded to, in that book of ancient mythology you alluded to.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger Poor diddums, will no-one play with poor diddums? I won't, I booted my results/children out when the were sixteen. Won't even mummy and daddy play with diddums?
The Inflation part starts at 45 minutes.
This is only a month old, but what about the James Webb Telescope discoveries? Real life observations kill this.
The recent JWST images do not contradict any of this. Do you know what those images even mean?
@@Philitron128the JWT is seeing early galaxies that are too old to fit in with the inflationary model.
@@jimheaven Not too old, too developed. Thoze things mean different things. What JWST reveals is that we don't fully understand galaxy formation yet. At least that's the most likely thing to come out of those findings.
Question if everything is expanding away from us. Please explain why the galaxy Andromeda will be joining our galaxy in the future to provide us with new places and stars to explore?
According to my understanding, Andromeda and Milky Way is "gravitationally bound". But I might be completely off. It's just a hobby for me to be honest.
@@saumalyasarkar7685 we are not going to be left alone in the universe for a very long time is my point. What you said had been said and other galaxies are also involved in the same attraction.
So, when 2 galaxies love each other very much, they come together to create 1 big galaxy. They vow to stay together until the heat death of the universe do them apart 😁
On a serious note, it's a misconception that the expansion of the universe is pulling EVERYTHING apart. That's happening only on massive distances. In shorter distances, such as between galaxy clusters, gravity wins keeping everything together.
However, if the rate of expansion keeps increasing, then there will be a time in the distant future where galaxy clusters will be pulled apart. Then even more in the distancer future galaxies themselves will get ripped apart... Then solar systems... Then planets... Cosmologist don't know for sure if it's gonna happen. They think that the heat death is a more likely outcome. Anyways, they call it "the big rip". You can look it up on TH-cam.
@@Mr.Anders0n_ attraction by gravity would possibly romantically be concerned love but GOD knows we can always use new resources.
I mean this with no sarcasm or hate: what an interesting accent. At times you sounded like you were from Northern Ireland, but at others almost RP or very upper class London, and it mixes in such an interesting way.
Agree. As I listened part of my brain was trying to work out where in the UK / Ireland the gentleman hails from. Wonderful voice and an interesting lecture if somewhat basic for anyone who's taken an interest in the topic. Not a criticism. A good refresher nonetheless. Having been lucky to live in a few different countries for extended periods my own voice sounds like a bit of this and a bit of that. Something I resisted by the way, but over time you pick up certain inflections. I dislike when people go abroad for two weeks and come home speaking in an affected manner.
He sounds like someone from NI who has lived in GB for years.
40:50 Why can't it just be that the universe is flat simply because there is nothing causing it to curve as it expands? 🤔
From India:
The Vedas - is supposed to - describe the condition - before the time of creation - of the universe. 'They have been shaped - in the form of books.'
'What existed then ? The same churning condition and the creation of the atom.'
From: Ram Chandra. Vibration, sound and symbol. Complete Works, v. 2, p. 307.
(PS: the One- becoming- many - (spiritual concept)). (Fare thee well)
Can you cite the source material that says that? ;-)
Truth Eternal and Complete works 2 of Ram Chandra, p. 307. 'Veda is really that condition which was before the time of creation of the universe. May God give you the bliss of that condition.'
- Heartfulness meditation literature.
Fare thee well.@@schmetterling4477
Dear Butterfly - hope you are inspired - to think deep - about all these wonderful revelations - they make the heart soar i- with gratitude and awe. Fare thee well.@@schmetterling4477
Still confused about how we didn't just end up with a universe of just black holes from all the matter being so compressed in the early moments.
From what I know isn't that down to quantum fluctuations meaning matter wasn't evenly distributed?
Ok, think of our solar system. Why do we have planets? Why didn't the gravity of the sun gobble up the entire dust cloud? Because there are many things at the play: how evenly the dust is distributed; phenomena other than gravity such centrifugal force, outer radiation pressure, etc.
@@Mr.Anders0n_ Our, or any other, solar system is not equivalent to the density/pressure of the early pre-inflation universe, which is the timeframe I'm unclear about. I presume there is some hand-wavy explanation around how inflation makes it work out, but I'm hoping for clarity on that.
