5 Major Problems With The Big Bang Theory | Answers With Joe

The Big Bang Theory is by far the most accepted theory surrounding the origin of our universe - but it's not perfect. Here are 5 unsolved mysteries surrounding the Big Bang.
If you'd like to support the show in exchange for exclusive perks, visit / answerswithjoe .
Also, follow me at answerswithjoe on:
Facebook
Twitter
Snapchat
Instagram
==================
From the concepts of George Lemaitre and Edwin Hubble, the Big Bang Theory developed to explain the expansion of our universe, the development of the four fundamental forces and the standard model of particle physics.
Another theory, called Ekpyrotic Theory, attempts to explain the holes in the Big Bang Theory by merging general relativity with string theory.
For more on these subjects, check out the links below:
The story about the German physicist's reinterpretation of the CMB:
nautil.us/issue/15/turbulence/...
discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/...
www.space.com/24781-big-bang-t...
www.learning-mind.com/5-most-i...
science.howstuffworks.com/dict...
csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/le...
Ekpyrotic theory
wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrot...

[@ThomasTrue]

"In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad move." (Douglas Adams)

[@brandonjohnson4616]

Actually it is one of the 1st lines from "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

[@jjh1978-2]

Don’t tell Buck about the Great Green Arkleseizure! Lol. Great comment choice. I bet you know where your towel is!

[@dcrenshaw42]

Don't panic, I was going to like your comment, but I noticed that you have 42 likes, and why would you need more than that?

[@Superman679]

@@dcrenshaw42 I was hoping to be the 42nd but at least I wasn't the 43rd, I wouldn't have ruined that. but since someone else did, I am 44.

[@dcrenshaw42]

@@Superman679 NOOOOOOOOOOO!

[@Ricardo-gv1zq]

There was a lot before The Big Bang Theory such as Friends, Frasier, Two and a Half Men... and much more

[@themilkman612]

lol!

[@paulryan2128]

And *Friends* was just a re-hash of *Seinfeld* but with more attractive people ...

[@JESUSSavedMefromDeath]

Lol. Good one!

[@brianmoore581]

Yeah, but Frasier and Seinfeld were actually funny.

[@steveman1982]

@@paulryan2128 Oh c'mon, Seinfeld was a show about *nothing*.

[@andrewpresnell101]

Joe constantly looks like he just came back future and is frantically trying to get us to fix a mistake we haven’t done yet.

[@larrymanns364]

I haven't seen any proof of the contrary

[@NewMateo]

It was covid 19

[@Lancetronium]

lmfao

[@thepopeofkeke]

Or he is just holding in a fart

[@MarkSheeres]

I was about to say “dude what’s wrong with your neck?!“ Then I realized it was strawberry jam on my phone.

[@milesbrien6867]

I read "strawberry jam" and thought you were talking about your operating system

[@matthewhajicek3650]

You should turn off your phone jammer.

[@MarkSheeres]

Matthew Hajicek 😂

[@baneverything5580]

I was about to say the same thing!

[@69lo]

😂😂

[@Xanderfied]

Unsettling side note, a lot of laugh tracks were recorded decades earlier, so you’re possibly listening to the laughter of a crowd of now dead people.

[@than217]

Can you imagine having your laugh be added to the show the Big Bang Theory after you die. I'd rise from the grave to file a cease and desist.

[@vandal1764]

That actually is pretty creepy lol

[@wmritchey1101]

Lovely thanks for your wonderfully macabre insight

[@samr.england613]

We watch and listen to dead people on screen and on record and tape all the time. Everyone in 'I Love Lucy' for example, except little Ricky (Keith Thibodeaux), is long dead and buried.

[@samr.england613]

50 years from now, many of us will be long dead and buried, and people will still be reading our comments. Think about that!

[@josephgilliand4]

In the beginning there was nothing. Then God said, "Let there be light." ,and there was light. There was still nothing there, but now you could see it.

[@cpuwrite]

...and then God breathed the breath of life into man... BURRRrrrRRRrrrRRRP!!! ...and... "OH GOD! THAT STUFF IS BAD ENOUGH TO WAKE THE DEAD!" And God smiled, for he knew that it was good.

[@oxcart4172]

Love that!! 😂😂

[@jamespurcer3730]

...and God said, " OH!There it is! I wondered where I had put that. 😁

[@toolshedjunky]

In the beginning there was the Word.

[@faybrianhernandez2416]

Nonsense.

[@luigigorrini444]

Did not tell about the lithium and He problems, neither about the missing antimatter neither about predicted proton decay (never observed) and other maybe 15 issues left open by BB theory.

[@stachiapadilla3825]

Luigi Gorrini Also if the initial thing , egg , whatever , was infinitely dense then it had infinite gravity... how could it come apart ?

[@drewmandan]

The worst problem of them all, IMO, is the hard fine tuning problem. Not the one they yammer about on documentaries for children having to do with the physical constants. I'm talking about the one they haven't explained, which is why we have a whole universe and not just a Boltzmann Brain.

[@victorvelez3372]

Luigi Gorrini Totally agree with your points. Its as if "Answer with Joe" was regurgitating old cliff notes about the Universe. The past 35(?)years of cosmological discoveries which is shaking the unstable foundations of the big bang theory is astounding. The age of the Methuselah stars, the absence of the 3 degree Kelvin backround radiation (check out Dr. P. M. Robitaille's Sky Scholar channel - kzbin.info/www/bejne/pmnPfISDer6Mgtk), the billion dollar Planck satellite's misadventures, excetera-excetera-Excetera!

[@DavidSanchez-vx4bv]

You rigth... I just checked the video of Erik Lerner kzbin.info/www/bejne/aXzOmYWfl6eforc I think that as happened with Newton's theories, there is a lot of resistance to change their mind, because if the BB never happenes.. then... they have lived in a lie (or half lie)

[@Arch757]

Luigi Gorrini Proton decay can be calculated through math.

[@rdance3]

I loved the "Big Bang Theory" but I'll watch "The Ekpyrotic Theory". When does it come on?

[@mariaquaglieri8561]

i've never watched the b b t i hate jennifer aniston

[@troliskimosko]

maria quaglieri Jennifer isn’t on that show?

[@davidbengb8484]

Please, if anyone can help me I would be very grateful, there was a scientist who died (if I'm not mistaken) around the 2000s who did not believe in the big bang, said that he did not explain magnetic monopoles and that he was full of presipositions not proven by the science. If someone can help me I will thank you very much

[@santsuma]

@@davidbengb8484 ... Maybe you are talking about this scientist: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle Btw, I think the Universe is eternal in time and infinite in space no other option possible.

[@melissapyle7879]

@@santsuma i kinda think the same thing (abt the universe) except that the one thing u can notice the most abt the universe is the constant change.. in an astronomical time frame, of course, but still change.. nothing just stays as it is "forever".. nothing seems to last.. just kinda makes me wonder if the universe, as a whole, follows this same pattern...

[@mytmouse57]

The universe is really big, and it has a lot of stuff. And, it’s like, really hard to understand.

[@Bugman541]

I also smoke weed.

[@eugengolubic2186]

@@Bugman541 😂😂😂

[@gman0973]

The universe has no obligation to be understood.

[@alexdevisscher6784]

Finally someone who really gets it!

[@NotSoSerious69420]

GSC Network also has no obligation to stay unknown. Indifference doesn’t care either way.

[@SecularMentat]

"The Big bang theory works.... until it doesn't" Congrats, you just described literally every theory there is.

[@SecularMentat]

Still, great video. Yep these are all interesting side effects of viewing the evidence as though it were caused by the big bang.

[@Mosern1977]

Except the BB theory, which we save by adding new 'funny' physics to save it. (Inflation, Dark Energy).

