Brian Cox - Is The Big Bang Theory Wrong?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 พ.ย. 2022
- Brian Cox - Is The Big Bang Theory Wrong?
SUBSCRIBE to "Science Time": / sciencetime24
Physicist and professor of particle physics Brian Cox explains whether the big bang theory is wrong.
Despite major scientific discoveries that provide strong support for the Big Bang theory, there´s been a viral paper spreading over the Internet lately which says that the James Webb Space Telescope has refuted the theory. This has led many to think that our understanding of the Big Bang may be wrong. Could this really be the case? Is the James Webb telescope rewriting fundamental theories of the cosmos?
According to Brian Cox the such a claim is ridiculous. Regardless of what you may have read or heard, the big bang is supported by a preponderance of evidence and has become the most successful theory ever put forth for the origin and evolution of the universe.
Brian Cox mentions that we can actually see the afterglow of the big bang.
Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see. Because we see an infinite universe expanding into itself. One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.
#bigbang #ProfBrianCox #science
For those of you who say, "Well, what happened before the big bang?" I have your answer. It was the big foreplay.😉
Lol this didn't age well
It is in fact wrong 😅
A group of Soviet experts conducted by Prof. Herouni using radio telescope came to a conclusion that there was no Big Bang.
So the Big Bang Theory isn't "wrong," it's just incomplete.
Even in the early days of our universe, inflation was running rampant.
At the beginning, God
Cox has to defend his dogma entrenchment.
Yes it is. I t is been wrong for decades. But, they re having a hard time to acknowledge this because all the work, papers, books, documentaries, money, time, awards, etc that they have already put in. Let alone that their credibility and reputation is on the line. So, let see when they gather the humility, integrity, common sense and respect to drop it, maybe we have to wait another decade.
What Brian Cox is not mentioning, is the full developed galaxies several billion years away. In accordance to earlier theories, these should be in a "new-born" status since the light was sent from them a "short" time after the Big Bang. This have made many astronomers think of the possibility that the Universe is INFINITE and has been so eternally.
James webb is what happens when society gets nice things
The problem with the theory is that scientists refuse to consider that they're not seeing the full picture based on only our oberservable capabilities. It's entirely possible what we see is due to a much larger landscape of space than our telescopes can see
I like listening to Brian Cox. Especially when he says, “we don’t really know” “we don’t have the knowledge” and “science does not disprove the existence of God”. Theories, theories, and more ever changing theories. All interesting!
I am so glad that these things are being questioned/re-considered. I like how Brian said, today the expansion is accelerating but maybe at some tipping point in the future, it may change. That's what I want to hear, the uncertainty of our understanding of how dark energy/matter will behave or interact once the expansion overtakes some other unknown limit? Who knows, maybe dark energy has one last trick up its sleeve as the expansion gets to a certain point. Maybe it has happened elsewhere, another universe/bubble/black-hole, another time/iteration? Universe pretty much recycles everything, would be a shame not to eventually recycle itself.
The total mass M needed to reconcile gravitational and electrostatic states is M = Mo /(2Pi - 1) (alpha2), where Mo is the observed mass of the universe, (2Pi - 1) is the Bell inequality (ever an inequality in the macroscopic world), and (alpha2) is the square of the fine-structure constant (a optical magnification factor, twice applied for virtual and real expression). In the quantum realm, the equation is undefined, because the radius is equal to the circumference, meaning that Pi = 1/2. The number of unit circles (or squares) in the universe is M/m, where m is the present-day rest mass of the electron. For a unit circle to become a unit square, Buffon's needle problem becomes applicable, where one side is electrostatic and the other is gravitational. In order for the PROBABILITY to equal 1/2 (regarding Bell's inequality AND Buffon's problem), Pi = 4, meaning that Pi = 1/2 AND Pi = 4, implying that 1 = 8; hence, the qubit (used in quantum computing) is emergent. (My observations and derivations-- no citation needed.)
Science Time is
Roger Penrose has the simplest, though strangest idea so far. Yes, multiverses would have been more fun, and is actually not excluded by Penrose’s theory, however Penrose’s suggestion is in line with Einstein’s theory of relativity, though the role of quantum physics then would be undecided or unclear in CC.
I have always wondered why the question about there being more matter than antimatter is a problem. If a Feynmann diagram is anything to go by, at the Big Bang, most matter would go forward in time and most antimatter would go backwards in time. These 2 Universes would exist but not interact and the illusion of time would be equivalent in both universes... But then I am no physicist.
The question that has bothered me is: What did the Big Bang expand INTO? And could there be other big bangs occurring somewhere else?
Gravity is attractive, but I like it for it's personality.