Expansion was reaaaaaaly fast in the beginning. Things moved away from each other too fast to attract and form a BH.
the acceleration of expansion was greater than the acceleration of gravity so expansion won for a few billion years
If the universe was initially non-uniform, wouldn't that be strange and demand explanation? Surely dis-uniformities would require a cause, whereas uniformity simply requires things to be left alone ... so I'm always going to be confused by this inflation debate I think.
There is no evidence to suggest that the laws of Physics didn't exist at some stage. All theories assume that.
I would assume that the conditions within the Primordial Object were such that everything that stems from it had the same start. And as such, look the freaking same.
Why would you assume such nonsense? ;-)
Cosmologists feel that the expansion of space is due to dark energy overcoming the gravitational pull of matter in the universe. But I have to say that this is not nessicarally true, because although gravity pulls matter together, it does not mean that it pulls space together which matter occupies!
I'm still not convinced by the inflationary theorists but this is by far the best explanation of it I've seen anyone make so far - including Guth!
The good thing is you dont have to be convinced.
I was hoping to see a theory of how the universe began. These theories explain what happened AFTER it began. My question is, starting from nothing, how did all this then get started in the first place? How does existence arise from nothing? THAT is the question...then the rest is a matter of conjecture. But how does science explain how it all started?
We don't know yet. There are several theories, but we don't have experimental data to test them (yet?)
If te words the universe are to have any meaning at all, it is axiomatic that the universe everything all things or the totality could not possibly have a beginning, because by definition the universe is unique, everything everywhere everywhen, or it is not the universe, but it is of course open to you to set out what conditions must be satisfied for whatever to attract the epithet the universe*If* you can.
Quite why the followers of the religion scientism find semantics and epistemology utterly beyond them is interesting but it may be that to ask that question is to answer it
@@vhawk1951klYour reply reminds me of a line in Wittgenstein's Tractatus: "Of that which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence.", or words to that effect, indicating the limits of language. And in that context, I see your point. Nonetheless, we do experience feelings, and I think "wonder" is in that realm. And I can say I remain wonderous at the koan-like thought of what came before the beginning of space-time. But thanks for your reply !
@@JohnClulow Yes wonder and gratitude are feelings or the higher or finer end of the emotional spectrum. the emotions being axes or cleavers the feelings rapiers or scalpels to separate the fine from the coarse. I shall keep "of that which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence" as useful for later in my back pocket , ta.
@@vhawk1951kl Another Wittgenstein observation from the Tractatus, I believe section 6; "It is not how things are in the world that is the mystical, but _that_ it exists." Perhaps there are some fundamental, intractable mysteries like this, Heidegger's question in Intro to Metaphysics "Why are there essents rather than nothing.", and perhaps the most fundamental question of all, what is consciousness and how can it arise from purely biological phenomena. And, of course as in the present case, "How did the universe arise from nothing?"
this is all so unbelievibly real....
Thanks for making this video. I have no clue what I just listened to. Lost it at the growth of inhomogeneity.
Cosmology is absolutely fascinating isn't it?
The ads are so loud that pop in
With all that primordial nuclei in such close proximity, why didn't the early universe just collapse into a black hole?
How could those primordial particles escape each other?
How could your keyboard make all those mistakes in spelling and grammar?
@@bazsnell3178 I'm farsighted and on my phone.
My theory is that previous universes end up being one big black hole, which equated to a singularly. Eventually, it cracked and our new universe was born.
Everything will crack at some point.
Good question, the answer is it depends. The universe went through several phase transitions as it expanded and cooled, so initially we had all four forces unified at plank density and uh we're not really sure happens at those energies, but it consisted of a quarks gluon plasma and everything was bouncing off each other, as it expanded the forces separated, not to mention antimatter matter annihilation etc.
It was too hot, thereby with too much kinetic energy, to have that happen.
Well there's a bit of brilliant deduction for you….. The bits of the Universe are moving apart, so in the past they must have been closer together….. That must have taken a lot of working out?
Yes, it did, actually. You can't even imagine how many hours of observations it took to find that out. :-)
Do you have any idea how complicated such an observation is in practice?
The pic of the beginning? DO ANYONE GET IT?
a try to find an explaination of the mégaphone ! ! Who understand ? I SAY LIAR.
Any proper teacher around?
It that River from Slow Horses?
You must be lonely
If the words" the universe are to have any meaning, it is axiomatic that the universe is eveywhen because if it is not, it is not the universe
Construction of telescope send as to see galactic where matter is concentrating and other we must imagine.