[@ctw195]

Mosern1977 do you have a better theory?

[@Mosern1977]

Todd Willoughby - They should go back and take a very good look at their 'discoveries' and I'm sure they'll find the correct answer that doesn't rely on bogus physics. My personal guess would be that the universe is infinte, flat and without a start or end. Matter is generated and consumed constantly, CMB is probably related to that.

[@ctw195]

Mosern1977 I’m fascinated.....what about their physics do you consider bogus? What do you base your personal guess on? Also, what does CMB stand for?

[@lucinda2329]

The Big Bang Theory was filmed in front of a live studio audience.

[@iamcyber]

Why is this the top comment but with only 3 likes? weird

[@A_Salted_Fishe]

Yeah but the audience is still prompted to laugh by a big sign that lights up

[@A_Salted_Fishe]

@@iamcyber the KZbin gods work in mysterious ways

[@Hydro66]

Ratboy I think it also might have something to do with the comment’s “momentum”. If the comment gets a lot of likes in a small amount of time it’ll be closer to the top.

[@76rjackson]

One of the likes is from that Facebook Zuckerberg dude, so, yeah, Lucinda's gonna be on top.

[@hbofbyu1]

It seems like there are 2 types of people: Those that don't notice background music but subconsciously perceive the video as more professionally produced, and those of us who get annoyed as hell when you mix electric guitars and conversation. Professor at your local community college : Ok class, today we are going to talk about the theory of relativity but first, let me start the background music.

[@Ronhickmott]

and now everyone hears it

[@djpriddin6211]

I agree and would love to see this to the end but it's the canned laughter has done for me.

[@vicki6334]

Yes! PLEASE cann the irritating monotonous constant background noise!

[@johanferreira6728]

Did not even notice the music until coming to the comments

[@igorico]

Lemaitre did not propose his theory of the primordial atom in 1927 but in 1931. Hubble did not popularised the term Big Bang in 1927, it was first recorded on a BBC interview to Fred Hoyle in 1949.

[@DennisWilliams-nf2gn]

Who cares its all bullshit anyway. If you say the world is round, Someone ask you to prove it, well its in the science books duh. If you say the world is flat, someone asks you to prove it, because the bible say so, someone say I don't believe in the bible because man wrote it duh. But wait isn't the science books written by man? Well prove the earth is round, because scientists and nasa say it is look at the animated pictures with the same cloud formations that never change even after 40yrs. Round earther asks Well what if you die and you never get resurrected for judgment because their isn't a god? Bible believer say nothing! Bible believer asks what if you are standing before the most high as a non believer about to be judged? Round earther scratches head what? Bible believer you have hell to pay! We need to figure it out quick before it's to late.

[@oceanplanet8160]

@@DennisWilliams-nf2gn You're an idiot.

[@bobthebuilder2922]

@@DennisWilliams-nf2gn 🤦‍♂️

[@kekeh.5696]

@@DennisWilliams-nf2gn you sound like an exhausting dude

[@samcerulean1412]

Many people need to learn the difference between subjective and objective reality

[@feeberizer]

It all boils down to the fact that we don't know what we don't know.....yet....

[@williamburts3114]

What I have always wondered is what did it explode into?

[@heyimbearded6323]

Neil deGrasse Tyson quote?

[@paulryan2128]

Yes, the ubiquitous Unknown Unknowns

[@lowkey_entertaining9723]

@@williamburts3114 the expansion of the universe expanded into literally nothing because remember this was the expansion of the fabric of space and time itself. There was no time or dimensions in the void before the Big Bang the was only the presence of energy in a 0 dimensional form.

[@randomedge4558]

can you do an episode on 5 major problems with the big bang theory (the sitcom)?

[@afro7998]

Both

[@Mikey-mike]

Good one. Could you do a talk on Penrose's conformal cycling ? A major problem with theoretical physics is the Fine Structure Constant and its explanation. Dirac's Large Number Theory and his work on the ratio relations of constants of nature as well as the relationship of the size of a proton and the inverse of the size of the universe are theoretical considerations which are overlooked. Another major problem with theoretical physics is Group Think.

[@Extraxi274]

We are in the brain of a hyperactive chihuahua i knew it

[@TheCopyHolder]

The facts are all there.

[@c.smythe3022]

brayne

[@winstonsol8713]

“Yo Quiero Taco Bell!”

[@Bamruff62]

Brain and Brain. What is Brain?

[@nightmare_novafan3163]

😂😂

[@SomeDudeInBaltimore]

Last Thursdayism. The Universe was created last Thursday, including all our memories.

[@brianjardine9184]

At least it wasn't Monday

[@Justwantahover]

The universe was created 6 seconds ago. 6 seconds is a long time.

[@daragildea7434]

You heretic! It was created last WEDNESDAY!

[@marccolten9801]

Very close to Fundamentalists. If the universe is only 6,000 years old how can we have light from supernovae that took millions of years to get here? Their answer (not kidding) is God created the universe with the light already on the way. So God created the universe with the light of exploded stars that NEVER EXISTED in transit.

[@TheNinthGenerarion]

Marc Colten millions is on the low side, the average is in the billions

[@paul9156c]

I like your informative show Joe, your delivery makes learning fun .

[@jonnysupreme]

Ironic when you look so much like Howard 😂😂

[@batarasiagian9635]

This is what I love about science. If there is a better theory we will adopt that and throw away the old one. There are no sacred truths. Very cool.

[@bradleydahl5191]

“Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Job 38:2-4

[@OfMiceAndMegabytes]

Batara Siagian Yes hurray for science💘

[@mikhailalexandrovichrimsky5501]

So then...it sounds like religion...a "belief" until proven! ;-)

[@paulygon4545]

Hey Joe Rea, I feel like you overlooked one of the coolest things about science in your list of what it is. You forgot facts. We are talking to each other on magic metal boxes all due to the facts that science reveals. I also agree with you that it is not sacred. It is meant to be improved.

[@Fankas2000]

Except it takes several decades until the old guard retire for this to be true.

[@thedriftr1990]

You just made to the top of sheldon coopers enemy list

[@spyroevan]

@Peter A. what did your opinion add to society? was it necessary? please, leave your *SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT* opinions to yourself.

[@jcole139]

He is weird and annoying ... in a good way usually but yea. A show that lasted all those seasons sucks? Ok..

[@inemanja]

@Peter A. And not only physics... She's clueless about lot of things, except of course shopping and flirting...

[@karanbirsinghbhullar]

@Peter A. he is weird and quirky that's why we laugh. And if you are like him we'll laugh at you too.

[@vc2702]

It's a good show.

[@bonolio]

It occurs to me, and I am a not a very sciencey person, that the question of what caused the big bang or what was before the big bang are not relevant questions because both "Caused" and "Before" are words that describe things to do with time, and since both Time and Space were created in the Big bang the very idea of before and causality are meaningless.

[@faekanazshahmir4741]

I think a more appropriate question would be "How did the big bang create space and time." In my opinion, that would be even more interesting than finding out what was before it, as you pointed out, due to the absence of both time and space, there could be no "before."

[@thatisme3thatisme38]

It's just an excuse to not need to explain the "before"

[@ketunky3056]

@@faekanazshahmir4741 space cant be created. It just exist

[@aaronperelmuter8433]

@@ketunky3056 Of course space can be created, what do you think happens as the universe expands? It most certainly doesn’t expand and leave a ‘lack’ of space, does it (the answer is no)? Hence, space definitely IS being being constantly created at ever increasing speeds and in ever increasing amounts, as evidenced by the fact that the rate of expansion is accelerating.

[@ketunky3056]

@@aaronperelmuter8433 what is being created is universe which is expanding into space. Space is just empty nothingness.

