How can we encourage more “outside the box” thinking in cosmology? Please join my mailing list to learn about the hottest topics in cosmology; click here 👉 briankeating.com/list 📝
More outside of the box thinking would be wonderful if the system didn't castigate such thinking. Recent history is full of such examples in which careers have been wrecked for quackery, or what I like to call, creative thinking.
I have no idea, I've been thinking "outside the box" when it comes to physics in general for years, and I don't feel like it is appreciated. It took me 3 years just to have one question answered, and it wasn't by a doctor in physics but a master in physics Isaac Arthur. The question was, is it theoretically possible that a black hole might have a core of quark-gluon plasma, and the answer I got was "It could be" followed by a range of dense stars starting from a white dwarf up until a Planck star, where a black hole was changed by quark-gluon plasma. The reason why I asked that question was because of Neil DeGrasse Tyson saying that quark-gluon plasma could destroy dimensions about 10 years ago now I think and because of the gravity of a black hole, that everything is packed so tightly together, and high temperature and pressures are key ingredients for quark-gluon plasma, so I thought, hmmmm, maybe it isn't such a bad question to ask him since nobody else seems to answer me who I consider to be experts in the field. Another question that is still unanswered, which is also thinking outside the box is this: Even though time is a level of degree of freedom itself, otherwise nothing can move/vibrate/spin/etc... is it possible that there are no levels of degrees of freedom for time and time is infinite, since you can't go back in time, you can't fast forward time, you're stuck in the present, so my best guess is, it has no dimensions itself. Combined with the 3 dimensions for gravity, the universe could have the potential to have started and remain infinite too. Another question I have lately, is a new take on FTL travel or IDT travel. FTL or faster-than-light travel: Since physicists postulate the possibility exist that there can be a glueball, or something made of nothing but gluons, why not, should we be able to make it, make a bubble of gluons that separate the outside spacetime from the spacetime inside the bubble of gluons, and then accellerate that bubble of gluons to the speed of light. Kinda like an Alcubièrre drive 2.0 IDT or inter-dimensional-travel: if before 10 to the minus 43 seconds when gravity separated was all considered just energy, then everything after that could be considered something that was converted from that energy, thus also dimensions if dimensions are something physical, even if it is a membrane of planck length thickness (another hypothesis of mine about the structure of spacetime). So if we could create a 2 dimensional portal and keep it stable, we could use the dimension of time, which is explained in my second question, as a gateway between two 2 dimensional portals in spacetime, by using dimensions to our advantage. Kinda like an Einstein-Rosen bridge 2.0 which we could make stable by converting energy in extra spatial dimensions without being spaghettified going from 4 dimensions to 0 and back, actually 3+infinite to infinite and back. Outside the box thinking is easy, the difficult part is that it has to make sense mathematically and in physics. Perhaps that's why nobody wants to answer my questions. All I can say is, I did my best with the little knowledge I have, and even though there's a great chance I'm wrong, I don't think i did such a bad job at it. I know some boxoffice movies that made billions from writers who did a terrible job when it comes to the mathematics and physics to support their movies and series....
Talking openly and actively encouraging the philosophical, theological, social, theoretical, experimental importance of out of the box thinking is a bloody great start. Absolutely loved this episode.
@@florh I can't answer some of those questions but with an ERB between 2 black holes you could never actually pass thru it because the space between would be expanding faster than the speed of light. As for FTL travel, it may be possible to fold space. I don't think it's actually possible and if it is, it sounds incredibly dangerous.
How brilliant is Anna?! , I'm just super impressed by how sharp but humble she is, and her views on the topics discussed! I also enjoyed her responses to the questions or ideas Brian presents, it was really fun to watch! What a awesome guest! Great job Brian!!! 😁👌
@@DrBrianKeating She absolutely is and it's people like her and yourself are underappreciated and the younger generations should admire & look at people like you two for inspiration and not these celebrities of reality tv or other toxic entertainers who flash money and glorify non-stop partying, drugs, alcohol, etc.Thank you for being such a great role model and ambassador of the scientific community!
WOW! Brian, this was another fantastic video. I am glad that you encouraged Anna not to "dumb" down her discussion. Some of the things I will have to think about. That is good. Keep up the good work.
It sounds as though a cyclic universe, as Anna describes it, wouldn't be incompatible with a multiverse-- a multiverse consisting of an unbounded number of cyclic "bubble" universes-- but there'd be no good reason to imagine that sort of multiverse apart from one's personal preference. And that's not science. But I wonder if Everett's type of multiverse would be compatible. Off-handedly, I'd say yeah, no problem there. So you can have a solution of many cosmological problems and the measurement problem, too. What a deal!
I'm no scientist, but we know the speed of light (c) and we can approximate the mass of the visible universe (m) then using E=mc^2 we can calculate the energy available in this universe. Then, we can use this amount to calculate the length of time this universe will exist until the heat death, because "energy can neither be created nor destroyed." ? Can't we? Then, we can figure out what fraction of this total energy (E) is used by each star. Thus each galaxy is a fraction of the total energy (E). Every nuclear bomb we set off contains a fraction of the total energy. Every chemical reaction is a fraction (albeit very very small) of this total energy. Perhaps we can hack into the matrix by controlling a nuclear explosion and directing the time fraction in this part of the universe thus directing a warp to another portion of time fraction in another part of this universe or, perhaps a different universe in a chain? Or, every time a gamma ray is emitted in this universe, a fraction of energy is depleted from God's universal calculator, and we can weasel our way into God's computer by controlling gamma rays? Just an idea I'm putting out there. Stay free!
Such a fascinating and enlightening podcast. I always thought Big Bounce was something conclusively dismissed. Anna is brilliant, but what I love about this podcast is how modest the guests and host are. Mostly, their abilities and willingness to explain these concepts to non-mathematicians like myself.
I’m not convinced that the universe works with the same set of physics that we understand in our galaxy. If we can’t see past our observable universe, or past the event horizon of a black hole, how can we calculate an accurate model? We have just left the nest, and many discoveries are yet to be found, and I’m sure that our theories will continue to hatch….we may be extinct before we ever have a complete understanding. Thanx for the fresh ideas, theories, and challenge to think with an open mind!
This lady is brilliant she has the books stacked properly so you don’t have to break your neck trying to read the title like you do in the book shops. Albert who?
The growth of supermassive black holes must be explained by physics that occurs after the bounce and reheating. Supermassive black holes from the previous cycle end up far outside today’s observable universe. Slow contraction and big bounce has no implication for the formation of supermassive black holes that we observe today, and vice versa.
An Unfortunate autocaptioning mistake! 39:00 "...a contracting phase is connected to the hot expanding phase by a cosmological bounce." is captioned as "...a contracting phase is connected to the hot expanding phase biocosmological bands. No doubt confusing for those relying on the captions.
Discovery often times brings joy, and this seems a constant to me. To miss out on discovery could bring a feeling of loss, which could produce melancholy in somebody who had high hopes for discovering something important which matters to many people. Yet, what if we treat loss, like when we lose money, as a good thing? If you think of charity, the giver loses money, but is good for being generous. Therefore, if melancholy can be equated with the specific loss as of an intellectual money to charity, then she or he who does not discover anything crucial and who feels loss, really should be considered a heroine or hero because by losing, others gain from it a charity, and that is good. If that melancholic goodness is better than the joy of discovery, then we do better in the world by feeling melancholic than even by feeling the joy of discovery. Thank you, Brian for your friend and guest, Anna. I still believe that it should be renamed "The Big Bounce Up."
Is there any theory about the big bang in which it occurs in two directions. One expands forward in time, and the other expands backward in time. Or to make it simpler to understand, time is a dimension, and one could travel in either direction across it. So the end result would be the one universe that we are aware of, and the other which is a kind of anti-universe. Thus in the "OTHER" universe, unlike our universe, anti-matter would be dominant.
yes i have heard something like that concept! It ranks high for balance, which the universe seems to like. The other universe has reversed time, but they don't realize it because their brains are also reversed in time...
If we educationalists have the POV that the Socratic Method response to implied qa, is the appropriate emulation of Actuality Conception recognition in Totality by alternative inside-outside Reciproction-recirculation Singularity repositioning, naturally occurring shaping of wave-particle packaging in its relative-timing ratio-rates, ..then the dynamic wave-packaging WYSIWYG QM-TIME Completeness is pure-math cause-effect motion defining e-Pi-i sync-duration numberness in the superposition GD&P Polar-Cartesian self-defining coordination functionality format, be-cause-effect probability dominance of superimposed fractal heiracies, set in ONE-INFINITY like Hilbert's Infite Hotel rooms.., and this is the CCC matching correspondences in a Mirror-verse of Socratic Philosophy. (Not the sort of physical explosion indicated by superficial photography)
42:36 "...today we see 10^28 - 10^29 hubble patches, that were hubble patches in the early universe." Not sure how her early universe is defined, but we see only ~5,500,000,000 hubble patches of the cmb era.
