Has the Big Bounce been ruled out?

[@Mentaculus42]

I absolutely LOVE the information and associated thinking that this youtube channel provides & provokes ‼️

[@PhilHalper1]

Thanks very much

[@TBOTSS]

@@PhilHalper1 Very, very sad. Ivan has seen his pet cosmology shown to be highly inconsistent with the evidence from the CMB. The paper on the bispectum (Ivan's own prediction) turned out to be highly ruled out by the observations. He is right to complain if he was misquoted - but a cosmological bounce in LQG is still pretty much dead. By the way what is all that all nonsense about infinite energies and densities about? Nobody is cosmology (except Ivan and perhaps other LQG theorists) believes that. Even worse all empirical evidence leads to the conclusion, under the standard model of cosmology, that the energy levels never got even close to the Planck of 1.22 10**19 GeV, but maxed out at a level 1000 times less. Far, infinitely far in fact, from the false representation of the standard model presented here. However thumbs up to Ivan for presenting a model that has been observationally ruled out.

[@michaelconvery4108]

thank you. I had read this article in Scientific American months back, and i deeply appreciate this correction.

[@PhilHalper1]

you are welcome

[@TBOTSS]

The article and the academic paper are still correct that a bounce under LQG has been largely ruled out. I was surprised about Ivan's comments on the Standard model - nobody under this model believed that the universe energy or density levels were, or even approached infinity.

[@michaelconvery4108]

@@TBOTSS I’m must admit a very skeptical agnosticism about LQG and LQC , but one that is definitely willing to learn the technical details to find out more. For now , I’m just not yet educated enough to judge its validity as a theory of quantum gravity nor its prediction on the spectrum of the CMB. (😅 for one thing, I still need to learn about perturbation theory of structure formation). I would have liked a better explanation of the physical nature of this predicted bispecrum , how a supposed bounce creates it, and a prediction on the scale at which this averaging over non-Gaussianities are resolved. Could you explain any of those?

[@tdsdave]

Hey Phil , cool video I'm sad that Sci-Am has behaved like this, I used to read it regularly, it's poor editorial behavior is becoming a trend. Using Ivan Agullo's letter without consent ,apparently misrepresenting the spirit of it , and in effect quote mining it to support the articles presupposition is reprehensible.

[@PhilHalper1]

I agree, they could have at least published his letter.

[@monstermoonshine]

maybe he should get a lawyer involved, but would that work?

[@PhilHalper1]

@@monstermoonshine I dont think so

[@AllanSegalMD]

Among the doom and gloom, there appears a NEW SkydivePhil video, and my hope for the universe is restored! Thanks, Phil.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks, no one else noticed it so glad you found it.

[@sarkis_in_a_state]

I first want to thank you and tell you that your videos are amazing. Second, it's just a friendly suggestion / advice, to consider making more "Shorts" or "Reels" out of your existing videos, just because casual people lean towards "Shorts", this would provide your channel with more exposure and a greater audience.

[@PhilHalper1]

Thanks will do

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

New SkyDivePhil's video? My day can't get any better!

[@PhilHalper1]

thats very kind of you to say, thanks so much

[@honeyj8256]

Love your work, thanks. Cheers🇨🇦

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks so much for your comment

[@myu4039]

Excellent! Thanks!

[@PhilHalper1]

you are welcome

[@stationary.universe.initiative]

No Big Bang, no Big Bounce, black stars are rejuvenating systems of the universe.

[@PhilHalper1]

Do you mean a black hole?

[@83aiglos]

comment consisting more than X words to support authors and a brillleant channel!

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks

[@Dadas0560]

BTW, science does not decide!!! And both hypotheses are just beliefs without justification. Like Maths is the God in this case. Only, that Maths allows for both of them, and even others... Thus, this is not even science - it's mathematical science-fiction.

[@PhilHalper1]

so you don't think its decided that Andromeda is outside the Milky Way?

[@Dadas0560]

@@PhilHalper1 No, that's a fact which is not decided by science. It is not decided by anyone or anything. Science does not decide what is or isn't true. Science is the tool we use to observe and create models of reality. Scientists can agree or disagree what the nearest model to reality is at the given moment, according to our best knowledge and tools. However, neither Science, nor Scientists decide on what realilty is.

[@PhilHalper1]

@@Dadas0560 science isn't done by people?

[@Dadas0560]

@@PhilHalper1 What is it exactly that you don't understand? Yes, science is done by people, but people do not decide what is true and what is not true. Look up "decide". IOW, if You decide that drinking your own urine will cure Your cancer - that does not mean that drinking urine cures cancer, because You decided that it does.

[@erikhasler]

This new host is doing a fine job, but will we still see the strawberry wine in the future?