[@princejames5266]

5:19 It may be because of quantum entangled photons which were in the same spatial position many years ago,it may be a property of entangled particles to have the same temperature in certain conditions or all that we haven't observed

[@Alex-ni2ir]

2:49 I thought CMB was the glimpse from recombination approximately 379,000 years after the big bang? When it cooled enough that photons could move without interruption.

[@jonironkainen3926]

Exactly. The universe cooled enough for the first atoms to form and the photons released then became the CMB.

[@edgeeffect]

(Nods) I've just searched the comments for "recombination", and you're the only person to say that... which is a bit sad.

[@phillipbrewster6058]

I absolutely can't stand canned laughter

[@vinyllpreviews9462]

Hahahahahahaha

[@MyChannel-tc7gj]

I must be easily amused and you vastly more intelligent because I love that show

[@PAVLAKOS67]

Agree..

[@esposexy2210]

Ive never watched it, but I pretty sure it's really gay

[@6969MockingBird]

i just finished watching ur video on quantum entanglement and the "one electron" video, where if both were to be true wouldnt that bring a "solution" for the universe's expansion being "flat" and the issue of horizion problem. My question is (new to this stuff so sorry if i sound dumb) 1) Wouldnt quantum entanglement (although rare) explain why the problem the universe expansion is flat due to the interaction and shared space of matter. and 2) If the "one electron" theory is true wouldnt that explain why quantum entanglement occurs in the first place and (if) all electrons came from one electron wouldnt that explain why the universe is the same temperature on opposite sides and the make communication betweeen matters billion lightyears apart possible?

[@mykulpierce]

Should do history of CMB measurement and how they "filter" the foreground information of same frequency. also would be interesting to tackle the difference between weak and strong gravitational lensing and how we don't really see much of the weak gravitational lensing happening if at all.

[@rudypieplenbosch6752]

Especially make an explanation of how they can get that tiny CMB signal, by eliminating the vastly stronger signals of al those stars and galaxies. A lot of trickery has been used that is not valid at all, you can not extract such a tiny signal out of those overwhelming signals from all those galaxies. Its like extracting someone whispering a few hundred meters away during a live concert with a crowd that goes bonkers. Its is scientifically not possible to extract such an accurate signal. Once your tiny signal is washed away, you mathematically can not retrieve it.

[@Bodyknock]

Regarding the issues listed in the video: - "#1 What the hell" . That's not actually part of the Big Bang Theory. Big Bang Theory just describes what happened after the Big Bang started, it's not intended to describe what happened before that. There are multiple possible reasons the Big Bang could occur, but for the purposes of whether the theory is correct it doesn't really matter much what happened prior to the Bang, just that the theory is accurately describing what happened during and afterwards in a manner that is consistent with our present day observations. - "#2 Magnetic Monopoles" Monopoles are predicted by quantum theory, even without the Big Bang Theory there would still be a search going on for monopoles. The heart of the question of monopoles related to Big Bang Theory is simply that we don't know enough about them yet to predict how many there should be after the inflationary period ended. It's not as if theory says "there should be a ton of them", it's more like "we can't tell from the theory alone if there are supposed to be hardly any, a lot, or somewhere in the middle". It's not so much an issue with the Big Bang Theory as it is an issue with our lack of ability to experimentally find these things to get a better grasp on how frequent they are (assuming they exist). - "#3 Flatness problem" and "#4 Horizon Problem" are problems with the original versions of Big Bang Theory but the later addition of Inflation to the theory addresses both of them. The rapid inflationary epoch both allowed the smoothness of the extreme early universe to be mostly preserved and also serves to naturally flatten out the geometry of the universe in the process. So, assuming Inflation is correct, these issues are handled in the current theory. (Of course that still raises the question of what caused Inflation, THAT is still an unanswered question.) - "#5 Clumpiness" Clumpiness is answered by dark matter... whatever dark matter actually is. As with inflation, assuming dark matter exists (and there is strong evidence to suggest it does) then it can explain the amount of clumpiness in the universe by providing the extra gravitational pull needed for the clumping. In fact dark matter came about as the answer to a different question, why galaxies spin as fast as they do, and just so happens to also be a good answer to this question about the Big Bang. So the real question becomes figuring out what dark matter is, there's enough evidence for it at the moment that it's likely already the answer to clumpiness. One last thing, I'm not sure if Joe meant it this way in the video but nobody actually claims the universe was literally "infinitely dense". The universe was INCREDIBLY dense, but it wasn't actually infinitely dense. It's just that the mathematics and theory break down at the scales of the Planck length and you start getting bogus infinities if you try to force predictions down to that level. The "infinite singularity" of the Big Bang and in the middle of black holes is just an indication that our theories aren't complete enough to handle those truly extreme conditions, not that infinitely small things exist.

[@fr57ujf]

You are technically right. Once time began, presumably causality began and infinities disappeared. But when most people discuss the big bang, I believe they aren't just referring to the post-singularity epoch, but what caused the singularity in the first place. If it was uncaused, we are in the realm of theology. If it was caused, it implies the time preceded the creation of the singularity that produced the universe. We are over our heads here, but science will keep pounding away. As we have learned more, the sledding is getting tougher, which is why there are a lot of ideas being tossed around. I think the next breakthrough will have to revolutionize our understanding of reality like Relativity did. And then there is the more dismal possibility that the next breakthrough will require intelligence beyond our capabilities - machine intelligence. But I think that is pessimistic. The human brain has an amazing capacity for dealing with abstractions for an evolutionary product designed for survival on the savanna.

[@GJ-dj4jx]

Too many assumptions and added mathematical variables to make it work. Very speculative theory

[@No-oneInParticular]

Technically nicknamed the big bang theory. I heard it's called the theory of inflation

[@Bryan-Hensley]

Only one problem with the big bang theory. Thermodynamic laws prohibit it from happening. It's impossible. Big bang THEORY (not a proven fact) should have never made it this far.

[@No-oneInParticular]

Bryan Hensley bro...bro... You're confusing terminology used by scientists and general public. To the general public, a theory might be: I reckon x might happen. To scientists that is called a 'hypothesis'. The initial statement yet to have any evidence. A THEORY, is a hypothesis backed by evidences. For example, the theory of gravity. Also called a theory. The other point was that you said the second law of thermodynamics prevents it from happening. Now, overlooking firstly the fact that you don't know what a theory is yet propound your own views using the theory of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics is something that occurs within this universe. You cannot say that a 'law' that came into existence when the universe began, could have halted the creation of the universe and therefore itself. It's like saying the chicken that came from an egg could have prohibited it's own birth. Illogical

[@walteralter9061]

Halton Arp, Edwin Hubbel's chief assistant, found evidence that red shift was quantified and non-uniform which seriously messes with the idea of an expanding Universe being measurable in the way it is measured. His book "Seeing Red" is on Amazon.

[@borisjohnson1944]

and Arp's theories are no longer creditable. Like Lerner's. and Plasma cosmology and the Electric Universe. all in the dust bin. They would be used if they worked. The internet loves these people because they think them mavericks, like all the crap said about Tesla.

[@murraymadness4674]

@@borisjohnson1944 Why is his observations that red-shift is not reliable indicator of distance? He showed that related objects near to each other have different red shifts. DId someone go over all his observed data and explain it using something else? Is the JWest finding of a 28 red shift galaxy (thereby older than the big bang CMB) just a mistake?