10^28-10^29 refers to the ratio between reheat temperature and the temperature today which directly corresponds to the change in the scale factor (i.e. how much expansion occurred) since reheating. This determines how much smoothing and flattening had to take place during slow contraction.
Boltzmann's Theoretical Thermodynamics was founded on the Limit function of "Ideal Gas", an idea from The Calculus, pure-math motion-potential points confined to i-reflection 1-0-infinity echo-chamber = Black-body Singularity positioning. The e-Pi-i sync-duration log-antilog numberness function "says" the same. So, Advancing theory, ie projecting experience into imagined scenarios, is fundamentally un-Sciencing and disassembling Actuality which is why Philosophy and Experimentalist's practical Intuition, confirmation of relevance, is required, but when the love of simplicity replaces Observable AM-FM Quiescent-Quantum Operator Oscillation Fluxion-Integral Fields of Reciproction-recirculation, aka Holographic Principle Imagery with BBT delusion.., what can a genuine Scientific Analysis do to unstick the obsession with simple-precise "Bueaty", that is not actual complicated and messy sum-of-all-histories Accuracy.
There is a Stage of Childhood Development where the child realises an object may be out of sight, but still has permanency. The solution to the issue with BBT is identical for the realization of projection-drawing resonance in perfectly interpreting No-thing standing relative-timing wave ratio-rates of e-Pi-i logarithmic interference. Agnostic neutrality at 1-0-infinity instantaneous probability is the same mechanism-state of holistic-holographic Modulation. A Black-body "hole" in the whole of Eternity-now Interval Conception Superposition-point Singularity Perspective is the same. The objective is to see ONE-INFINITY from the temporal POV of No-thing i-reflection containment, that is the "Enlightenment" Measurement Problem becoming the Observer, "Do nothing, and all will be done", in pure-math relative-timing e-Pi-i sync-duration connectivity. If we got Sir Rodger Penrose to reiterate Feynman Diagrams in One Electron conditions and Sir Fred Hoyle's familiarity with Absolute Zero Kelvin = Universal Quiescent Point in CCC Reciproction-recirculation Singularity, we may align Object Permanency in Cosmology with "All is Vibration" and Susskind's reiteration of the general Reciproction-recirculation curriculum. From observation, re-evaluate a PhD as a licence to practice in research and not as a ticket to join the establishment. (Quite the inverse?)
infinite acceleration as opening sequence of an infinite universe where planets are fed with solar wind and stars and galxies are fed with cosmic radiation (infinite acceleration eliminates time --> time is inertia)
It is interesting that Anna talks about experimentalists talking to theorists. I started university in physics. I worked in the High Energy Physics department (HEP) as a programmer. I later switched to computer science, although math was a possibility. The fact is that there were not that many positions in physics, and they were shrinking. While I was there four professors were up for tenure, but there was only one position. They all deserved it. To get back to the interplay between theorists and experimentalists, I did not see much of this. The physics building was very large at the University of Maryland. HEP had most of the top floor, but there was one section where the theorists were. We never went down there. In fact, Charles Misner, one of the authors of Gravitation, was there. We did attend the weekly colloquium, which was always very interesting. I do agree with what Anna says, and would encourage it in most fields.
@@annaijjas5014 thanks for the answer. By the way, get black holes their mass via the higgs field as well (aka the masses of the particles that fell in earlier) or is it more that the spacetime in a black hole is so twisted that it "appears" like the similar mass? -> meaning the mass seems similar but the reason for it is different, because there might be not enough space left where all the quantum fluctuations that otherwise create the mass within the particles take place?
@@nmarbletoe8210 no, I meant the intrinsic mass of a dark matter particle itself. Does it get its mass via the Higgs effect, or in a different way. Maybe via a higgs sister field relevant for dark matter particles. Baryonic matter would be massless like the photons without the higgs mechanism. But does it apply to dark matter particles too, nobody knows.
I explain away dark matter by using a different math formula. Instead of using a model of the solar system, I add the forces of the mass along the chain of stars, blackholes, and dust inside each arm of a galaxy. It gives a new meaning to "You got the math wrong." :=)
Throw your multi verse theory nonsense out the window. The are only two dimensions, Space and Counterspace , with a plane of inertia in between. A positive, a neutral, and a negative. This was know back in the early 1900's, by Tesla, Steinmetz, and everyone that build the electric grid that is still working off of these principles. Without knowledge of these facts, engineering, and being able to calculate electricity flow would be impossible. Go back to the beginning. This whole subject has been tainted.
Dear Brian and Anna, this was an awesome conversation. As a random thought it came to my mind to ask what do you think how would a problem of the missing right handed neutrinos fit into this picture of multiple Universes (here is Sabine Hossenfelder's video about it: th-cam.com/video/p118YbxFtGg/w-d-xo.html).
With respect to what Anna may think now and when she grows up, when she is a mature human, her education may be the same as teaching a parrot to say good day.
The universe we live in is causal, no getting away from that fact. Plank energy, what's the difference with scalar energy? Old cyclic universe, well thanks that explains my question. If there are laws of thermal dynamics explain craft that can move in our atmosphere at 20 times the speed of sound without a bang. The trouble with our education system is we persist with physics we can see are ignored by things we see in, and out of our atmosphere. The days when one can aspire to the wealth of academia are gone.
Advising young adults to develop their own foundational truths with which to see and evaluate the world of information they are being inundated with is very prescient Anna. Thank you both Anna and Brian for a great conversation. Peace
Yes, once you have the language, you have lost the direct origin of omnidirectional-dimensional cause-effect Actual Intelligence.., from then on it's all so easy to live in a bubble-mode of self-defining-consistency of Quantum Chemistry wave-packaging. So it's critical to get the best approach to timing modulation measurements of time without congested labelling. The PhD was intended to disassociate a Seeker from the book learning, but maybe the process got turned around, as happens to human heirachical endeavours. The title of this discussion makes no sense or intelligence of pure-math relative-timing ratio-rates of probability density-intensity real-numberness condensation in Perspective.., the ultimate abstract of some kind of Imagery thing in i-reflection No-thing, Absolute Zero containment, as you expect in holography. But it's easy to understand why in terms of transverse trancendental sync-duration from Superspin Conception. Eventually, after some practice putting pure-math concepts into Geometrical Drawing and Perspective Projection correspondences.., something in No-thing.
Prof BRIAN COX ON LIFE FALSIFIES THE BIG BANG 1. When speaking of the chance origin of life Prof Brian Cox said the following 2. _"All it takes is a system far from equilibrium with a flow of energy and a spark"_ 3. What he did not say was what he actually meant by _"far from equilibrium"_ 4. What he meant by "spark" is a random improbable event favouring a molecular replicator 5. But _"far from equilibrium"_ in thermodynamics means in a state of *ORDER* 6. That is from one state of *thermodynamic order* some energy may be directed to create more *order* 7. Directed energy in thermodynamics is called *work* but its creation is inefficient producing heat 8. Therefore the former state of order is always greater than the latter state of order it may create 9. That means the work which created the former state of order must have come from a higher state of order still 10. Such a regression must stop at an original state of maximum order consistent with a creation and the second law 11. The Big Bang creates a state of *HIGH DISORDER* as indicated by the smoothness of the CMBR (equilibrium) 12. The Big Bang is falsified as a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Q.E.D.
That's only true, if you think of matter and radiation. For those the entropy was very high at big bang (CMB is almost black body radiator), but for the system all together the entropy was very low, when you take into consideration gravity.....as the entropy of gravity was very low back then.
@@mikebellamy well, who knows.... Current views are going into the direction that our baryonic matter is a kind of result of a decay of another quantum field earlier on, quasi the energy of this field got "frozen" into our matter. You may know matter and energy are equivalent, so the energy of this field got converted into the baryonic matter we are made of. Where does this field, or any of the quantum fields are coming from....that's the way more interesting question.
@@mikebellamy but, is it similar or different for dark energy.......that's unknown, even though the current views favor a kind of similar way of product of the dark matter.
@@manfredullrich483 Your wrong! Matter and Energy are *NOT EQUAL!* There is the small factor of c^2 to deal with for one AND then you have the FACT that all physics to date has demonstrated when energy is concentrated even just to make leptons the anti-leptons EACTLY EQUAL the leptons and end up back with energy. There is also a second law problem in trying to create baryons 1800 times more massive than leptons. They are NOT just COMPRESSED ENERGY! They have a super complex INTERNAL STRUCTURE of quarks and gluons which the second law will powerfully oppose from being formed from random wave energy.