[@PhilHalper1]

I think so yes

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Now that we mapped the chaldean mind or platos cave if you will. Why is so hard to accept the evidence and its clear correlation with eastern and western assumptions granting value to objects has been taken its utmost extremes that has spoken loudly in all feilds of study. Let's task a new generation to now map the classical American mind model. Allow them to re allocate values in the inertia frame of reference. We know this has alot of work to pull from and in a renisance scientist experiment like this it would help give them a productive achievement that could help restore the unhealthy relationship with our models and imposing realism onto anti realism could be cleared up. Categorization of our many notions of time , all feilds of study would become more unified around the mechanics & techs they could finally rationalize the elements that work with under the same terminology and language . Yes it will push infinite sums of approximating complexity out onto the cosmic pagan sky god where it belongs

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Its very obvious that we can't follow the evidence where it leads While we are trying to impose a grand unified top down evolutionary theory judging paradolia outside in that forcess everyone to try and change evidence to fit in .

[@PhilHalper1]

Im sorry Im not sure I follow this, could you explain in simpler terms?

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

@@PhilHalper1more or less backing up amd looking at what we actually mapped. I think newton explains it better with his these tools of approximation in this paradoxical universe. Perhaps we mapped platos cave so to speak. The assumed values we prescribed reads back in the fine tuning checklist with a premium on carbon based life with a hierarchy of value on objects = matter. Coming to grips with it mapping the ancient dualistic chaldean model that both was used in the east and west is a correlation that's very evident in our maths and the grand theory of everything. Granted simplicity and unification at the top and pushed infinite sums of complexity into many different disciplines, within each of these 2 main archytypical minds constantly compete. 1 Those who want to follow the evidence where it leads 2 those who want to change the evidence to fit the grand theory In every industry mechanics & technicians working with similar elements rationalize then systems completely differently and can't even speak the same terminology . To build coalition between they need mediating translators.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

@@PhilHalper1 for example, cmb uses arbitrary left over maths that Einstein trys to hide because he thought it would get in the way . Its never been confirmed but is used to tell cmb where to image. Then we are stuck useing it as evidence when the instrumentation itself is told to image here by this unsubstantiated imput

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

@@PhilHalper1 advocates who predicted we would cheat ourselves with the cmb turned to have merit. But we dont go back and explore this. We continue trying use cmb and force the universe to bend to its will more or less. Even creating extra , new big bangs isn't to radical of changing the evidence. We would do it if it gave us the answer we wanted

[@onlyonetoserve]

Tipical scienceman jibber jabber tong talk. Big wurd egghed stile but still no anser. So sad

[@keith.anthony.infinity.h]

How about you give an answer?

[@mazuzu3880]

why don't you learn how to spell first and then ask for answers in a proper manner

[@tommy2972]

Nooooo dont ask him he will only talk about the jibber jabber in his stupid book.​@@keith.anthony.infinity.h

[@tommy2972]

Dont tell us about your crazy book please

[@kwood55]

Please use spellcheck before posting your jibberish.

[@Stadtpark90]

So he still supports the ruling out of models in that paper, just not at that level of resolution / granularity? He didn’t say what they claimed he said, but he would be happy to say something in the future to make a distinction about that issue, if only the data supported it at some higher resolution maybe in the future? - That’s a pretty circumspect way of saying: we know nothing yet, but maybe we could know, if only we kept following the path to a finer resolution, and then he’d be happy to make an announcement that distinguishes between scenarios, as they would rule some out and others not? A 20 min video to explain why there is nothing to announce yet, but maybe, possibly in the future, if more work is done? That’s it? Wake me up when there is something to announce… - and don’t turn Science into Politics. Edit: I may have changed my mind about these videos: I used to like the Talkshow aspect of it; as long as there is nothing to announce, at least let’s have a look at what people are working on and their speculations. - I might have had an overdose of that: I think I’ll turn my attention elsewhere for a while, until you found people again that have something more substantial to say.

[@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos]

5:50 How much of that is due to the quantisation and how much is due to the subtle change from general relativity to Einstein-Cartan theory? Einstein-Cartan theory (loop quantum gravity quantised that theory) also predicts a big bounce instead of a big bang.

[@PhilHalper1]

Yes Einstein Cartan theory also predicts a big bounce but t my uderstanding tha is still a classical theory and so it ihnk the details are different.

[@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos]

@@PhilHalper1 I agree. [But for Einstein-Cartan theory spin is important that gives a canonical asymmetrical energy-momentum-tensor. I don't know a classical theory that does that produces an asymmetric tensor.] My point was that the big bounce predicted by loop quantum theory is not really because it's a quantum vs. classical phenomenon but because loop quantum gravity uses Einstein-Cartan instead of general relativity. The classical limit for loop quantum gravity is Einstein-Cartan. So the reason for the big bounce prediction is essentially classical. It's not a quantum phenomenon.

[@magister.mortran]

From how many points in the universe was the CBR observed and its variations measured, so that we already make universal statements about it? It was a single point, Earth. And generalizing from one point of measurement seems to be a flaw in methodology. Let's measure the variations of the CBR from Alpha Centauri and some other nearby star systems first, before we come to any hasty conclusions. These variations could just as well be caused from matter density variations in the environment of our solar system, e.g. the Oort Cloud.

[@Kyzyl_Tuva]

Scientific American has turned into a rubbish publication IMO. It used to be respectable but I wrote them off several years ago!

[@johnbash-on-ger]

What article made you write them off?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i was in cambridge when hawking was there, trouble was i was doing art at kingston poly. buses eh?

[@PhilHalper1]

lol