[@berniemckinley4988]

This is where Joe starts to blow up. I gone through from the start of his posts and watched it improve and grow . It’s awesome

[@swsportsimportsllc3367]

*..because Hubble published a paper two years later that mathematically proved a lot of the concepts that Lemaitre had published in his paper, so he wound up getting all the credit..* Correction Hubble did not take (or "wound up") any amount of credit from anyone's, let alone Lemaitre's. Anyone in Science (Mathematics, Physics, Quantum Physics, Atomic/Nuclear/Particle Physics, Astrophysics, Cosmology/Astronomy) does not hold any level or amount of confusion or misgiving when it comes to the loud and clear fact of who the credit for the Big Bang Theory goes to (Lemaitre). Hubble was the one who came to solidify Lemaitre's work through his own work as Astronomer, in times where our idea of the Universe was confined to just one galaxy, the Milky Way..our galaxy. He observed that what seemed our most "distant stars" were not actually "distant stars" but were in fact galaxies themselves, millions of them that were observable through what was back then the current technology in Astronomy observatories; the Universe suddenly got real huge and was never the same afterwards. Hubble also confirmed the expansion of the Universe by also observing a Doppler Effect in space; the Redshift effect which is a characteristic when in space, moving objects emit a red tinge glow as they move/travel away from an observer's point, something that prompt Einstein to reinstate his modified field equation with his integrated famous cosmological constant; a representing mathematical value of energy density in otherwise empty space, what's more Einstein's General Relativity supports Big Bang Theory. If anything they were all in combined close collaboration one could say. Btw, Lemaitre was not the one naming his work *The Big Bang Theory*; that goes to British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle who was critical of Lemaitre's work and did not accept the premises of Lemaitre's theory; Hoyle in an occasion at a interview or Science seminar (not sure), sarcastically referred to it as "that big bang thing" since there wasn't yet a formal name for it then...that name simply stuck.

[@mr.h4267]

@Donald Kasper Nope. Fuck man, call others idiots and you dont have a clue what you're talking about. It's true, red light does refract differently than blue light, and so on and so on. But light traveling perpendicular to a refractive medium, i.e. straight through it from source to observer, does not refract at all. Yet such light still undergoes redshifting and blue shifting. Fucking idiot.

[@kyley428]

I've been watching your videos for almost 2 days straight. thank you

[@samsum3738]

Another great video .I am very pleased i subscribed to your channel .

[@stevendouglas1348]

The first issue isn't really an issue because the Big bang theory isn't a theory of the origin of the universe. The problem of something coming from nothing arises when we extrapolate backwards, to t=0, which is beyond the scope of the theory.

[@maxnullifidian]

I'd love to see you try to explain Penrose's Conformal Cycle Cosmology! You're such a good explainer of hard subjects, I can't wait!

[@matkosmat8890]

Hey Joe, thanks for lovely content! Just a note: your background music is sometimes too loud and obscures what you are saying. Keep them coming!

[@jamespurcer3730]

Maybe your equipment needs adjusting.

[@THE-X-Force]

@@jamespurcer3730 How is he supposed to adjust his equipment to make the background music lower in volume than Joe's voice?

[@jamespurcer3730]

@@THE-X-Force , yeah, that too! I couldn't hear Joe at all!

[@jamespurcer3730]

@@THE-X-Force , some people use televisions for computer moniters. Most tv's have a "sound field" or other types of sound adjustments such as "cenema" or"music" which will make the music accompanying any video play much louder. When I use my tv for the internet, I use the "game" setting to get the best voice sound.

[@utetrahemicon]

Then turn up the volume on the music.

[@Clubbedcashew50]

Great explanations

[@russellst.martin4255]

THANK YOU for saying it. The only laugh I ever got out of Jim Parsons was when he read that "mean tweet" on Kimmel. Undisputed best mean tweet of all time.

[@octagonocologist]

The problem with using math as a proof for this type of thing is the insane amount of variables that are not taken into consideration. You can use math to create a ridiculous amount of impossible outcomes, but that doesn't mean that's how the real world actually works. The big bang theory, much like the quantum theory, is in a very infantile stage where we are missing the vast majority of the information we need.

[@sumsar01]

Quantum mechanics is not in a infantile theory. It's the theory with most prediction power in all of science and it has given you lots of technologies already. Like the computer your writing this on or the super faster internet your sending this through.

[@NotSoSerious69420]

sumsar01 factually wrong, you can make working computers without any comprehension of quantum physics, particle physics is not a synonym for quantum physics. There’s also a lot we don’t know about quantum physics and macro physics which is why they’re all infantile.

[@fluentpiffle]

"History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) One of the main reasons 'big bang' is pushed so ferociously is that it has been endorsed by the vatican.. "In fact, it seems that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial 'Fiat lux' (Let there be light) uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of the chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies ... Hence, creation took place in time, therefore, there is a Creator, God exists!" (Pope Pius XII, 1951) 300 years before this, 'the church' had Giordano Bruno publicly murdered for saying that space is infinite.. You 'do the math'.. NO! Please don't! This is why the erroneous ideas of 'infinity' are used in mathematics, specifically to confuse people into a misunderstanding of what infinitude actually means.. If space is infinite, 'god' cannot be.. People generally have a very poor understanding of what the word 'infinite' actually means.. This is not any kind of 'fault', but just that we have evolved within the confines of what appears to be a finite environment, and we thus try to look at things in finite ways, also justifying those 'finite' thoughts. When I first approached the 'problem' I had the same difficulties, so it takes our minds a lot of effort to reach another perspective of understanding, but it IS achievable.. Firstly, there cannot be more than one 'instance' of infinitude, otherwise a secondary 'thing' would render them both 'finite'. So we are describing a 'oneness'.. Also, it can have no 'beginning' nor 'ending' as these would also necessitate a secondary 'thing' (or the utter nonsense of a 'nothing'!), so we are describing 'eternity' when we apply 'time' concepts. Then, we have to admit that it can only be the one thing that interconnects all other 'things', and we deduce this to be 'Space', necessarily.. All references to 'size' or 'direction' do not apply to the nature of infinitude, and thus have no relevance to our understanding of the true nature of existence. 'Measurement' has limitations.. When we point to any position in Space, we effectively create a 'beginning' to any subsequent forms of measurement, which only has relevance to the entity desiring to understand said 'measurement'. Measuring things does not make them a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire of 'measurement' from a Human perspective. Within infinitude everything appears to be at the 'centre' of that which it finds detectable ('observable').. So, the moment you create the perspective of a 'centre', you become that centre..Here we can find the real problem with using 'mathematics' as a tool for understanding infinite nature. We have to firstly posit the 'points' to be 'measured' in order for the measurement to take place.. And this is why we end up inventing 'things' that do not exist in reality from mathematical constructs that do not describe the truth about nature.. spaceandmotion

[@woowoothespacejew5494]

I happen to love The Big Bang Theory, but I won't hold that against you. You have a new subscriber.

[@JaegerTheBaker]

Your fucking name lmao

[@woowoothespacejew5494]

Jäger 181 Thank you. My son came up with it after we watched "The woo of Wu" series.

[@Densilification]

The Big Bang is the great battle at the end of time. Singularity. it's judgement day.

[@derpderpson8803]

@@Densilification interesting statement🤔

[@TechNextLetsGo]

Does he have no sense of humor? Wow I might unsubscribe FR

[@ROYALTYedits001]

Hi there please I need someone to explain the limitations of the big bang theory based on the flatness problem, the horizon problem and the monopoly problem please I need this for school

[@artistanthony1007]

8:21-8:51 Well guess my "Creation Spread" theory wasn't as creative as I thought, I'm gonna have to try to remake it from scratch and think deeper than I have already, have my body write everything out while I look at everything that exists, think but also not think.

[@sankturban291]

Great video, very interesting material. Keep it up, Joe.

[@angelosasso1653]

What are your thoughts of the "The 4 Hour Body" of Tim Ferris, since its in your shelf?