He said when you zoom in on anything it becomes smoother. I remember my math teacher showing us this with Integration and how you zoom in on a curved line and it becomes more straight. But this is not always the case. There can be what looks like a straight line from a distance but when you zoom in you see it is a high frequency sine wave or some other jiggling function. The Mandelbrot function never becomes a smooth line. Zn+1 = Zn2 + C . Then I thought of a circle. 2πr If you look up the definition of a circle , it has a center point and a radius and the circle is defined as all the points that distance from the center. But in the real world you have quantum fluctuations and the center of any circle is moving around and vibrating. The radius is also not a fixed distance because of the uncertainty principle. So now if you make a circle with these things in mind , and you zoom in on the circle line, you will see it as very wiggly and the distance around this circle will not be 2πr It will be higher. 2πr is the distance around a circle in a classical world where planks constant is zero. Which is obviously wrong. To get the actual distance of the circumference of a circle you have to use QM and do what Feynman did and add up every possible circle there could be and average out the circumference. The same things goes for addition like 1+1. You need to add up all the possible ways you could every add 1+1 together. If will be higher than the classical 2.
Okay. I always love those talks but where is te before the big bang part. There really are interesting theories before big bang and infation. That's what I was expecting
Typical science talk with a catchy title. They spend 95% of the time covering basics that nerds would already know. That's why I usually avoid videos with titles such as "a journey into a black hole" or "what's at the centre of a black hole?" Because nobody knows yet.
Thank you. This was an excellent talk by a gifted explainer.
"We *only* have direct evidence of the Big Bang model from one second onwards" 😆
I love his accent, Irish + I don't know what, like sylvain guintoli, the motorbike racer, french + middle England (he lives in Derby) I like genealogy and accents.
The scale of that radiosphere and the galaxy are way of. It seem to cover over a fraction of the milky way.
It doesn't. It's not even a fragment of a fraction of a fraction.
We are just tiny babies, reaching out to feel what the "toys" in our crib are. We know next to nothing so far and require much more humility!
I want to reach out, grap the moon and put it in my mouth to see if i can eat it
There seems to be a lot of focus on events taking place in the first second which are inaccessible to laboratory experiment. There is a neglected area of cosmology which supposedly took place around 378,000 years later called recombination. This is the weakest part of the Big Bang theory and the speculative hypothesis explains the suggested cause of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The hypothesis is that as the plasma cooled through the temperature of 3000 degrees Kelvin the universe went from being opaque to radiation to being transparent to radiation.
Furthermore the explanation of why we see the CMBR coming from a look back time of 13.8 billion years is that the apparent distance of the event increases by one light year per year. This implies that we are looking for a flash of radiation. Also this explanation would imply that we should see the CMBR as isotropic but we see it as anisotropic. The temperature of 3000 degrees Kelvin comes not from plasma physics but from the projection back in time of the Big Bang model assumptions.
It is well within the capabilities of modern technology to test the assumptions of recombination. If the experiment shows the hypothesis to be false then the Big Bang explanation for the cause of the CMBR is false. This is the one thing that constrains the supposed age of the universe at 13.8 billion years and we are then free to look at other models of the evolution of the universe.
Richard
CMB is in fact rather isotropic: the fluctuations are on the order of 10^-5.
> There is a neglected area of cosmology which supposedly took place around 378,000 years later called recombination.
Neglected??? There were TWO dedicated space missions (WMAP and Planck) to thoroughly measure it.
@@denysvlasenko1865 If you look at the wikipedia entry on the Milky Way galaxy you will see that the anisotropy of the CMB from our point of observation results in a velocity of around 552 km/sec relative to the CMB rest frame. Richard
Speaker misspoke by saying 400 billion stars in our observable universe. When it should be 400 billion galaxies
Looks choppy
8:05 400 billion stars in the observable universe? This hasn't started well.
400 million galaxies in the observable universe. Everyone has a bit of stage fright once in a while. He did ok in the end.
@@isaackitone Very true, I'm just an insufferable pedant!
@@isaackitonemillion or billion?
@@sca04245 billion.
Unless the numbers have changed since I kept track, there are between 100 billion and 400 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy, and there are some 400 billion (up to 2 trillion) galaxies in the observable universe.
what if there was no inflationary field? what if the weakness of gravity solves that problem?
Then black holes can't be real (they aren't).
Just explain to us what happens with any type of bomb , before the bright flash. There you have it.