Peole whose original academic background or professional knowledge is philosophy usually mix up human subjective interpretations in social science and manipulations of human -invented concepts of mathematics' flaws and defective holes in natural science, and thus their theories are superficial and more like religious beliefs, but not science, lacking logical reasoning based purely on factual facts, but not on personal narrow points of view which are dominant in social science. It means that philosophy and natural science should be separated into two different categories because true science is purely composed of objective and undeniable fact, and logical reasoning which is how to put such factual facts together in a logical sequence, whereas philosophy is how to put human subjective interpretations or subjective beliefs nto sets of standards, such as ieologies applied to different fields for a human society to follow
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php
for my scifi nerds and people that like silly and fun ideas - what if rather than a big bang or bounce, the universe hatched, or was given birth to. ie what we see as the universe is the inside of a growing, sentient being it is now our job to expand out of the universe (or our greater being's body) and populate new places with consciousness. earth is our collective being's testicles, and humans are the sperm. let's get out there and start bangin' on a cosmic scale. no mission is more important lol
Faster than light cosmic inflation is an unscientific joke. Entropy can always increase in the Big Bounce model if there are more energies outside the observable universe. Also, the particle accelerators make high energy particles using low energy particles showing that the entropy is a byproduct of acceleration. So cyclic expansion and contraction of gravitons can increase and reduce entropy in some parts of the universe. The particles that became energies during the contraction could go from one side of the island universe to another side until colliding with another high-energy particles. So the energies that exchanged between a large area of the universe could exchange temperature from one side to another while filling the universe with a lot of collisions. And they would not make one single Black Hole because energies don't make gravity and gravitons that existed between a large area of space couldn't collide into one location within a small period because of the limited speed of gravitons (limited light speed) and the exchange of gravitons from one side to another. Also, the contraction of the previous flat universe (uniformly expanded matter) wouldn't bring matter easily to one single location within a short period of time to make only one Black Hole.
There is one question rarely asked: We know that baryonic matter underwent several stages shortly after the big bang (baryogenesis, Baryon acoustic oscillations, nucleosynthesis, recombination, leptogenesis etc.) and some afterwards (creation of stars, black holes, clusters etc.). And we know this stuff accounts only for ca. 5% of the universe energy density. Why do we think there were no such changes in the dark matter (it underwent [maybe other] changes/processes) as well? -> it only clumps boringly after its creation....we can't be sure of that. Same is true for dark energy. Maybe it's not just one thing but two or multiple "things/fields" etc. together, and they are not static.....or at least they had not been in the beginning. Basically we assume a best case scenario where only the things we understand underwent such changes. We may need to be more creative, which surely will be easier, once we understand what dark matter actually is. Likely, I would believe, it's not just one particularly particle, it will be more complex, even it looks simple to us.
Thank you, both, for this interview, and congratulations, Anna! Suppose Anna’s concept is correct. If our universe is to cycle, not just a few times, but for all Eternity, then my anxious question is this: Can your models justify a 𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 recycling, including all the photons and neutrinos that have flown way past any galaxies? 😕
Every cycle, the photons, matter, stars, galaxies, black holes (really anything that we observe today) end up far beyond today’s observable universe. This is what makes a cyclic model with a phase of slow contraction and a bounce in which space or time does not vanish special.
@@annaijjas5014 P.S. Have you ever seen this argument? It seems to me so elementary, yet I have never seen anyone expound it, but you have studied philosophy, deeply. The argument says that, if time is eternal (or, cyclical, which is almost the same, isn’t it?) then it cannot be the case that we are at some finite distance in time from a beginning (probability would be zero), because said beginning should have happened an unbounded amount of time ago, unless! Unless, of course, the beginning happens over and over, ad infinitum. Same for your individual life: we know that you will die, so, how come you're not dead already? (Unless, of course, you are reborn, over and over.) If you are put under anesthesia, you lose consciousness, and when you wake up, you don’t know if minutes have passed, or eons, because, to you as an observer, time passes at infinite speed while you are unconscious. But you do wake up. But if you die, and there is “nothing” thereafter, then what? Do you fast forward to the end of Eternity? Certainly not, if Eternity has no end! Summary: in order for you to be alive now, your lifespan has to be some fraction, however small, but greater than zero, of the entire span of Eternity, and the only way in which that can happen, is if your lifespan (and, that of the entire Universe) repeats, over and over and over...
@dražen g Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Universe doesn’t bounce at all: it just keeps expanding, on and on; what he proposes is that, if the Universe becomes dilute enough, with nothing but photons, then the meaning of a kilometer, or a light year, is lost, so one can renormalize, or re-scale, to such an extreme that unfathomably vast distances might as well be tiny, and, if one considers them to be tiny, then the continued expansion becomes equivalent to a Big Bang. Brian? Anna? Did I get that right? 🤓
Considering the big bang as a black hole singularity without gravity (gravity kicks in later with the formation of matter) and on the other hand the relativistic, infinite amount of time for matter to reach the singularity, it can't be a big bounce. The total collapse of a black hole into a true massless and gravityless big bang singularity can only happen outside of space and time.
With no gravitational phenomenon present during beginning moments of the universe, inflation starts space expansion and continues until slowed by matter curving space around the momentum driven and space expansion driven expanding universe slowing until eventually space expansion has outpaced matter expansion and dark energy pressure drives space expansion ever faster, energy not being conserved as space expands, all existing phenomena move farther apart as space moves more flat, redshifted into only virtual particles and expanding space. (Something along these lines?)
@@garysamuel9521 Dark energy was weak in the beginning and grows stronger today. I don't buy dark matter. I think rather of electromagnetic phenomena not understood yet. King thermodynamics is also displeased with the dark knight ;-)
Brian, there's a mystery here going back at least to the days of homo habalis, and to date it doesn't add up, it's becoming apparent that the origin has a system of creation in place that's not no thing to see. While you stick stead fast to your intellect, you stay anchored to your religious philosophy.
In the beginning there was only God, and God said let there be light and there was light. In the beginning there was only nothing, and nothing said let there be light and there was light. Seriously, which one of those makes more sense ?
The minimum length would be tens of billions of years. How long it will exactly last depends on the precise nature of dark energy which we do not yet know.
I am not a physicist, yet I follow physics... My understanding is of a layman with above average knowledge. I wrote my interpretation of this very question, and stated long ago that black-holes are the regions in the Universe where matter is broken down to its smaller components and therefore called them the washing machines of the Universe. Matter comes back refurbished in the infinite cycle our Universe is locked in. I also renamed black-holes MASSONs as that is a more accurate representation of their MASS property. I also stated that the Universe is not actually expanding but only acting as a sponge that oozes matter in both directions in and out, 'out' being the matter we call elements(the makros), 'in' being the building blocks in the small(the mikros)... I am glad to finally see one with an open mind, who accepts that asserting everything to prevail is a mistake in any subject where many unknowns still remain.
I've always disliked the Big Bang, followed by entropy death of the Universe, and always thought it was just another anthropomorphic view of things, like the Earth being the center of the solar system as was believed in the not too distant past. To me it makes more sense to have a cyclic Universe. Folks we aren't the first incarnation, and won't be the last. We have to stop being self centered in our thinking.
You mean anthropocentric. I agree that something eternal makes more sense. I personally favor a black hole fractal though. I would retort, however, that anthropocentrism does have its place in ideas pertaining to determining the average distance to another technological civilization (as that is a delta within cycles and not between them). We humans are surely not the center of "it", but how our existence is linked to our environment remains an interesting question nevertheless -> you can't live (as we do) in a universe that does not support life (as we know it). ed:typos
sorry for posting a dumb question but if two particles are traveling to each other at 90% of c, each then their combined speed in which they are closing to each other is 180% of c I've read somewhere that this is not a violation of special relativity because each of those two particles is travelling through the field at 90% of c but it is still in my head because I think of a possibility when you "curve space time" in such a way that both objects [you and the object towards which you are travelling] are both moving at 90% of c to each other so the closing speed would be 180% of c - wouldn't this be considered for a ftl travel ? how it would influence the time interval ?
The God number was discovered before Sumar, before Golbeki, it's geometry, forbidden to see since the reformation. The question of the chicken or the egg, what came 1st, geometry or math, a forbidden question. Forbidden is geometry because it delves into Hermes, Osiris and the mystery of 72 parts of sacred geometry. Look at the cathedrals, look at Gaudy, look at MC Escher. Forbidden geometry, why do you think Gaudy's temple is not complete after one and a half centuries, forbidden architecture.