[@UsernameInvalid48]

I really respect your take in considering that other theories other than the establishment may be true. I personally think that the continued big bang cycle theory if you will seems more likely but I also think the regular big bang theory and others should be considered as well. As long as there is the scientific process behind it, we should not behold ourselfs to the dogmatic scientific mainstream that just regurgitates the same theories over and over again without any critical thoughts.

[@Unique_Monk]

And your conscious, conscience, morals that you are born with came from ?

[@gyanbhatta4598]

Sir , do this theory has any connections with loop quantum gravity

[@ameyjangam2485]

Informative,funny and good pace of the video plus awesome explanation one of the best videos hats off

[@pcuimac]

No. He made multiple mistakes, because he didn't study enough. But those who study the topic don't make YT videos.

[@Cheeseypoofs85]

in the beginning, there were 6 stones......

[@dolephantom1011]

Thats marvel

[@parikhvedant]

Owww I totally agree

[@TheGreatAlan75]

Of all your videos , this is my favorite... Because your humor really works for me... 😂😂

[@shamicentertainment1262]

I just wonder, considering how complex the entire universe is, and how much we don't know yet, if it was something completely different that created the universe?

[@WarLasso]

I suspect a few centuries from now (if somehow we manage to not destroying ourselves before) people will mock some of our current theories, just as the ones from the ancient world seem funny to us now. The Big Bang Theory may seem to explain certain fenomena but in a way is completely ridiculous.

[@IamgladthatIamglad]

Like what if universes are made in petri dishes like we make bacterial cultures in bio labs for school And we are "God's" projects on how bacteria work Except god is just a middle schooler in a 3rd world country as per the standards in his world But the systems over there are sooo different that we can't comprehend them that easily

[@fluentpiffle]

"History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) One of the main reasons 'big bang' is pushed so ferociously is that it has been endorsed by the vatican.. "In fact, it seems that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial 'Fiat lux' (Let there be light) uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of the chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies ... Hence, creation took place in time, therefore, there is a Creator, God exists!" (Pope Pius XII, 1951) 300 years before this, 'the church' had Giordano Bruno publicly murdered for saying that space is infinite.. You 'do the math'.. NO! Please don't! This is why the erroneous ideas of 'infinity' are used in mathematics, specifically to confuse people into a misunderstanding of what infinitude actually means.. If space is infinite, 'god' cannot be.. People generally have a very poor understanding of what the word 'infinite' actually means.. This is not any kind of 'fault', but just that we have evolved within the confines of what appears to be a finite environment, and we thus try to look at things in finite ways, also justifying those 'finite' thoughts. When I first approached the 'problem' I had the same difficulties, so it takes our minds a lot of effort to reach another perspective of understanding, but it IS achievable.. Firstly, there cannot be more than one 'instance' of infinitude, otherwise a secondary 'thing' would render them both 'finite'. So we are describing a 'oneness'.. Also, it can have no 'beginning' nor 'ending' as these would also necessitate a secondary 'thing' (or the utter nonsense of a 'nothing'!), so we are describing 'eternity' when we apply 'time' concepts. Then, we have to admit that it can only be the one thing that interconnects all other 'things', and we deduce this to be 'Space', necessarily.. All references to 'size' or 'direction' do not apply to the nature of infinitude, and thus have no relevance to our understanding of the true nature of existence. 'Measurement' has limitations.. When we point to any position in Space, we effectively create a 'beginning' to any subsequent forms of measurement, which only has relevance to the entity desiring to understand said 'measurement'. Measuring things does not make them a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire of 'measurement' from a Human perspective. Within infinitude everything appears to be at the 'centre' of that which it finds detectable ('observable').. So, the moment you create the perspective of a 'centre', you become that centre..Here we can find the real problem with using 'mathematics' as a tool for understanding infinite nature. We have to firstly posit the 'points' to be 'measured' in order for the measurement to take place.. And this is why we end up inventing 'things' that do not exist in reality from mathematical constructs that do not describe the truth about nature.. spaceandmotion

[@catsmoking6485]

@@IamgladthatIamglad bro are you living in your own fan fic?

[@IamgladthatIamglad]

@@catsmoking6485 what 😭

[@johno9507]

0:58 The Big Bang Theory tv show is filmed in front of a live audience so no laugh track....but then again they're probably told when to laugh. 😂

[@ThomasTrue]

Scientific fact: the Bootes Void is so empty that it contains less laughs than an episode of The Big Bang Theory.

[@zacrosamond3128]

*fewer laughs

[@purplefire2834]

2:46 So uhh... What? I feel like this deserves a video. I'm very curious and very confused a out how that works.

[@crawdad4823]

Fascinating stuff. Excellent vid.

[@takehiro12]

TBBT (TV show) was filmed before a live audience. I know, I was surprised to learn this too.

[@josephgilliand4]

I think Holye and Einstein were right, the universe is "steady state" Red shift is a misunderstanding of how light propagates over long periods of time, and the problem of entropy may be solved by black holes vacuuming up the entropy in their neighborhoods and recycling the matter and energy voilently, which would look like a big bang from close up.:)

[@fivish]

Hoyle was right and chnaged his mind due to the prevailing 'cancell culture' of the time. Even now you will not get funding if you deny the Big Bang (or climate change).

[@Hallands.]

Hey, that’s what I think! I have this feeling that science today is missing the concept of eternity just like we once missed the concept of 0

[@thegreatgazoo2334]

Yeah, the big bang is a local refresher cycle in an infinite universe.

[@Hallands.]

@@thegreatgazoo2334 Exactly my thought, well put!

[@KingRandor82]

This was one of the issues I always had with the "big bang" theory: Where was this tightly compacted "beginning" area, and if it's all expanding, expanding *where* ?

[@winteryfeline5576]

Thats so true, I never thought of that.

[@KingRandor82]

@@winteryfeline5576 yea...because school kinda glossed over it like it was nothing :p

[@ShaahzaadKaleem]

Exactly! Nothing

[@memesfromdeepspace1075]

Imagine a explosion like a granade in vakum It not make sense

[@dib_anbesa]

You are right! And where the material and force came from to explode or bing bang to happen?

[@Mattdavenport01]

The big bang theory (show), is awesome!

[@kykk3365]

"Give me one free miracle and I'll explain the rest..."

[@kykk3365]

@Paul I don't know the exact quote, but it's along those lines. I believe it is Terence McKenna, which I of course should've put in my original post.

[@user-mz7cn9hq8v]

@Paul google

[@dib_anbesa]

You are the miracle!

[@edgelorddragneel1142]

Well when people asked Jesus for supernatural sign, he said " There is no sign for the unbelieving expect the sign of Jonah" No idea

[@user-mz7cn9hq8v]

@@edgelorddragneel1142 kinda wise tbf

[@ericbourque6389]

I hope someone reads this: What if the microwaves background radiation is an effect of light loosing energy over vast distances? That would mean that the "redshift" though to cause an expansion is not actually real. We just think it is because we do not expect light to redshift over large distances. Has anyone tried to account for this in a simulation and see what would happen?

[@effingsix3825]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/qIvWoXSjltx8psU

[@obviouslymatt6452]

First bit was cool to think about, but i didn’t understand your point about redshift. In case you’re disagreeing with the existence of redshift, i’ll let you know that redshift definitely is a thing regardless of the origin or even nature of the universe.

[@cosmikrelic4815]

eric: the tired light theory is as old as the Universe and is pretty much debunked.

[@nicholasgabaldon657]

Ok boomer

[@shawnhamlin5963]

I wonder how the universe would look from our perspective if we exist in the gravity well of a black hole? Size and velocity is irrelevant in all cases and so is distance. Existence itself would be relative to the observer.

[@killakaine1]

You, sir, have just earned a new sub!!