I find it a bit peculiar that my five-dimensional physics has been around for over 30 years and no one is allowed to talk about it.
It's not that no one is "allowed" to talk about it. It's probably just because people don't know, or care about your idea. If you want them to care then you need to become a part of the physics/math community. That takes a lot of work because you need to build up some trust by showing them that you've done the proper leg work. Do you have any idea how many random emails physicists and mathematicians get which proclaim to have upended the status quo? Some of them get literally hundreds every week.
Is it useful for anything besides math prolbems? Does it correspond to the universe we live in?
Thanks! I knew all of the concepts but now the relationship between them has become much clearer! :)
@SpongeBobImagination that's a task a that goes beyond the scope of a youtube comment. but let's take, for the sake of example, the CMB (cosmic microwave background). it's a 2-dimensional image (only has width and height, no depth). it is often referred to but its relation to how our universe looks today is not perse clear.
the link he puts there is that this is not just 2D, but can be seen like bubbles that expand over time:
think of each dot in that image as a bubble that grows in all directions. it pushes everything further away as it grows. that makes the entire structure grow. because of very small differences these bubble do not grow at the same rate and also start pushing at each other. the differences are the color differences in the image. even the biggest difference in color is still a small change in temperature (that's what the CMB image shows) though.
when you keep going on expanding these bubbles you get vast areas of "empty" space and a few places where the bubbles touch. these are the places where galaxies and stars are born.
additions and corrections to this explanation are welcome!
@SpongeBobImaginationhi, Astrophyisics major here.
I'm sure i'm not in the minority to say that, even for us, these subjects isn't formally taught up until, two years in, that said, simplifications might not do the concepts justice, and may lead to misinformation/misconceptions altogether.
However, i'd try my level best to communicate it, do take it as trivial fun facts and nothing more though, and don't feel bad that you can't grasp everything completely, many of the informed technical words required basic understanding and or definition, as in dimension, vectors, ... such is cosmology.
Not bad though missing some version's of the start of the universe. That and the infinite from black hole singularity and the early universe infinity are cheats. Black holes evaporate and are finite. The universe doesn't have a white hole with flow and is finite and should be used as a natural limit. Inflation from string theory has the problems of gravitational lensing and the universe as a cutoff point. Besides a few other things. The universe in a black hole 12.5 light years in diameter. It would take over 6 years from the center out before the expansion one way. Though the gravitational sphere/field can be used for FTL in a medium. The fermionic, bosonic, neutrino layers in the gravitational field are more important. The correct solutions to black holes shows the brain states one way, and how particles smear across time as radiation in one reference frame and a particle in another frame and at the same point in time. But to another point. Why do we not hear of colliding sheets making the universe? Gravity, fermionic, bosonic, neutrino, photonic as field sheets or such? Or a break away primordial mass with our universe in the cutoff limit? Or dimensions collapsing pushing energy into our universe and creating it? 6.25+ years of super luminal cherenkov radiation along with nuclear radiation if from center to outer and in high time dilation. Though gravity melting a way would work for a type of inflation for me. FTL in a vacuum from the start I do not see working. PS remember infinity for black holes is a cheat.XD
this man is wonderful. incredible.
why don't you that suppose him to be wonderful believe him? However the better question is why believe anything you are told. I suddenly recall that you savages sometimes use incredible which means not believable to mean jolly god but being savages you cannot help it you poor creatures that like parrots can reproduce words but have no idea what they mean.
Verbose to the point where it is harmful, meaning that the concepts would have been much easier to understand if he'd use fewer words.
Oh David got nervous when he said that there were about 400 billion stars in the observable universe when he meant 400 billion galaxies. Still mind-boggling, but wrong oops. The sand bucket was a great idea to help imagine.
Thanks for another great video, look forward to many more!
There's no way that bucket had 100mln sand grains in it. If it had , surely, you'd need thousand , not hundred buckets of sand to demonstrate the scale of 100bn star galaxy. Not sure what else is not right in this presentation.
I watched the entire thing, and the questions I had before starting the video remain unanswered. Who can sate my hunger for answers about this god forsaken topic???
