The Expanding Universe: myths and measurements | Roger Penrose, Sean Carroll, Laura Mersini-Houghton

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

Hi there! Don't miss David Deutsch, George Ellis, Sara Walker, Robert Lawrence Kuhn and Marcus du Sautoy debating infinity and the universe in our upcoming IAI Live event. Book your tickets here to attend on Monday, 7th November 05:00 PM BST iai.tv/live/iai-live-november?KZbin&

[@TheFlamingChips]

How can I watch the event?

[@dichebach]

I'm a behavioral scientist, not a physical scientist. But for me, Peter Camaron's comments at 15:05 through 16:36 are the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT topic within this area of inquiry, and it is the simplest explanation for all the incongruities and paradoxes which were summarized at the outset. There is a famous quote which I cannot recall precisely, but it is something like 'Wrong theories are nothing to be worried about, because if science is followed, good experiments will eventually dispel wrong theories. But faulty measures, and even worse faulty conceptions of measurement can mislead science for generations.' I wish more of the renowned physical scientists who know enough about these topics to ask well-informed questions about measurement would do so more often.

[@schmetterling4477]

You were correct about one thing: you are not a scientist. :-)

[@darkages9507]

​@@schmetterling4477 He did not say that. And you are not the schmetterling, you are the Chuang Tzu.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@darkages9507 Huh? Philosophy is not my thing. I stick to facts. Fact is that I happen to be an experimental physicist, so measurement is "my thing". There is absolutely nothing mysterious about measurement. All measurements are irreversible energy transfers. Why irreversible? Because by definition measurement has to leave a lasting record. Why does measurement involve energy? Because of the third law of thermodynamics. All systems (near equilibrium, which we need for "lasting record") have a temperature T>0. If we want to be able to distinguish a measurement result from thermal noise, then we need at least E>kT, otherwise we are just looking at the output of a random number generator. This is second or third year undergrad knowledge, by the way. All you have to do to know about it is to pay attention in school.

[@darkages9507]

@@schmetterling4477 What does this have to do with what is being said between the given time stamps? It is simply stated that what is being observed might not be what is actually happening. There is nothing philosophical about that.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@darkages9507 Everything we are observing are irreversible energy transfers. That's really just undergrad physics. That people are misinterpreting the meaning of these observations is not something that science is concerned about. Ask the psychologists why most human brains are crappy at thinking. That's not my area. I am simply telling you what happens from nature's point of view when you see/hear/smell/taste/measure something.

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

What came first: Inflation or the Big Bang? Let us know in the comments below! 🪐To watch our latest debate on the everlasting mystery of the universe visit iai.tv/video/the-mystery-of-the-multiverse?KZbin&

[@stuartmaclean8668]

The two neutron stars of the Superverse came first. Funny thing about a cubic crystal lattice of neutrons is that; 1. neutrons are all exactly the same with the same mass-energy density; 2. a cubic lattice is isometric. i.e. A neutron star is homogenous and isotropic. See fractal geometry is the cosmological principle and self-similar patterns happen irrespective of scale, the law of self-similarity. So in order to understand the birth of an unknown gravitational singularity one must study the birth of known gravitational singularity. Namely, a black hole. As the only man who has even explored this chain of thought I can answer so so so many questions.... usually with a one word answer. Off course I'm probably the only man who would call Roger Penrose an idiot to his face..... just saying as a fractal cosmologist. P.S. Have you seen the shape of the large scale anisotropies? Think Kilonova.

[@ericfarina3935]

@@stuartmaclean8668 why must there be a "first"? The human notion of discrete objects is meaningful to us, and undeniably useful in terms of navigating our everyday lives. When it comes to describing the whole of the Cosmos, however, such notions are not applicable.

[@garyphillips4210]

I always thought that the logical explanation was that The Big Bang came first, then the Theory of Inflation is used to explain a Homogeneous Universe on the grandest scales. Nowadays, my understanding is that top scientists think that Inflation came first. It seems that the scientists in this video are not definite, either. My opinion is that The Big Bang appeared as Quantum Fluctuations in an already infinite universe with virtually infinite temperature and energy. This very low entropy was then quickly expanded into a Universe with greater entropy in agreement with the Laws of Thermodynamics.

[@whiteape2714]

I think our universe is cyclic and in fact it operates in higher dimensions. I think spacetime is an eternal dimension where an object can exist or pop into existence from higher dimensions. The big bang even started in spacetime but not spacetime from it and all matter comes not from one point but from many points all around space.