[@petroc62]

You could do a whole video on the history of the laugh track...

[@cricketman7335]

A good follow-up video to this would on... the "God Particle". i.e. the Higgs boson. Just a suggestion.

[@manny4mayor]

What if the universe is vibrating at an enormous cosmic frequency and we lack the scope, either of space or of time, to see the part where it would seem to be collapsing in on itself. We are an electron on an atom on a molecule on a grain of sand trying to make sense of ocean currents. We simply lack the perspective. This is all unknowable. I'm cosmically agnostic.

[@whiz31]

What if we all thought of high level brain-think stuff when we completely lacked any real ability to actually think? Then our heads would approach resonance, and our face would shatter. LMAO

[@daverichards4487]

I finally subscribed, thought I already was. But if I have to endure much more of that damn laugh track, I'll have to re-evaluate my life choices.

[@TomHendricksMusea]

REVISED VERSION (psy phy physics from a sci fi writer.) The student of physics can write how photons made the entire universe in FIVE LINES of script! Background: My suggestion is that soon after the Big Bang Photons produced electron and positron pairs of waves 1. The ELECTRON wave had a negative charge. 2. The POSITRON wave had a positive charge. 3. The NEUTRINO had an electron and positron wave combined and had a neutral charge. 4. The PROTON had a mix of two positrons and one electron combined and had an overall positive charge. 5. The NEUTRON had a mix of two positrons and two electrons combined and had an overall neutral charge. Therefore : Photons made pairs of electrons and positrons. The electrons and positrons mixed together to make neutrinos, protons and neutrons such that: Electron (-) Positron (+) Neutrino (-) (+) Proton (+) (-) (+) Neutron (+) (-) (+) (-) When this production of particles was over, most positrons (anti electrons), didn't exist on their own. They were locked into neutrinos, protons, and neutrons - though conservation of charge was maintained. This may help explain the missing anti matter problem. This period of the Big Bang was probably during the lepton epoch. Though the neutrino and proton are extremely stable. the neutron can be converted back to a proton and electron (with an antineutrino) in beta decay. Protons and electrons can convert to neutrons in neutron stars. So proton + electron = neutrons has already been proven.

[@michaelogrady232]

Well, I think the biggest problem with the BBIT is that it introduces infinities into physical reality. David Hilbert demonstrated why this cannot be done. For instance, it is said that the density of a singularity or black hole approaches infinity. How can anything approach infinity? Half of infinity is infinity. A millionth of infinity is infinity. And so on. It is as if from the very beginning of that approach towards infinity, infinity is already reached. And that is why infinities cannot be introduced into the physical universe.

[@hansvonstetten3236]

excellent point... not to mention the quandary that all of the known laws of physics must be discarded to allow for such an abomination. I woke up one day and realized what a cartload of dung we have been fed all of these years,

[@michaelogrady232]

Richard Stubing At the end of the day, the math works. But against the rigors of rational scrutiny, the theory cannot stand.

[@TheRealKid13]

Michael O'Grady in discrete mathematics infinity or non finite sets of numbers are basically groups of numbers that are uncountable. So infinity can be used to describe the universe because although it is finite, because we can't count everything there we can conclude that it is infinitely large.

[@michaelogrady232]

just what -- Please demonstrate how we can conclude the universe is infinitely large.

[@Ciph3rzer0]

"in discrete mathematics infinity or non finite sets of numbers are basically groups of numbers that are uncountable" This is false, coming from a math minor. There are types of infinity, one charistic being countable or uncountable. Countably infinite is like 0 to infinity, you can start at zero, go to 1, then 2, then 3, and keep going forever (including negative numbers is still countable, because you can alternate). Uncountably infinite is like the real numbers. You start at 0, and then **what's the next number**? There is no next number. There is no concept in math like "wow that's a lot of things I don't feel like counting them so let's just say it's infinite". The closest thing would be like in physics, where you could maybe fudge some formulas based on things being "sufficiently large or small" but that's also not really the same thing at all.

[@DavidMcCoul]

Another Flat-Universer, I see...

[@hunam3876]

7-11 was a part time job.

[@faceofyah527]

Laurence kraus is a flat universer

[@SolidSiren]

Face Of Yah Flat as in uniform.

[@FreeStuffPlease]

Everything in the universe adds up to zero.

[@faceofyah527]

@@SolidSiren apart from where its non uniform

[@lucywucyyy]

the thing that confuses me more is the space of the universe rather than the matter, surely it cant be infinite and where did it come from?

[@soundlab7755]

Don't think of the Big Bang as an explosion happening in an already existing space. Space was created in the Big Bang! There was literally nothing before the Big Bang (which is kind of an oxymoron as time itself was also created in the Big Bang). When we say the galaxy's are flying away from each other it is actually the space between them that is expanding. Think of dots painted on the surface of a ballon. They are stationary. They can't move. But if you blow up the ballon the dots are moving away from each other because the rubber of the ballon is expanding. This is of cause a 2-D example of a 3-D reality. Hope this helps :)

[@pernouh446]

It's the classic nothingness vs. infinity. Philosophically speaking, absolute nothingness is an impossibility. In absolute nothingness nothing can exist, no space, no time, no infinity, no structure. And as (evidently) something exists, there can be no absolute nothingness, therefore there has to be infinity. Even if space was created by the big bang, there has to be an underlying structure on which the space was built upon. Call it hyperspace or whatever...

[@andrewdouglas1963]

@@pernouh446 Time cannot be infinite into the past. Therefore there must be a beginning to every natural thing. I agree there cannot be absolute nothingness as something (our universe) cannot arise from nothing. Something must have existed which would be unaffected by time which gave rise to our universe. An uncaused first cause if you like. Do you see where logic and science is leading us?

[@iamteslaspigeon6438]

I'm ridiculously excited to finally find someone else who hates that tv show. And the fact that it is someone I like, makes it even better. Thanks Joe. If I wasn't already subscribed, I certainly would now. :)

[@organicchemistry6357]

Yup, think about scientific conservatism. This one focuses on the evidence itself, not just models, but also on other aspects of debunking including theoretical and practical approaches

[@ctrockstar7168]

What if the universe is not expanding but is pulsing and the short time we've been watching it just happens to be when it's pulsing outwards

[@richardcollier1912]

Your scathing evisceration of TBBT was spot-on, old top. Cheers. And all that cal.

[@superdivemaster]

You're crackin me up ... correct about that t.v. show ... lol

[@jamesfarrell8339]

For the universe is dark and full of terrors. Winter is coming.

[@Mosern1977]

Winter isn't leaving...

[@g07denslicer]

The heat death of the universe is coming.

[@jonathanozik5442]

I always thought that "Winter is coming" was a porn scene...

[@g07denslicer]

What are you talking about?

[@Densilification]

I own all the terror. I am the VI King. I AmThemecca land of the free, home of the brave. It is space itself which is expanding. And space is my mind.

[@BobSmith1980.]

You can only go back so far with any theory about the universe's creation, and you will still be left with the question of where did that come from.

[@drjojo5551]

Further questions with no meaningful answers. Perhaps in a thousand years today's questions will be answered, but even at that time, there will be new ones!

[@mr.h4267]

Best just to give up.

[@robbiewilder4008]

Master Exploder an infinite universe would mean that everything you see/experience now has always been in existence. how did the sun in the sky you see and feel now come to be ? you say its always been there. how is that possible without a starting point ? we know that the sun exists. we know that we exist. everything that exists around us comes to be by creation. babies, food, cars, thoughts, plants, emotions etc. you were created as a human being. point is - you had a starting point as does everything we have ever known to exist. why would the universe be any different ? if you are arguing against creation you are by definition arguing against existence.