A dualverse that is both expanding and contracting at the same time clears up so many problems. There is geodesic completeness and the 2nd law of thermodynamics is preserved.
Cosmology started back in Sumar and maybe before, we don't know. Now cosmology excludes the society that described 60 as the foundation of our reality. In those days cosmology was about birth and death and what lay in between, now the sectional 60 geometry of those days that lead us to these days is no longer the base number, why?
The big picture, birth, death and in between. 6 thousand years ago this same question, in those days reality was divided by 60 and expressed in geometry according to the relationship of the solar system and the galaxy, the place of consciousness in this system was the inquiry 6 thousand years ago. It seems as if we are stuck in a loop, asking the same question , no answer to date.
All our theories are adjusted to our reality, Hawking radiation a point. Nothing can escape a black hole, information rotates around the but never is sucked in, yet even though light can't escape not so Hawking radiation? Give my intellect a break.
Brian is driven by his religion. He observes the ceremony prescribed and then turns up in his university to teach reality to young minds. Henry the 8th had a similar view as he dissolved Christianity to become the travesty of Boris' England. Geometry still band from your see.
There was a beginning to the thing we see, the only thing is what it may be and what is it? One question but 2 inquiries. To be sure it's not discrete.
Can anyone tell me why an external force outside our universe pulling our universe outward could NOT be a solution to the increasing speed bodies travel the further out they are? If it is an answer it would be a way to explain dark energy effects. André in Sydney
BIG BANG Gravity Problem: 1. Big Bang assumes energy and matter from nothing in a quantum singularity or fluctuation 2. The density is quoted variously as extreme to infinite 3. The total mass of the universe curves space and shapes the universes destiny 4. Black Holes have an escape velocity at their event horizon equal to the speed of light 5. The size of a Black Hole is measured by its mass which gives the diameter of the event horizon 6. The mass of the universe is ~1e80 protons = 6.7e53 Kg 7. The formula for escape velocity = (2GM/r)^0.5 Therefore r = 2GM/v^2 8. Given M = 6.7e53 Kg and v = 3e8 m/sec therefore Dia = 2.r = 52.5 billion light yrs 9. The universe cannot at any time have been smaller than 52.5 billion light yrs in diameter 10. The matter in the universe can only have been created *after the expansion of space..* *The Big Bang is falsified as a violation of the law of gravity! Q.E.D.*
Except premise 1 is wrong off the hop. The big bang is a term used to describe inflation. What happened before that matter of infinite density suddenly puffed out is anyone's guess. Nobody knows where it came from or how it got there for sure which is why it's not included in the big bang model.
@@aprylvanryn5898 Then you must believe that a singularity has dimensions! If not then it must come from NOTHING! That is however just a diversion from the FACT the density cannot be infinite or even close because of the Schwarzschild's Radius of its mass which I calculate. So where am I wrong?
@@mikebellamy the first place ur wrong is telling me what I believe. As a human my belief system is complex and I doubt u could gage it from a few sentences. Second, the BBT really does account for a singularly, people just suggest it as a logical hypothesis. It doesn't need to come from a singularly or quantum fields. U built ur entire argument based on a faulty premise. Maybe God did it but the fact of the matter is it still happened
what's the next Ln plateau above nariai black holes? the size i mean, they get so big then the laws change, so if the universe was actually a big black hole that turned into a "white hole" basically why would you use calculations for regular black holes causing a gravitational bath, that would not have the same effect on space, that a nariai or larger black hole would have? it seems like there is a lot of approximating that's not being accounted for going on here.
what if all the matter fell into a black hole, generating a cold universe, an entanglement smoothed out the early universe, how is the multiverse not possible?
Hi, sometimes wild ideas lead, to great discoverys.....realy like to know, if you Dr.Brian start to have a clean picture, of all this theorys. ....all the best.
If there is a line of 1,000 people standing shoulder to shoulder down in a valley next to a tall hill and the person at each end of the line is given instructions to write down a time between 12:00 and 12:01pm and which begins on any given second mark between 0 and 59 during the 1 minute selection period and then they pass the note immediately to the person on their left or right and so on and so forth down the line. It will take a good amount of time for each note to be passed to the other person at each end and they will have no idea what particular second mark the other person at the opposite far end selected until their note reaches them. However, a person positioned on top of the hill with a set of binoculars will know the exact time each person at the ends of the line wrote their note and began to pass it along. The idea of "Time" selected for each person will be different, but the person on the hilltop has the best overall understanding of time in this given scenario.
This gets me thinking of how fast an electron travels in an electric circuit. My guess is electrons use entanglement to tell when to flow and determine if they are in a circuit or not. Plus nerves and neurons only work by circuits, hence quantum entanglement is there too.
@@KaliFissure yeah and no. If this is what materialist need to get by I don't have any issue with it . Its been 80 years and materialist have taken physicalism to it's limits but they have such a hard time with the evidence and discovery. Some people are wired to a belief system that gets in the way of progress. We are at that type of cross roads where the dogma is in the way and has been for a long time.
@@KaliFissure max plank settled the debate set in 1800s when we would allow the fundamental building blocks decide this one and for all. Its been hi jacked every since.
@@KaliFissure its nothing wrong with that its very much a part of our experience and perception of the universe. If writing a new in the beginning story strengthens your faith in that belief system I wouldn't get in the way but don't we already have enough of them ?
There is not enough matter to close the universe; that's correct. However, if dark energy is time varying and the true ground state of the universe has a negative cosmological constant, then this is another mechanism that Einstein’s theory of relativity predicts can enable the transition from today’s accelerated expansion to slow contraction.
How can we encourage more “outside the box” thinking in cosmology? Please join my mailing list to learn about the hottest topics in cosmology; click here 👉 briankeating.com/list 📝
More outside of the box thinking would be wonderful if the system didn't castigate such thinking. Recent history is full of such examples in which careers have been wrecked for quackery, or what I like to call, creative thinking.
I have no idea, I've been thinking "outside the box" when it comes to physics in general for years, and I don't feel like it is appreciated.
It took me 3 years just to have one question answered, and it wasn't by a doctor in physics but a master in physics Isaac Arthur.
The question was, is it theoretically possible that a black hole might have a core of quark-gluon plasma, and the answer I got was "It could be" followed by a range of dense stars starting from a white dwarf up until a Planck star, where a black hole was changed by quark-gluon plasma.
The reason why I asked that question was because of Neil DeGrasse Tyson saying that quark-gluon plasma could destroy dimensions about 10 years ago now I think and because of the gravity of a black hole, that everything is packed so tightly together, and high temperature and pressures are key ingredients for quark-gluon plasma, so I thought, hmmmm, maybe it isn't such a bad question to ask him since nobody else seems to answer me who I consider to be experts in the field.
Another question that is still unanswered, which is also thinking outside the box is this:
Even though time is a level of degree of freedom itself, otherwise nothing can move/vibrate/spin/etc... is it possible that there are no levels of degrees of freedom for time and time is infinite, since you can't go back in time, you can't fast forward time, you're stuck in the present, so my best guess is, it has no dimensions itself. Combined with the 3 dimensions for gravity, the universe could have the potential to have started and remain infinite too.
Another question I have lately, is a new take on FTL travel or IDT travel.
FTL or faster-than-light travel:
Since physicists postulate the possibility exist that there can be a glueball, or something made of nothing but gluons, why not, should we be able to make it, make a bubble of gluons that separate the outside spacetime from the spacetime inside the bubble of gluons, and then accellerate that bubble of gluons to the speed of light. Kinda like an Alcubièrre drive 2.0
IDT or inter-dimensional-travel:
if before 10 to the minus 43 seconds when gravity separated was all considered just energy, then everything after that could be considered something that was converted from that energy, thus also dimensions if dimensions are something physical, even if it is a membrane of planck length thickness (another hypothesis of mine about the structure of spacetime).
So if we could create a 2 dimensional portal and keep it stable, we could use the dimension of time, which is explained in my second question, as a gateway between two 2 dimensional portals in spacetime, by using dimensions to our advantage. Kinda like an Einstein-Rosen bridge 2.0 which we could make stable by converting energy in extra spatial dimensions without being spaghettified going from 4 dimensions to 0 and back, actually 3+infinite to infinite and back.
Outside the box thinking is easy, the difficult part is that it has to make sense mathematically and in physics. Perhaps that's why nobody wants to answer my questions.
All I can say is, I did my best with the little knowledge I have, and even though there's a great chance I'm wrong, I don't think i did such a bad job at it. I know some boxoffice movies that made billions from writers who did a terrible job when it comes to the mathematics and physics to support their movies and series....