[@ericfarina3935]

@@whiteape2714 Just as we cannot think of spatial objects at all apart from space, or temporal objects apart from time, so we cannot think of any object apart from the possibility of its connexion with other things. If I can think of an object in the context of an atomic fact, I cannot think of it apart from the possibility of this context. The thing is independent, in so far as it can occur in all possible circumstances, but this form of independence is a form of connexion with the atomic fact, a form of dependence. (It is impossible for words to occur in two different ways, alone and in the proposition.) If I know an object, then I also know all the possibilities of its occurrence in atomic facts. (Every such possibility must lie in the nature of the object.) A new possibility cannot subsequently be found. In order to know an object, I must know not its external but all its internal qualities. If all objects are given, then thereby are all possible atomic facts also given. Every thing is, as it were, in a space of possible atomic facts. I can think of this space as empty, but not of the thing without the space. A spatial object must lie in infinite space. (A point in space is a place for an argument.) The Object[ive] is the fixed, the existent. Configuration is the changing, the variable.

[@MrBradogg]

Sean Carrol has a beautiful voice. Roger Penrose has a beautiful mind.

[@ivolva]

20:40 RE: Escher picture - here prof. Penrose has very interesting point about a hyperbolic (Lobachevskian) geometry interpretation of this “boundary” (infinity) situation. Yes this geometry is a conformal invariant. But because we’re discussing a boundary (infinity) situation we need to move away from geometry to topology terminology. I mean to compact topological spaces and boundary behavior of conformal mappings. For this purpose we need to consider a compactifications bX of topological space X (in our case a disk in complex plane). Consider: not only an angles could be a conformal invariants, there are exist a lot of different conformal invariants “near (on) the boundary”. The precise topological term for this is a “conformal invariant boundary”, i.e. this boundary is invariant under conformal mapping. Open disk has infinite number of conformal invariant boundaries. Examples: one-point compactification, Euclid boundary (circle), Stone-Cech compactification (this boundary is an invariant under any homeomorphism of disk, not only conformal mappings) and many other. Another famous example of conformal invariant boundary is the Prime Ends of Caratheodory (introduced around 1913). I believe in your interpretation each aeon glued/connected to another aeon with some special conformal invariant boundary.

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

One said that there are 3 methods of gauging the speed of galaxies but didn't elaborate. All I have ever heard about is the redshift. What are the other two?

[@crazieeez]

I like Penrose description the best. Conformal Cyclic Cosmology makes sense because geometry of spacetime is distorted at distance and at high speed.

[@ANunes06]

Yup. And he didn't even get into the parts about why the conformally stretched beginning of an aeon matches exactly with the conformally squashed end. In the very distant future, after the last black hole has evaporated into radiation, there will be no matter at all in the entire universe. Just photons. Moving at the speed of light. Experiencing t/0 time dilation. Such a universe quite literally has no size. Thus no distance. Thus no time. Just the infinite sea of quantum possibility playing itself out. If big bang + inflation is within that sea of possibility, it isn't just possible, but rather inevitable. One can just barely imagine infinite time passing between these two aeons in exactly zero seconds. If you accept some pretty basic axioms and allow for some mathematical trickery, the conclusion is almost *necessary*. Which is why I like it more than String Theory, Multiverse Theory, etc. This feels more like Einstein. "I have no real *reason* to believe that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames, but it sure does *feel* true and boy does it have some interesting and *testable* consequences."

[@Samantis45]

@@ANunes06 Thank you, I looked it up and heard from the man himself. I don't have any qualifications for saying this, but I feel that it is "cleaner" than string theory. Ockham's razor and all that. I still respect the string theorists because we need all the ideas we can get, but this model is not only simpler, but prettier. (Not that they have to compete, to my knowledge)

[@whiteape2714]

@@ANunes06 Do you think that the cyclic universe is not compatible with string theory? I like the string theory approach of black holes. To me it does not make sense for the general relativity singularity in black hole or at the big bang. I like to think about black holes from string theory approaching neutron stars but with higher spin that increases gravity and warps space time and the big bang is a quantum field where particles pop into existence creating a sea of hydrogen elements which bind into one ultrasupermegabig star which later explodes and then we know what next.