[@atomwerk]

Hi Joe. Can you explain what tests have been conducted to detect monopole particles? How is it that physicists can rule out their existence?

[@hartry79]

Finally figured it out... No Doubt it's my life, obviously not the same song but the start sounds very similar and I really like both, but couldn't put my finger on what it reminded me of...

[@glurp1]

Universe says to its dad, "How did I begin?" Dad replies, "A great cosmic stork just brought you in a basket."

[@BEERFEST07]

4:56 Perhaps the whatever is beyond the universe is a uniform temperature, and that's why CMB from opposite corners of the universe has leveled out to the same temperature as the other.

[@hckytwn3192]

There is nothing beyond the universe. The edge of the universe, as you’re calling it, is actually called the observable universe. So the same problem would apply to everything beyond the observable universe.... why is that all the same temperature? How did that “communicate”? (By the way, the answer according to cosmologists is inflation... which he didn’t talk about)

[@mr.h4267]

There being nothing beyond the universe does not preclude matter traveling into it. Matter that travels into it takes energy with it, reducing the temperature evenly around the edge of the universe. The OP is onto something.

[@hckytwn3192]

@@mr.h4267 Actually yes, there is something huge that precludes it--there's nothing to move into. The universe doesn't expand 'into' anything; it is everything. By definition, the universe is all of existence--all of space, time, matter and energy. People have a hard to understanding that the 'big bang' didn't happen somewhere... it happened everywhere.

[@francischimenti1374]

Maybe our universe is surrounded and expanding into much MUCH larger universes of pure unimaginable energy which just absorb and exchange at the boundaries of our expansion, causing the CBR in the exchange, without consequence to the acceleration UNTIL there's not enough energy or matter in our universe to expand anymore and the pressure of these energy universes push it back into itself. I imagine like a really really REALLY slow motion version of an underwater explosion. Billions of years slower. Kinda revisiting the Big Crunch except with a half-cock "explanation" this time. Yeah, I'm not a scientist and talking completely outta my ass so feel absolutely free to pick my "theory" apart 🤣🤣

[@davidross5593]

The issues i see with big bang 1. Where did the force come from to cause the expansion? 2. The big bang was apparently a chaotic disordered event. So why would it cause order and then go to disorder. Makes much more sense there was order in the first ace and then disorder like we are now observing.

[@philjamieson5572]

I think this is a really interesting presentation and well explained. I'd like to think there is an alternative explanation for the current state of The Universe that holds water.

[@familiasandoval8664]

the bible

[@Bless-the-Name]

Fred Hoyle famously coined the term “big bang” in 1949, to mock Hubble's theory.

[@mr.h4267]

Lol science nerds bullying other science nerds.

[@stan_dinghere]

lol just like schrodingers cat!

[@zimryu]

Hence the term: according to Hoyle.

[@Bless-the-Name]

@@zimryu - according to Einstein, Tesla is more intelligent than himself. Yet ... he was (just) being sarcastic when he referred to Tesla as being more intelligent.

[@sathearn]

@rigel star Hubble's "theory", as far as I know, merely proposed that the relation between luminosity (distance) and redshift for external galaxies is due to the fact that more distant galaxies are receding at higher velocities. Contrary to the implication of Baruch Hashem's comment, acceptance of this conclusion was the basis of BOTH the Big Bang theory and the rival Bondi-Hoyle-Gold Steady State theory.

[@rskrao]

One more question to ask is where did space come from if nothing existed in the first place.

[@rajeshwarsharma1716]

This is greatest question ever.

[@nofawkesgiven3170]

It came from Youranus.

[@rskrao]

@@nofawkesgiven3170 - unsolicited answer that reflects your depth in thinking.

[@jamesmulqueen2462]

everthing seems to be going round and round in the universe and everthing we see is round , so why not space..

[@memesfromdeepspace1075]

What "outside our universe " is more i want to know

[@QuantumEntanglementForFun]

But you have to admit The Big Bang Theory has probably the best theme song.

[@mattsheezy5469]

I can’t believe that ANY of these sitcoms are still produced (such an outdated concept). Especially when you consider all of the other forms of available entertainment. I’m amazed at how many people pretend to like whatever’s popular, rather than pursuing their own particular interests.

[@kainoaexplores]

This is why I love your channel. I can't stand The Big Bang Theory either but I love the big bang theory because it allows me to be here, in this existence, to hate the show.

[@adamwest8711]

The only thing more frustrating than the difficulty in fully appreciating these concepts is reading the idiotic assertions in the comments from people just smart enough to grasp enough of the fringes of a topic to know what to copy and paste from Wikipedia.

[@MrBollocks10]

You mean learning new stuff and passing it on? Morons hey.

[@adamwest8711]

em cee - no

[@TheGreatAlan75]

@@adamwest8711 like you did...

[@adamwest8711]

Alan Lloyd - aw, yousofunny...

[@TheGreatAlan75]

Your explanations are really good

[@DarkAngel71180]

Joe, we appreciate the dumbed down physics.

[@francoislacombe9071]

Actually, the universe was never in an infinitesimally small infinitely dense state. In physics, this is called a singularity, and when a theory predicts the existence of a singularity, it means that it is incomplete, an approximation of a deeper and more accurate theory. General relativity, which mathematically defines our current understanding of the Big bang, is therefore incomplete and a better theory will be needed to have a full understanding of how our universe came into existence.

[@cancancan5300]

That is another hole in the big bang theory checked

[@mdlkpprophecy6341]

there's also GENESIS theory from THE HOLY BIBLE. :-)

[@crushproblems1774]

ShitYouNot well duh!The flattards drank it all! Whoosh

[@Chief2Moon]

+ShitYouNot there are those who desperately need to believe in something that can never be proven, to give them confidence& strength to deal with their insecurities. I'm not one of those people. So far as theories go, whether they can all be proven or not, whether it exists or not, is immaterial to me....you & I exist regardless of what we believe, or what is "true". That's one unarguable fact, I'll let others debate the "could be's & what if's". That's my view.

[@gabrielpauna62]

@@Chief2Moon lots of things can't be problem , many others are best guesses and conjecture, but vastly intelligent beings that create things do exist ;)

[@dawslenenright2409]

I have always wondered how we went from infinitely dense point where there are no rules, time, or even definition, to suddenly having defined elements, material structures, and material rules that can't reverse itself. We can't compress a solid back to that point from which it started because rules suddenly apply, we have the upmost struggle breaking an atom or any basic material structure, we can't even find "infinite" density or energy yet. Those are just some gripes that I have with the theory. Of course, this is based on my understanding, which could be incorrect.

[@joescott]

It brings up a lot of questions to be sure.

[@hansvonstetten3236]

DE and Joe S. may I introduce you to my perspective. I am a staunch detractor of this "big bang" theory. besides the purposeful juxtaposition, on religious grounds, of the theory and the "singularity" notion, and the attempt to validate God based on its similarity, there is NO rational reason to believe in the big bang. it is utter hogwash. all of the known laws of physics must be discarded throughout almost the entirety of the process. and then, voila, the laws of physics mysteriously exist again, after God, perhaps, makes it so. in fact all of the computational evidence supporting the theory is done well after the laws regurgitate themselves back onto the universe. one simple proof of its heretical silliness is the notion of the entire universe, wrapped in a hot pocket, and then exploding outward. If this could be possible, then looking the direction directly away from the epicenter should yield, at great enough distances, NOTHING. this however is not the case at all. we see uniform mass concentrations in every direction. and when scientists discovered the universe was expanding with acceleration, well then, chums, let´s invent another force of nature with no physical evidence, no provable science, nothing to support it other than in its absence we must correctly assume the big bang theory to be an utter falsehood, promulgated by the cleverest of con men to an unsuspecting populace. so, not willing to admit the scientific crime that has been committed in plain sight, they do what Trump would do...they double down. Dark energy, dark matter. this theory, once and for all, should be flushed down the historical toilet with all of the other idiotic theories and any other detritus that happens to dwell there. the supposed doppler effect can in no way be assumed to be the only possible reason for the phase shift. why are some star systems actually moving towards us? this would be mathematically impossible with the big bang theory, unless some other unknown force were to be acting on them, oh yeah, dark energy... puh-lease. it is not the theory itself that bothers me the most. theories, incorrect or correct are the basis of scientific discovery. eventually we get it right. but to push this theory, and disregard much more plausible causes, or to not investigate other possible causes is irresponsible, and in fact, scientifically negligent, nay, criminal. thank you for your time.