Talking openly and actively encouraging the philosophical, theological, social, theoretical, experimental importance of out of the box thinking is a bloody great start.
Absolutely loved this episode.
Thanks very much Andy
@@florh I can't answer some of those questions but with an ERB between 2 black holes you could never actually pass thru it because the space between would be expanding faster than the speed of light. As for FTL travel, it may be possible to fold space. I don't think it's actually possible and if it is, it sounds incredibly dangerous.
How brilliant is Anna?! , I'm just super impressed by how sharp but humble she is, and her views on the topics discussed! I also enjoyed her responses to the questions or ideas Brian presents, it was really fun to watch! What a awesome guest! Great job Brian!!! 😁👌
She is wonderful right?
@@DrBrianKeating She absolutely is and it's people like her and yourself are underappreciated and the younger generations should admire & look at people like you two for inspiration and not these celebrities of reality tv or other toxic entertainers who flash money and glorify non-stop partying, drugs, alcohol, etc.Thank you for being such a great role model and ambassador of the scientific community!
Thanks very much !!!!
WOW! Brian, this was another fantastic video. I am glad that you encouraged Anna not to "dumb" down her discussion. Some of the things I will have to think about. That is good. Keep up the good work.
Thank you, very much!
@@DrBrianKeating You are very welcome.
It sounds as though a cyclic universe, as Anna describes it, wouldn't be incompatible with a multiverse-- a multiverse consisting of an unbounded number of cyclic "bubble" universes-- but there'd be no good reason to imagine that sort of multiverse apart from one's personal preference. And that's not science. But I wonder if Everett's type of multiverse would be compatible. Off-handedly, I'd say yeah, no problem there. So you can have a solution of many cosmological problems and the measurement problem, too. What a deal!
The multiverse (eternal inflation style) is motivated by taking the concept of inflation and assigning it a quantum field.
I'm no scientist, but we know the speed of light (c) and we can approximate the mass of the visible universe (m) then using E=mc^2 we can calculate the energy available in this universe. Then, we can use this amount to calculate the length of time this universe will exist until the heat death, because "energy can neither be created nor destroyed." ? Can't we? Then, we can figure out what fraction of this total energy (E) is used by each star. Thus each galaxy is a fraction of the total energy (E). Every nuclear bomb we set off contains a fraction of the total energy. Every chemical reaction is a fraction (albeit very very small) of this total energy. Perhaps we can hack into the matrix by controlling a nuclear explosion and directing the time fraction in this part of the universe thus directing a warp to another portion of time fraction in another part of this universe or, perhaps a different universe in a chain? Or, every time a gamma ray is emitted in this universe, a fraction of energy is depleted from God's universal calculator, and we can weasel our way into God's computer by controlling gamma rays? Just an idea I'm putting out there. Stay free!
I love you man, you just answered my deep question about time; thank you very much.
Such a fascinating and enlightening podcast. I always thought Big Bounce was something conclusively dismissed. Anna is brilliant, but what I love about this podcast is how modest the guests and host are. Mostly, their abilities and willingness to explain these concepts to non-mathematicians like myself.
I’m not convinced that the universe works with the same set of physics that we understand in our galaxy. If we can’t see past our observable universe, or past the event horizon of a black hole, how can we calculate an accurate model? We have just left the nest, and many discoveries are yet to be found, and I’m sure that our theories will continue to hatch….we may be extinct before we ever have a complete understanding. Thanx for the fresh ideas, theories, and challenge to think with an open mind!
This lady is brilliant she has the books stacked properly so you don’t have to break your neck trying to read the title like you do in the book shops. Albert who?
Lol. Good catch
The growth of supermassive black holes is mainly a problem for the formation of structures, but this can come from the contracting universe or not?
Thanks good question
Wow. I didn't even know that I wanted to know the answer to that. That's gonna keep me up at night
The growth of supermassive black holes must be explained by physics that occurs after the bounce and reheating. Supermassive black holes from the previous cycle end up far outside today’s observable universe. Slow contraction and big bounce has no implication for the formation of supermassive black holes that we observe today, and vice versa.
An Unfortunate autocaptioning mistake!
39:00 "...a contracting phase is connected to the hot expanding phase by a cosmological bounce."
is captioned as "...a contracting phase is connected to the hot expanding phase biocosmological bands.
No doubt confusing for those relying on the captions.
Discovery often times brings joy, and this seems a constant to me. To miss out on discovery could bring a feeling of loss, which could produce melancholy in somebody who had high hopes for discovering something important which matters to many people. Yet, what if we treat loss, like when we lose money, as a good thing? If you think of charity, the giver loses money, but is good for being generous. Therefore, if melancholy can be equated with the specific loss as of an intellectual money to charity, then she or he who does not discover anything crucial and who feels loss, really should be considered a heroine or hero because by losing, others gain from it a charity, and that is good. If that melancholic goodness is better than the joy of discovery, then we do better in the world by feeling melancholic than even by feeling the joy of discovery. Thank you, Brian for your friend and guest, Anna. I still believe that it should be renamed "The Big Bounce Up."
Is there any theory about the big bang in which it occurs in two directions. One expands forward in time, and the other expands backward in time. Or to make it simpler to understand, time is a dimension, and one could travel in either direction across it. So the end result would be the one universe that we are aware of, and the other which is a kind of anti-universe. Thus in the "OTHER" universe, unlike our universe, anti-matter would be dominant.
yes i have heard something like that concept! It ranks high for balance, which the universe seems to like. The other universe has reversed time, but they don't realize it because their brains are also reversed in time...
If we educationalists have the POV that the Socratic Method response to implied qa, is the appropriate emulation of Actuality Conception recognition in Totality by alternative inside-outside Reciproction-recirculation Singularity repositioning, naturally occurring shaping of wave-particle packaging in its relative-timing ratio-rates, ..then the dynamic wave-packaging WYSIWYG QM-TIME Completeness is pure-math cause-effect motion defining e-Pi-i sync-duration numberness in the superposition GD&P Polar-Cartesian self-defining coordination functionality format, be-cause-effect probability dominance of superimposed fractal heiracies, set in ONE-INFINITY like Hilbert's Infite Hotel rooms.., and this is the CCC matching correspondences in a Mirror-verse of Socratic Philosophy. (Not the sort of physical explosion indicated by superficial photography)
Great interview 👍 couple super stars🤩
Thanks buddy
Awesome! Can't to watch it. I'm following very close the news about this theory.
42:36 "...today we see 10^28 - 10^29 hubble patches, that were hubble patches in the early universe."
Not sure how her early universe is defined, but we see only ~5,500,000,000 hubble patches of the cmb era.
10^28-10^29 refers to the ratio between reheat temperature and the temperature today which directly corresponds to the change in the scale factor (i.e. how much expansion occurred) since reheating. This determines how much smoothing and flattening had to take place during slow contraction.
Boltzmann's Theoretical Thermodynamics was founded on the Limit function of "Ideal Gas", an idea from The Calculus, pure-math motion-potential points confined to i-reflection 1-0-infinity echo-chamber = Black-body Singularity positioning.
The e-Pi-i sync-duration log-antilog numberness function "says" the same.
So, Advancing theory, ie projecting experience into imagined scenarios, is fundamentally un-Sciencing and disassembling Actuality which is why Philosophy and Experimentalist's practical Intuition, confirmation of relevance, is required, but when the love of simplicity replaces Observable AM-FM Quiescent-Quantum Operator Oscillation Fluxion-Integral Fields of Reciproction-recirculation, aka Holographic Principle Imagery with BBT delusion.., what can a genuine Scientific Analysis do to unstick the obsession with simple-precise "Bueaty", that is not actual complicated and messy sum-of-all-histories Accuracy.
Why would we want to avoid a multiverse?
Good question. I’ll let Anna answer it 😀
Thank you, very enjoyable discussion.
There is a Stage of Childhood Development where the child realises an object may be out of sight, but still has permanency.
The solution to the issue with BBT is identical for the realization of projection-drawing resonance in perfectly interpreting No-thing standing relative-timing wave ratio-rates of e-Pi-i logarithmic interference.
Agnostic neutrality at 1-0-infinity instantaneous probability is the same mechanism-state of holistic-holographic Modulation.
A Black-body "hole" in the whole of Eternity-now Interval Conception Superposition-point Singularity Perspective is the same.
The objective is to see ONE-INFINITY from the temporal POV of No-thing i-reflection containment, that is the "Enlightenment" Measurement Problem becoming the Observer, "Do nothing, and all will be done", in pure-math relative-timing e-Pi-i sync-duration connectivity.