Will we ever know the origin of quantum fluctuations in the universe?
why don't you figure it out? Einstein, =P
It doesn't seem like a mystery to me. I've always thought of it as noise in the system. Like the quantum fields themselves can't remain still, so they fluctuate producing virtual particles
wow, that 'inflation' passes as 'science' baffles me
It miraculously just inflates and everything started coming together from the chaos, from no design to exquisite design and functionality and a cosmos full of consciousness along with all the matter all by itself , figure that
A physicist once said: "give me just one miracle, and I'll explain everything else" 😂
@@Mr.Anders0n_ yeah and the physicists can’t see that the universe is a miracle and that explains everything
@@humblegrenade118 not all physicists are atheists
terimakasih
This guy is so nervous 😶 he does mix numbers up. But it’s okay it’s practice for him
I don’t get the flat universe concept. I do get the balloon one. But balloons aren’t flat.
There is no way to embed a four dimensional space-time in a Euclidean space with any less than six dimensions... so we simply can't show it as a visualization. It's like the mapmaker's problem... how to map the globe on a flat surface without distortions. That, too, can't be done.
@@schmetterling4477 So then it isn’t flat. Funny, the video said otherwise.
Drawing a map of earth accurately isn’t possible because the earth is what? Flearthers use the term.
The video said space is flat. Not round, drawn flat.
@@danielpaulson8838 It is flat in a mathematical sense (think of sum of angles in triangles). It's more of a hyperbolic surface in an embedding, but I am more than happy to admit that I can't imagine what a hyperbolic surface in six dimensions looks like. That's what the usual light cone diagrams are trying to simplify to a two-dimensional representation. Having said that, geometry in a non-static universe is a local thing, anyway. It is somewhat nonsensical to talk about angles in a triangle that will simply not "be there" in the future.
@@schmetterling4477 Using six dimensions as a scientific explanation is a logical fallacy unless somehow stated in a theory. Using it with a matter of fact tone of conviction that can only come from proof, isn't mentally far away from invoking God as an answer. You even said you can't imagine it. That should end it.
They shot laser beams from different points on Earth, at 45 degree angles into space in a crossing pattern, and the beams converged at exactly 90 degrees. They call that flat.
Yet we are in a growing bubble.
The easiest explanation, (Occam's razor), would point to, it's so huge and we measured such a small space, it just looks flat.
Like checking if the earth is round while using a two inch straight edge. In the cosmos, we are nano to the nano. And even smaller.
Flat doesn't seem viable, but stays on the table till it can be visualized. Even if that does grow to different dimensions. But I will not invoke what I cannot see or understand.
@@danielpaulson8838 This is simply the mathematical result for the "mapmaker problem" in the case of the universe. If you want to show the universe "as it is" in a flat space, then you need at least six dimensions for the most simple case and more (probably ten) for the general case.
When something expands, other things compress.
There are no things here.
100,000,000 grains of sand in the bucket. To get 100 billion grains you would need a thousand buckets.
1 million times the rotation of milky way galaxy = WHAT!
If, as we believe, the universe (and everything in it) is expanding, does that mean that 'we' are too? And, if so, how can we measure this?
I think the measure is BMI
The expansion is over cosmological scales.
Over scales down to galaxies, gravity prevails and keeps things together.
I think the Expansion is limited to Space time and galaxies are not expanding but locked in a dark matter coagulation filament with condensed matter which is us being at the centre of the filamentous structure ...apperantly.... 59:03 1:00:04 1:00:19
The thought that we are "shrinking" has occurred to me. If all of our measurements are self referential then it wouldn't be apparent.
@merrickhurst4150 Like in a Fractal Universe,RE: The Geometry of Chaos, Dr Palmer.
Oh I'm so upset I've missed it :(
The number of vowel sounds in this man’s pronunciation of the word “how” is truly amazing.
He is speaking English with a north east regional accent, and plainly has no idea what he means by the universe; like a parrot he can repeat the words but has no idea what they mean. For some inexplicable reason such creatures imagine that they can observe the universe but it never crosses their minds what nonsense that is, any more than it crosses their mind to wonder what the words the universe mean because they are stupefied by their religion that others call scientism which stupefies its adherents as all religions stupefy their adherents; they are believers - they do not*know* anything.
@@vhawk1951klyou sound fun at parties 🙄
@@Stevros999 Do your mummy and daddy know you are out of your cot?
you sound fun at parties@@vhawk1951kl
Inhomogeneity presupposes the existence of something bigger than the universe.
So.....wtf r we talking about?
Damm you are sad 😢
Dark matter and dark energy are becoming controversial.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - the math works just shouldn't cut it. What if the formula is wrong?