[@dawslenenright2409]

Richard Stubing Well that came out of nowhere.

[@ShiYuMeng2]

I agree. And the entire concept of 'infinity' is just a religious concept that somehow made its way into mathematics (most likely b/c the mathematicians were religious). We live on a finite planet, in a finite solar system in a finite universe. There is not infinite space. This is simply impossible. Any mathematics or theories that require infinity are plain rubbish.

[@dawslenenright2409]

Michael Speth When does time start or end? How do you define time? Just my curiosity. Infinity is used to define a number that is of ridiculously large (or small) quantity. Infinity is not a concept based only on religion; it was a result of human nature simplifying numbers that are much larger than the capacity to define or understand them, most especially in mathematics. The invention of computing electronics will help resolve this issue of calculating results with overwhelming number of digits... just do not divide by zero if you wish to not see infinity mentioned again.

[@sosme99]

Joe: How did something come from nothing? Science has no idea. Cosmologists (esp. Lawrence Krauss): am I a joke to you?

[@richardnelson4112]

It may very well be that something and nothing are really the same thing.

[@sosme99]

@@richardnelson4112 cosmologists and philosophers have had us questioning what is meant by “nothing” all this time. Now here you come, making me question the meaning of “something”…

[@richardnelson4112]

@@sosme99 well nothing is only where something can no longer be detected the way you know it, and yet it exists. Here is a way to look at it. If I tell you that I have a piece of glass called a slide, and then I tell you it's full of living organisms, and you look at this slide just with your eyes, you'll tell me there's nothing on there, until you put it under the lense of a microscope. Now what appeared as nothing, now appears as something. All of a sudden you see these organisms. Then I tell you there is actually more on that same slide than what you can see with the aid of that microscope. You say, NO I don't see anything else. So I now give you an electron microscope, and you say wow, there is alot more that I see now. In other words, the existence of something is not determined by what WE can see or detect. An example of that would be what they call dark matter and dark energy. They are claiming that these 2 things exist, not by direct observation and really not by calculation, but by the process of elimination. So what appears as nothing in this case is really something. Where do you draw the line of what exists and what doesn't ? That line is very blurry. The limitations of the senses you possess, is what creates illusions of perception. Does "NOTHING" as what is agreed to, exist or have the possibility to exist ? Most likely not. What is the proof ? The universe exists ! The appearance of NOTHING, is a disguise of SOMETHING. That's why I say they are probably the same thing. That is also why they are unable to figure out how something came out of nothing, when in reality that never could be

[@richardnelson4112]

@@sosme99 here's another one for you. If someone asks you what nothing is, the instant you describe what nothing is, you've made it into something. It is impossible to describe anything and even nothing, if it isn't something. The only thing you can do is say what properties nothing seems to have. But you CANNOT say what properties it doesn't have since you don't know what those are. Humans seem to think that they can explain everything when they actually can't. It is a form of arrogance that says that nothing is beyond their understanding, and especially when it comes to them thinking that mathematics can answer everything. Even mathematics has its limitations just as anything else has. Mathematics can't even explain itself because if could, it would show you that prime numbers do have a pattern, but it is unable to do so

[@TheDawnTreader1]

any update on dem gravitational waves bizness

[@axer3515]

to many people ignore the fact that "dark matter doesn't exist and without it the theory fails. Also the operational definition of "nothing" is different from what people call nothing, so when a scientist ask you to define nothing it is not a joke.

[@kanishkchaturvedi1745]

Why do you say dark matter doesn't exist?

[@vc2702]

@@kanishkchaturvedi1745 whats your definition of dark matter? Dark matter is not antimatter. Antimatter is the opposite of matter and dark matter is detectable by gravitational pull . People confuse both when they are not the same.

[@kanishkchaturvedi1745]

@@vc2702 a substance that interacts gravitationally but does not interact electromagnetically. I am in my senior year of my undergraduate physics program. I haven't taken the particle physics classes where they work with the dirac equation however I am aware of it. But I have taken 2 astro courses and have also completed a research project on dark matter.

[@vc2702]

@@kanishkchaturvedi1745 Thanks and i was not trying to argue with you about anything although it might look that way i was honestly curious on what he was talking about and, also on what you was talking about. Since i don't see him responding to your questions i thought i would ask you. From some lectures i have seen about matter discribe dark matter in a less detailed way that you have discribed it. I was not expecting that but its good to have a deeper understanding on the subject.

[@trystanlb]

Your jabs at the TV show just sealed the deal on you being my favorite KZbinr 🤣

[@markwalker3499]

Problem #6: Matter with nearly no antimatter. We know that matter and antimatter both exist and annihilate each other with a titanic release of energy, and it theorized that the early EARLY universe was much more dense with matter (infinite) but very shortly after the BB when both matter and antimatter came to exist the matter and antimatter cancelled each other out as they made contact, but that means far more matter of both charges was original to the universe (long before the expansion made it this large) and yet we see a whole universe of matter many billions of light years across, so a lot more matter had to have been made early in order to have survived contact with antimatter. That level of matter no matter what it's charge would have released an enormous amout of energy, possibly enough to fuel the expansion that can't otherwise be explained, but, it does not answer why so much more matter than antimatter happened in the first place. If the early universe could have created a disproportionate amount of one over the other then how big can that difference be before it raises a whole lot more questions? And the one thing this also makes me think about is how do you identify the trigger for such an event when the very concepts of space and time did not even exist until the universe came into being, if there is no space/time then whatever is there prior to space time if anything existed at all would be eternal, infinite. You can't describe it in terms of where or when. So to put an age on the universe is to say when that original state ended, but because you then define that original state in terms of time to put an end to its original state would be impossible. How do you define the exact diving line between infinite and finite? There cannot be one or it was not infinite in the first place. Another thing that bothers me which is probably explained (but not by dark matter or energy because till they produce some of either I refuse to believe it exists as anything but a confession that they don't know what the hell they are talking about) already is this, if all space/time matter and energy started from one huge explosion bursting outward from the point of origin then would not all stars and galaxies be a shell like arrangement forever traveling outward from that point of origin? With a hollow center which expands at the same rate of the expansion of the universe? Instead it is as if a firehose spraying in all directions at once were coninuously generating ever more space/time, and matter/energy that has continually come into being from that origin point because no matter where you look the age of the universe looks the same, or at least the edge of the universe that is as far as light can have reached. In otherwards, if you were asked to judge our position in the universe there is no one direction you could look to give you any clue, it appears to us as if we are in the very center of the universe and would no matter where in the universe you try to measure from, yet according to the big bang theory there must be a leading edge of outward expansion.

[@christopherbarrett7760]

I'm kinda curious, so wouldn't the singularity of the universe be a black hole? Also, in another video you said that a penny sized black hole would evaporate within a second and explode with the force of about 80k times the force of the Tzar Bomba, so wouldn't the big bang be more a big bounce? Pretty much the universe would occasionally oscillate over and over, I mean who knows we could be the billionth big bang just in our universe