If we got Sir Rodger Penrose to reiterate Feynman Diagrams in One Electron conditions and Sir Fred Hoyle's familiarity with Absolute Zero Kelvin = Universal Quiescent Point in CCC Reciproction-recirculation Singularity, we may align Object Permanency in Cosmology with "All is Vibration" and Susskind's reiteration of the general Reciproction-recirculation curriculum.
From observation, re-evaluate a PhD as a licence to practice in research and not as a ticket to join the establishment. (Quite the inverse?)
No one talks to me, an experimentalist in self organising geometry. @garius jarfar. If creation is not self organising, what it be?
infinite acceleration as opening sequence of an infinite universe where planets are fed with solar wind and stars and galxies are fed with cosmic radiation
(infinite acceleration eliminates time --> time is inertia)
I may be a few hours late, but science is always on time.
It is interesting that Anna talks about experimentalists talking to theorists. I started university in physics. I worked in the High Energy Physics department (HEP) as a programmer. I later switched to computer science, although math was a possibility. The fact is that there were not that many positions in physics, and they were shrinking. While I was there four professors were up for tenure, but there was only one position. They all deserved it. To get back to the interplay between theorists and experimentalists, I did not see much of this. The physics building was very large at the University of Maryland. HEP had most of the top floor, but there was one section where the theorists were. We never went down there. In fact, Charles Misner, one of the authors of Gravitation, was there. We did attend the weekly colloquium, which was always very interesting. I do agree with what Anna says, and would encourage it in most fields.
“ambulance chasing” 😂 she is accustomed to 🇺🇸 cynicism
thank you! enjoying this interview.
Isn’t the beginning of the universe the Big Bang conception?
Brian want's you to join the mailbox to learn how fantastic our science when half of us know if the ET's aren't benevolent we kiss our arses goodby.
How about neither? I don't believe in either of them.
😍🥰😍🥰
By the way, does the dark matter gets its mass via the higgs field as well, or in a different way?
We do not know. There are different candidates for dark matter some of which may not involve the Higgs (or a Higgs-like) mechanism.
@@annaijjas5014 thanks for the answer.
By the way, get black holes their mass via the higgs field as well (aka the masses of the particles that fell in earlier) or is it more that the spacetime in a black hole is so twisted that it "appears" like the similar mass?
-> meaning the mass seems similar but the reason for it is different, because there might be not enough space left where all the quantum fluctuations that otherwise create the mass within the particles take place?
@@manfredullrich483 I guess a BH would get mass in all the ways it is possible for anything to get mass, since it can absorb any type of particle...
@@nmarbletoe8210 no, I meant the intrinsic mass of a dark matter particle itself.
Does it get its mass via the Higgs effect, or in a different way.
Maybe via a higgs sister field relevant for dark matter particles.
Baryonic matter would be massless like the photons without the higgs mechanism.
But does it apply to dark matter particles too, nobody knows.
@@manfredullrich483 right, I was just talking about the black hole bit. For dark matter as you say we don't know, since we don't know what it is.
Mhmm
I explain away dark matter by using a different math formula. Instead of using a model of the solar system, I add the forces of the mass along the chain of stars, blackholes, and dust inside each arm of a galaxy. It gives a new meaning to "You got the math wrong." :=)
Throw your multi verse theory nonsense out the window. The are only two dimensions, Space and Counterspace , with a plane of inertia in between. A positive, a neutral, and a negative. This was know back in the early 1900's, by Tesla, Steinmetz, and everyone that build the electric grid that is still working off of these principles. Without knowledge of these facts, engineering, and being able to calculate electricity flow would be impossible. Go back to the beginning. This whole subject has been tainted.
th-cam.com/video/y7v5C7iP6Rk/w-d-xo.html
How the hell could anyone know if the universe bounces!?
You just have to drop it and watch
@@qwerty6574 drop it on what?
@@EricThompsonClimber your head 😂
@@peterquinn2997 that explains everything.
@@EricThompsonClimber !
Dear Brian and Anna, this was an awesome conversation. As a random thought it came to my mind to ask what do you think how would a problem of the missing right handed neutrinos fit into this picture of multiple Universes (here is Sabine Hossenfelder's video about it: th-cam.com/video/p118YbxFtGg/w-d-xo.html).
AHAHAHAHAHAH THE UNIVERSE IS NOT EXPANDING...HALTON ARP WAS RIGHT
More than one way to skin a cat.
With respect to what Anna may think now and when she grows up, when she is a mature human, her education may be the same as teaching a parrot to say good day.
3:28 - 😂🤣 Yeah , that's the ONLY thing in SCIENCE these days. Just questions. No answers.
The universe we live in is causal, no getting away from that fact. Plank energy, what's the difference with scalar energy? Old cyclic universe, well thanks that explains my question. If there are laws of thermal dynamics explain craft that can move in our atmosphere at 20 times the speed of sound without a bang. The trouble with our education system is we persist with physics we can see are ignored by things we see in, and out of our atmosphere. The days when one can aspire to the wealth of academia are gone.
Ms Ijjas Speaks so rapidly that's is hard to follow her, otherwise enjoyable
You can always chose to watch at 1/2 speed in the TH-cam settings, if that helps you.
Advising young adults to develop their own foundational truths with which to see and evaluate the world of information they are being inundated with is very prescient Anna. Thank you both Anna and Brian for a great conversation.
Peace
Thanks very much!
14:48 I Knew it!!
So...
There Are such things as SDBHs - Super Duper Black Holes!
🙂
Yes, once you have the language, you have lost the direct origin of omnidirectional-dimensional cause-effect Actual Intelligence.., from then on it's all so easy to live in a bubble-mode of self-defining-consistency of Quantum Chemistry wave-packaging.
So it's critical to get the best approach to timing modulation measurements of time without congested labelling.
The PhD was intended to disassociate a Seeker from the book learning, but maybe the process got turned around, as happens to human heirachical endeavours.
The title of this discussion makes no sense or intelligence of pure-math relative-timing ratio-rates of probability density-intensity real-numberness condensation in Perspective.., the ultimate abstract of some kind of Imagery thing in i-reflection No-thing, Absolute Zero containment, as you expect in holography.
But it's easy to understand why in terms of transverse trancendental sync-duration from Superspin Conception. Eventually, after some practice putting pure-math concepts into Geometrical Drawing and Perspective Projection correspondences.., something in No-thing.
Prof BRIAN COX ON LIFE FALSIFIES THE BIG BANG
1. When speaking of the chance origin of life Prof Brian Cox said the following
2. _"All it takes is a system far from equilibrium with a flow of energy and a spark"_
3. What he did not say was what he actually meant by _"far from equilibrium"_
4. What he meant by "spark" is a random improbable event favouring a molecular replicator
5. But _"far from equilibrium"_ in thermodynamics means in a state of *ORDER*
6. That is from one state of *thermodynamic order* some energy may be directed to create more *order*
7. Directed energy in thermodynamics is called *work* but its creation is inefficient producing heat
8. Therefore the former state of order is always greater than the latter state of order it may create
9. That means the work which created the former state of order must have come from a higher state of order still
10. Such a regression must stop at an original state of maximum order consistent with a creation and the second law
11. The Big Bang creates a state of *HIGH DISORDER* as indicated by the smoothness of the CMBR (equilibrium)
12. The Big Bang is falsified as a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Q.E.D.
That's only true, if you think of matter and radiation.
For those the entropy was very high at big bang (CMB is almost black body radiator), but for the system all together the entropy was very low, when you take into consideration gravity.....as the entropy of gravity was very low back then.
@@manfredullrich483 So where did the matter come from?
@@mikebellamy well, who knows.... Current views are going into the direction that our baryonic matter is a kind of result of a decay of another quantum field earlier on, quasi the energy of this field got "frozen" into our matter.
You may know matter and energy are equivalent, so the energy of this field got converted into the baryonic matter we are made of.
Where does this field, or any of the quantum fields are coming from....that's the way more interesting question.
@@mikebellamy but, is it similar or different for dark energy.......that's unknown, even though the current views favor a kind of similar way of product of the dark matter.
@@manfredullrich483 Your wrong!
Matter and Energy are *NOT EQUAL!*
There is the small factor of c^2 to deal with for one AND then you have the FACT that all physics to date has demonstrated when energy is concentrated even just to make leptons the anti-leptons EACTLY EQUAL the leptons and end up back with energy.
There is also a second law problem in trying to create baryons 1800 times more massive than leptons. They are NOT just COMPRESSED ENERGY! They have a super complex INTERNAL STRUCTURE of quarks and gluons which the second law will powerfully oppose from being formed from random wave energy.