[@user-dialectic-scietist1]

@@ANunes06 Can I ask you something? Because I saw you write about time. So, what is the time?

[@ANunes06]

@@user-dialectic-scietist1 if you are asking about the time experienced by a universe with no matter, that is the very question. I would answer concisely by saying that time is the non-spacial relationship between given events. The idea is that there are no meaningful events to relate to one another, either in space or in time, at both the very end stage and the very beginning of the universe.

[@philjamieson5572]

Thanks for putting this on here. I love listening to these experts discussing hugely important ideas.

[@michael-4k4000]

Your welcome. Consider subscribing and paying a monthly fee

[@rotarolla1]

The speaker at 16minutes Peter Cameron, he is true and real, hes my standard candle

[@bitkurd]

I’m not a scientist nor an intellect but as an observer, from coming to existence out of nothing, I should also have a say. My take is the universe has never started, nor I’m. The universe doesn’t finish neither do I! That’s why in my opinion, it’s very hard to wrap your head around the universe and existence at all!

[@proksenospapias9327]

In all honesty Sir Roger Penrose should stop worrying and start reading the comment section. They've got it all sorted out, it appears.

[@clientesinformacoes6364]

If the universe has a certain amount of energy, same energy since BigBang and space expands, then energy is decreasing by volume, the reason why things are speeding up is because matter doesn't expand at the same proportion, then inertia decreases over time. If we do the opposite, use energy to speed up matter, then matter expands (increases mass) while energy by volume remains constant in this case inertia increases. Basically this is what I think it's happening.

[@schmetterling4477]

It doesn't. Energy is not conserved.

[@clientesinformacoes6364]

@@schmetterling4477 it could be, we don't know what space time is made of yet. Space time could work like a rubber band and contract at some point preserving the entire energy.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@clientesinformacoes6364 Spacetime isn't made of anything. That is the actual reason why it acts the way it does. You need to learn some physics. ;-)

[@clientesinformacoes6364]

@@schmetterling4477 space time is not visible but it has properties.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@clientesinformacoes6364 Yes, it is three dimensional and locally isotropic and homogeneous. Because it is empty, all of physics is relative. From that we can derive special relativity. Special relativity then predicts all possible field theories and general relativity (or one of its extensions). The only questions that physics has yet to answer are: Why is spacetime geometric to begin with? Why does the vacuum below 1TeV have SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) symmetry? What are the higher symmetry groups that this low energy symmetry derives from, if any? and finally we have to understand how gravity and local internal symmetries combine. That's it and it's all contained (in a rather complex way) in the fact that the universe is geometric and empty.

[@Frithogar]

Probably both are happening simultaneously. We just need a better conception of space-time to get our heads around it

[@PetraKann]

What do you mean a "better" conception of Space-time? Are you saying dump space-time altogether and replace it with something else? What is the issue with having three physical dimensions and one time dimension?

[@ericfarina3935]

@@PetraKann Well, Einstein was a genius, and Relativity is arguably the most significant intellectual achievement in human history. Einstein even believed in God; but for all his "genius" *he simply couldn't bring himself to REALLY speak of God in terms of science* .

[@brud1729]

@@ericfarina3935 He said the idea of a personal god was absurd.

[@ericfarina3935]

@@brud1729 I agree. There is only one God, evidenced in terms of science by the existence of the singularity. Einstein viewed the singularity as a mathematical curiosity; he couldn't wrap his brain around it. For this reason his theory remains incomplete.

[@informationobserver3473]

@@PetraKann the fact that even in a 2D world to know the location of a point you’d need to know the time. Is there space time or is it an illusion. We might not be seeing reality.

[@ivolva]

24:00 QUESTION to prof. Roger Penrose: Why a set of all AEONS has a linear structure? Is it possible that on conformal invariant boundary (a crossover in your terminology) we can see bubbles of other aeons glued with conformal invariant boundary (crossover)? So, the set of all aeons does not look like a line but sooner like a tree… I don’t know all the details of physical interpretation of this model, but in mathematical theory such examples (an infinite replication of discs on the boundary; basically this boundary of disk has a bubble of disk compactifications embedded one to another infinitely) do exist.

[@maxa1152]

It resembles a single cell that ends up becoming brain which wonders about all this, whats in that cell and the make up of it by atoms also has space in between electrons.

[@tokajileo5928]

the accelerating expansion of the universe may not be true , search for article titled : "Evidence of anisotropy for cosmic acceleration" by prof Sarkar.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

good article

[@RickDelmonico]

Go team Penrose.