Dark matter has been observed for almost eighty years now... not sure how much more evidence you need? Dark energy is a bit more questionable, but we will have better results soon enough.
No they are not lol
The lazer's on ! Where's the party ??
the universe is groin
Since 2004
12:22 they 'forgot' to show the billions of trash of all sizes orbiting our planet...
static is the map.
Passing gas in front of the students again, I see. 😂
35.29 Universe 400 Billion years old?
😂
The emotion due to that famous desk had a role, I guess.
At 35:26 - 35:29 he said "when the universe was 400 billions years old" while he meant "400,000 years old" as a rounding of the more accurate "380,000 year old" as shown on the slide.
At 8:00 - 8:10 he said "there are 100-400 billion stars in the observable universe" while he meant "galaxies" (an estimate that is growing constantly these days BTW, and depends on which study you trust the most).
At 7:31 - 7:44 he said "100 buckets" while he should have said "1000" (100b stars / 100m grains).
chaos followed by order. not difficult.
and yet I have a feeling you would be one of those people that would tell all your friends Einstein came to dinner.
I don't think you can call Inflation an established theory
It's just good that nobody of importance does. ;-)
400 billion “galaxies” in the observable universe.
What do you mean “by” that comment?
@@Amethyst_Friendin the bucket of sand demonstration, the presenter misspeaks. He says that there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way, and then he says there are around 400 billion stars in our observable universe. This would mean there would be ~4 galaxies worth of stars, if those galaxies were similar to ours in size. I believe he meant that there are 400 billion galaxies in our observable universe (estimates range from ~100 billion up to two trillion galaxies in the observable universe)
Which can be reduced to 1/176.475 "Nitpickers" in the observable universe.
What he means, is that everyone who is worthy of their stations doesn't believe in these so called "woke galaxies", when every knows they're not far away, they're just really small, and black holes are just magnetic monopoles, designed to get you hooked on gluten.
@@charleshendry5978
Maybe he was nitpicking but maybe he was just clarifying for anyone who didn't know it was a mistake.
What the Fk is cosmic inflation.....sounds good, but where did you get the word???
Because the cosmos is inflating... That's the best word for it.
What about the thought that the universe exists. Nothing more, nothing less. It never began, it will never end. Not meaning that nothing happens in the universe. Of course a lot happened, and still happens. Maybe a topic for another lecture? It would be surprisingly interesting to hear the philosophy about that kinda possibility.
Impossible. There had to be a point where light couldn’t travel around and atoms couldn’t stick together to explain the cosmic background we see. Only thing that works is the time before inflation and the time during and the time after. We can clearly see the moment the universe went from opaque to “clear” if you will.
If the universe never had a beginning, it would have existed for an infinite amount of time, and therefore an infinite amount of time would have had to pass for us to reach the present moment, which is not possible.
What about all the pieces of evidence that tell us both the universe had a beginning and it will end one day in the distant future? Einstein himself thought the universe was eternal at some point, but had to concede and change his mind when the evidence proved this to be wrong. The universe doesn't care how you feel it should be. It is what it is.
If the words the universe are to have any meaning at all it is axiomatic that the universe could not have a beginning because the universe that is not everywhen is not the universe, or what you have in mind is something*other* than the universe.
too. long to get there
god I love experts that can tell me all about the history of the universe but cant tell me for sure how all the water got on our little planet
Good job five stars
TLTR : we dont know.
Who created everything??? the molecules, the atoms the gases??? if I am going to cook a meatloaf following the recipe I first need the ingredients. where did the ingredients come from to make the universe? If it came from another universe, where did that universe get its stuff from? It’s on unsolvable question. we start this presentation with ingredients…. fair enough. But if there was nothing to begin with, how did we get something out of nothing?
The molecules came from atoms, the atoms from nuclei and electrons, the nuclei from protons and neutrons, the protons and neutrons from quarks, the quarks from a QGP, etc. with the original matter coming from energy. There originally was energy and not atoms or molecules. Simply put, matter can be created from energy according to Einstein's E = mc^2.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger but you know where I’m going with this don’t you to the source where did the energy come from?
@@5cloudwalker So I answered your question, and now you want more.
Back to your first questions, provide that logic that tells you there is a WHO behind it.
The uncertainty principle suggests that it‘s not possible to have nothing at all. Even in „nothingness“ are virtual particles (see casimir effect), so it‘s basically impossible to have a absolute nothing.