Big smile, Dr. Keating ,you too,Sabina lol. Peace ✌️ 😎. Yippee
Peole whose original academic background or professional knowledge is philosophy usually mix up human subjective interpretations in social science and manipulations of human -invented concepts of mathematics' flaws and defective holes in natural science, and thus their theories are superficial and more like religious beliefs, but not science, lacking logical reasoning based purely on factual facts, but not on personal narrow points of view which are dominant in social science. It means that philosophy and natural science should be separated into two different categories because true science is purely composed of objective and undeniable fact, and logical reasoning which is how to put such factual facts together in a logical sequence, whereas philosophy is how to put human subjective interpretations or subjective beliefs nto sets of standards, such as ieologies applied to different fields for a human society to follow
When I watch these, I like to pretend Brian is a multiverse variant of Cenk Uygur where he went into cosmology instead.
This was very enjoyable. Anna is very good at articulating complicated ideas to dummies like myself, so thanks for the great conversation.
🎓
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php
beautiful people, beautiful conversation! thank you for sharing your ideas!
Thank you, very much
Please share with other people my two brief videos. Thanks much!
Her glasses are hiding her beautiful eyes. Very smart woman.
It's a good low maintenance look
for my scifi nerds and people that like silly and fun ideas - what if rather than a big bang or bounce, the universe hatched, or was given birth to. ie what we see as the universe is the inside of a growing, sentient being
it is now our job to expand out of the universe (or our greater being's body) and populate new places with consciousness. earth is our collective being's testicles, and humans are the sperm. let's get out there and start bangin' on a cosmic scale. no mission is more important lol
And all the gases in the universe will eventually lead into a giant universe sized fart.
Thanks!
Faster than light cosmic inflation is an unscientific joke. Entropy can always increase in the Big Bounce model if there are more energies outside the observable universe. Also, the particle accelerators make high energy particles using low energy particles showing that the entropy is a byproduct of acceleration. So cyclic expansion and contraction of gravitons can increase and reduce entropy in some parts of the universe. The particles that became energies during the contraction could go from one side of the island universe to another side until colliding with another high-energy particles. So the energies that exchanged between a large area of the universe could exchange temperature from one side to another while filling the universe with a lot of collisions. And they would not make one single Black Hole because energies don't make gravity and gravitons that existed between a large area of space couldn't collide into one location within a small period because of the limited speed of gravitons (limited light speed) and the exchange of gravitons from one side to another. Also, the contraction of the previous flat universe (uniformly expanded matter) wouldn't bring matter easily to one single location within a short period of time to make only one Black Hole.
😂 Neither! Its intelligent design, cosal agent, i.e. (GOD !) accept it.
I don't accept unsupported nonsense.
There is one question rarely asked:
We know that baryonic matter underwent several stages shortly after the big bang (baryogenesis, Baryon acoustic oscillations, nucleosynthesis, recombination, leptogenesis etc.) and some afterwards (creation of stars, black holes, clusters etc.). And we know this stuff accounts only for ca. 5% of the universe energy density.
Why do we think there were no such changes in the dark matter (it underwent [maybe other] changes/processes) as well? -> it only clumps boringly after its creation....we can't be sure of that.
Same is true for dark energy. Maybe it's not just one thing but two or multiple "things/fields" etc. together, and they are not static.....or at least they had not been in the beginning.
Basically we assume a best case scenario where only the things we understand underwent such changes.
We may need to be more creative, which surely will be easier, once we understand what dark matter actually is.
Likely, I would believe, it's not just one particularly particle, it will be more complex, even it looks simple to us.
Thank you, both, for this interview, and congratulations, Anna!
Suppose Anna’s concept is correct. If our universe is to cycle,
not just a few times, but for all Eternity, then my anxious question is this:
Can your models justify a 𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 recycling, including all the photons
and neutrinos that have flown way past any galaxies? 😕
Every cycle, the photons, matter, stars, galaxies, black holes (really anything that we observe today) end up far beyond today’s observable universe. This is what makes a cyclic model with a phase of slow contraction and a bounce in which space or time does not vanish special.
@@annaijjas5014 Do you mean that, after each bounce,
we end up with less and less matter ?? 😢 [Thank you for replying! ]
@@annaijjas5014 P.S. Have you ever seen this argument? It seems to me so elementary,
yet I have never seen anyone expound it, but you have studied philosophy, deeply.
The argument says that, if time is eternal (or, cyclical, which is almost the same, isn’t it?)
then it cannot be the case that we are at some finite distance in time from a beginning
(probability would be zero), because said beginning should have happened
an unbounded amount of time ago, unless! Unless, of course,
the beginning happens over and over, ad infinitum.
Same for your individual life: we know that you will die, so,
how come you're not dead already? (Unless, of course, you are reborn, over and over.)
If you are put under anesthesia, you lose consciousness, and when you wake up,
you don’t know if minutes have passed, or eons, because, to you as an observer,
time passes at infinite speed while you are unconscious. But you do wake up.
But if you die, and there is “nothing” thereafter, then what?
Do you fast forward to the end of Eternity?
Certainly not, if Eternity has no end!
Summary: in order for you to be alive now, your lifespan
has to be some fraction, however small, but greater than zero,
of the entire span of Eternity, and the only way in which that can happen,
is if your lifespan (and, that of the entire Universe) repeats, over and over and over...
Good question
@dražen g Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Universe doesn’t bounce at all:
it just keeps expanding, on and on; what he proposes is that,
if the Universe becomes dilute enough, with nothing but photons,
then the meaning of a kilometer, or a light year, is lost, so one can renormalize,
or re-scale, to such an extreme that unfathomably vast distances
might as well be tiny, and, if one considers them to be tiny,
then the continued expansion becomes equivalent to a Big Bang.
Brian? Anna? Did I get that right? 🤓
great conversation!! thanks!
Thanks very much !!
Considering the big bang as a black hole singularity without gravity (gravity kicks in later with the formation of matter) and on the other hand the relativistic, infinite amount of time for matter to reach the singularity, it can't be a big bounce. The total collapse of a black hole into a true massless and gravityless big bang singularity can only happen outside of space and time.
With no gravitational phenomenon present during beginning moments of the universe, inflation starts space expansion and continues until slowed by matter curving space around the momentum driven and space expansion driven expanding universe slowing until eventually space expansion has outpaced matter expansion and dark energy pressure drives space expansion ever faster, energy not being conserved as space expands, all existing phenomena move farther apart as space moves more flat, redshifted into only virtual particles and expanding space. (Something along these lines?)
@@garysamuel9521 Dark energy was weak in the beginning and grows stronger today. I don't buy dark matter. I think rather of electromagnetic phenomena not understood yet. King thermodynamics is also displeased with the dark knight ;-)
Gravitation probably existed before matter, since any form of energy gravitates...
@@nmarbletoe8210 That's a very good point.
Brian, there's a mystery here going back at least to the days of homo habalis, and to date it doesn't add up, it's becoming apparent that the origin has a system of creation in place that's not no thing to see. While you stick stead fast to your intellect, you stay anchored to your religious philosophy.
In the beginning there was only God, and God said let there be light and there was light. In the beginning there was only nothing, and nothing said let there be light and there was light. Seriously, which one of those makes more sense ?
Neither
@@kefhomepage Question was which one makes more sense, not which one do you believe.
Bye not ridiculing people for thinking non main stream like UFO situation was ..it's easing now albeit quite slowly
How long is one cycle?
The minimum length would be tens of billions of years. How long it will exactly last depends on the precise nature of dark energy which we do not yet know.
I am not a physicist, yet I follow physics... My understanding is of a layman with above average knowledge.
I wrote my interpretation of this very question, and stated long ago that black-holes are the regions in the Universe where matter is broken down to its smaller components and therefore called them the washing machines of the Universe. Matter comes back refurbished in the infinite cycle our Universe is locked in.
I also renamed black-holes MASSONs as that is a more accurate representation of their MASS property.
I also stated that the Universe is not actually expanding but only acting as a sponge that oozes matter in both directions in and out, 'out' being the matter we call elements(the makros), 'in' being the building blocks in the small(the mikros)... I am glad to finally see one with an open mind, who accepts that asserting everything to prevail is a mistake in any subject where many unknowns still remain.
I've always disliked the Big Bang, followed by entropy death of the Universe, and always thought it was just another anthropomorphic view of things, like the Earth being the center of the solar system as was believed in the not too distant past. To me it makes more sense to have a cyclic Universe. Folks we aren't the first incarnation, and won't be the last. We have to stop being self centered in our thinking.
You mean anthropocentric. I agree that something eternal makes more sense. I personally favor a black hole fractal though. I would retort, however, that anthropocentrism does have its place in ideas pertaining to determining the average distance to another technological civilization (as that is a delta within cycles and not between them). We humans are surely not the center of "it", but how our existence is linked to our environment remains an interesting question nevertheless -> you can't live (as we do) in a universe that does not support life (as we know it). ed:typos
@@MrMichiel1983 th-cam.com/video/y7v5C7iP6Rk/w-d-xo.html
@@MrMichiel1983 Thanks for the correction!
sorry for posting a dumb question but
if two particles are traveling to each other at 90% of c, each
then their combined speed in which they are closing to each other is 180% of c
I've read somewhere that this is not a violation of special relativity because each of those two particles is travelling through the field at 90% of c
but it is still in my head because I think of a possibility
when you "curve space time" in such a way that both objects [you and the object towards which you are travelling] are both moving at 90% of c to each other so the closing speed would be 180% of c - wouldn't this be considered for a ftl travel ?
how it would influence the time interval ?
The God number was discovered before Sumar, before Golbeki, it's geometry, forbidden to see since the reformation. The question of the chicken or the egg, what came 1st, geometry or math, a forbidden question. Forbidden is geometry because it delves into Hermes, Osiris and the mystery of 72 parts of sacred geometry. Look at the cathedrals, look at Gaudy, look at MC Escher. Forbidden geometry, why do you think Gaudy's temple is not complete after one and a half centuries, forbidden architecture.
A dualverse that is both expanding and contracting at the same time clears up so many problems. There is geodesic completeness and the 2nd law of thermodynamics is preserved.
Cosmology started back in Sumar and maybe before, we don't know. Now cosmology excludes the society that described 60 as the foundation of our reality. In those days cosmology was about birth and death and what lay in between, now the sectional 60 geometry of those days that lead us to these days is no longer the base number, why?
The big picture, birth, death and in between. 6 thousand years ago this same question, in those days reality was divided by 60 and expressed in geometry according to the relationship of the solar system and the galaxy, the place of consciousness in this system was the inquiry 6 thousand years ago. It seems as if we are stuck in a loop, asking the same question , no answer to date.
All our theories are adjusted to our reality, Hawking radiation a point. Nothing can escape a black hole, information rotates around the but never is sucked in, yet even though light can't escape not so Hawking radiation? Give my intellect a break.
Brian is driven by his religion. He observes the ceremony prescribed and then turns up in his university to teach reality to young minds. Henry the 8th had a similar view as he dissolved Christianity to become the travesty of Boris' England. Geometry still band from your see.
Yeah, not impressed with the 2nd Ph.D after the first one is finished the second is a fraction of the time/effort of the first.
I can't imagine humanity is even smart enough to know what everything is or how/why universe is here
Anna Ijjas seems like the type of person who will one day win a Nobel Prize.
There was a beginning to the thing we see, the only thing is what it may be and what is it? One question but 2 inquiries. To be sure it's not discrete.
Can anyone tell me why an external force outside our universe pulling our universe outward could NOT be a solution to the increasing speed bodies travel the further out they are? If it is an answer it would be a way to explain dark energy effects. André in Sydney
braneworld?
BIG BANG Gravity Problem:
1. Big Bang assumes energy and matter from nothing in a quantum singularity or fluctuation
2. The density is quoted variously as extreme to infinite
3. The total mass of the universe curves space and shapes the universes destiny
4. Black Holes have an escape velocity at their event horizon equal to the speed of light
5. The size of a Black Hole is measured by its mass which gives the diameter of the event horizon
6. The mass of the universe is ~1e80 protons = 6.7e53 Kg
7. The formula for escape velocity = (2GM/r)^0.5 Therefore r = 2GM/v^2
8. Given M = 6.7e53 Kg and v = 3e8 m/sec therefore Dia = 2.r = 52.5 billion light yrs
9. The universe cannot at any time have been smaller than 52.5 billion light yrs in diameter
10. The matter in the universe can only have been created *after the expansion of space..*
*The Big Bang is falsified as a violation of the law of gravity! Q.E.D.*
Nice set of statements 😎💭
Except premise 1 is wrong off the hop. The big bang is a term used to describe inflation. What happened before that matter of infinite density suddenly puffed out is anyone's guess. Nobody knows where it came from or how it got there for sure which is why it's not included in the big bang model.
th-cam.com/video/y7v5C7iP6Rk/w-d-xo.html
@@aprylvanryn5898 Then you must believe that a singularity has dimensions! If not then it must come from NOTHING!
That is however just a diversion from the FACT the density cannot be infinite or even close because of the Schwarzschild's Radius of its mass which I calculate. So where am I wrong?
@@mikebellamy the first place ur wrong is telling me what I believe. As a human my belief system is complex and I doubt u could gage it from a few sentences. Second, the BBT really does account for a singularly, people just suggest it as a logical hypothesis. It doesn't need to come from a singularly or quantum fields. U built ur entire argument based on a faulty premise. Maybe God did it but the fact of the matter is it still happened
what's the next Ln plateau above nariai black holes? the size i mean, they get so big then the laws change, so if the universe was actually a big black hole that turned into a "white hole" basically why would you use calculations for regular black holes causing a gravitational bath, that would not have the same effect on space, that a nariai or larger black hole would have? it seems like there is a lot of approximating that's not being accounted for going on here.
Pages and pages of references could be wrong?
what if all the matter fell into a black hole, generating a cold universe, an entanglement smoothed out the early universe, how is the multiverse not possible?
Open mind if it's not geometry!
Hi, sometimes wild ideas lead, to great discoverys.....realy like to know, if you Dr.Brian start to have a clean picture, of all this theorys. ....all the best.
Indeed. Thanks Nuno
Everything is covered in Brian's course, this reminds me of a scientist in the late 19th century that exclaimed all was known.
Can someone tell me what evidence that have witnessed that tells them that the universe bounces?
parts of it bounce so maybe the whole thing does too
This was fantastic. I can't believe you know all my heros in real life.
And next week in science "Does the universe go 'round and round the garden, like a teddy bear'"
I don’t think that is the worst metaphor actually. ^.^
If there is a line of 1,000 people standing shoulder to shoulder down in a valley next to a tall hill and the person at each end of the line is given instructions to write down a time between 12:00 and 12:01pm and which begins on any given second mark between 0 and 59 during the 1 minute selection period and then they pass the note immediately to the person on their left or right and so on and so forth down the line. It will take a good amount of time for each note to be passed to the other person at each end and they will have no idea what particular second mark the other person at the opposite far end selected until their note reaches them. However, a person positioned on top of the hill with a set of binoculars will know the exact time each person at the ends of the line wrote their note and began to pass it along. The idea of "Time" selected for each person will be different, but the person on the hilltop has the best overall understanding of time in this given scenario.
This gets me thinking of how fast an electron travels in an electric circuit. My guess is electrons use entanglement to tell when to flow and determine if they are in a circuit or not. Plus nerves and neurons only work by circuits, hence quantum entanglement is there too.
Another in the beginning story is just what we need.
That is sarcasm right?
@@KaliFissure yeah and no. If this is what materialist need to get by I don't have any issue with it .
Its been 80 years and materialist have taken physicalism to it's limits but they have such a hard time with the evidence and discovery.
Some people are wired to a belief system that gets in the way of progress.
We are at that type of cross roads where the dogma is in the way and has been for a long time.
@@KaliFissure max plank settled the debate set in 1800s when we would allow the fundamental building blocks decide this one and for all. Its been hi jacked every since.
@@dadsonworldwide3238 physicalism was good enough for Albert. It's good enough for me.
@@KaliFissure its nothing wrong with that its very much a part of our experience and perception of the universe.
If writing a new in the beginning story strengthens your faith in that belief system I wouldn't get in the way but don't we already have enough of them ?
Dr. Anna gorgeous yo!😮
If I have to hear her say "mmhmm" one more time!!!
So much fluff.
There’s not enough mass in the universe for a big bounce scenario I am led to believe. Perhaps our universe will head towards the big freeze.
There is not enough matter to close the universe; that's correct. However, if dark energy is time varying and the true ground state of the universe has a negative cosmological constant, then this is another mechanism that Einstein’s theory of relativity predicts can enable the transition from today’s accelerated expansion to slow contraction.
@@annaijjas5014 interesting.
Pretty boring. I can't make out the core.
What is the point of this potcast?
Sad boy
@@rikcoach1 OK. I see that you
love her. That is completely ok.
She's really cute...
I'm a theorist and I have a lot of work regarding self organising geometry, @garius jarfar.