[@L2ggs]

He has been discredited

[@bitkurd]

Damn do you always have to make teams and pick sides? Can’t we just observe, watch and enjoy? 😂 I wish you luck and happiness my friend and after all I love you.

[@RickDelmonico]

@@L2ggs but... at least he is honest.

[@Nah_Bohdi]

@@L2ggs Every physcist Ive seen debate him in any way is a fool and not real Physicst (theyre "shut up and calculate"s). Old, bad, physics, that they cannot let go of because it would mean their entire adult life was focused of false science. Ego. Pride. LIES. That is why fhey wont die.

[@georgebernstein12]

And it’s SIR roger penrose

[@Pavan_Gaonkar_abc]

This is amazing thanks 🙏

[@bballen3097]

It might help if everyone used the same definition of the universe and distinguish between the visible universe and the non-visible part. Making claims about the universe based on the visible part is speculative.

[@NondescriptMammal]

Agreed, I see this confusion perpetuated all over the place, where they discuss the observable universe as if it were the entire universe.

[@Swolecows]

The section with Peter Cameron is not given enough weight. So much certainty over these measurements that create 70% discrepancies in visible matter. Makes no sense to me.

[@paultorbert6929]

Given our Rest Frame combined with our peculiar velocity/motion, there is no way to measure whether we are in an expanding or contracting universe.

[@marcusfromsweden]

Maaaybee, just maybe scientists should start looking more into the fact that the need for Dark energy vanishes if you allow for the existence (and not denial) of ionized plasma throughout the universe (for which models fit better to the observed "need to Dark energy") Regards

[@vids595]

There is no evidence for ionized plasma "throughout the universe". There is evidence to suggest something like dark energy. You might as well suggest they look into elves making the universe expand.

[@marcusfromsweden]

@@vids595 Suuure… You go ahead and believe that and it’ll all feel better. Ps. No looking, no finding. Ds

[@minhnguyen-mk9om]

was the Big Bang necessary in order for the Universe to expand or maybe something else?

[@alex79suited]

So this is very cool 😎 Professor Penrose. Except what i believe your description does is show, ready galacty formation. When u add the entropic principles all it means is eventually galacty conform into much larger structure, and by which the infinite ♾️ space becomes available. So i ask you how does the gaseous state get there. And from which state of matter. I am starting to take a position on this very subject. The model is quite ugly in a beautiful kind of way i must admit. It sure does help. Thank you SIR

[@cameronmurie]

So: ( In the Venerable Penrose explanation) - If I substitute the word "Aeon" as he uses it, for the word "turtle" - as used by a critic of Bertrand Russell - It begins to appear that the elder lady was correct after all - "It IS Turtles all the way down" :-)

[@schmetterling4477]

Turtles all the way down was always the most logical explanation.

[@Oliveir51]

I do not believe in galaxies faster than light as our interpretation of red shift suggests. And we measured red shift resulting from charge interaction of photons

[@Oliveir51]

And dark energy is just one more interpretation we should be cautious with.

[@brandonsmith1838]

I liked the last one it's like the definition of infinity what seems infinitely big is also infinitely small.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

The Perspective-Principle, and the Contrast-Principle, makes Feelig into Sensing.

[@Raiddd__]

I think actual infinity’s are metaphysically impossible

[@wplg]

Another Question is: Is the universe acceleration, or is time slowing down?

[@JustinHedge]

Both I'd say, the universe is expanding and meanwhile time local to the most rapid expansionary is slowing via GR?

[@wplg]

@@JustinHedge I agree. Well said.

[@clientesinformacoes6364]

If the universe has a certain amount of energy, same energy since BigBang and space expands, then energy is decreasing by volume, the reason why things are speeding up is because matter doesn't expand at the same proportion, then inertia decreases over time. If we do the opposite, use energy to speed up matter, then matter expands (increase mass) while energy by volume remains constant.

[@Zorlof]

Time is proportional to temperature, the early universe's clock ran at a faster rate which explains the recent JWST findings.

[@vids595]

Please post a link to a description of what you are referring to.

[@Zorlof]

@@vids595 It is called entropy, time is measured by movement and movement turns into heat. Faster atoms , faster quanta, faster chemical bonds, more energy hectic and dense universe ran a faster clock. Faster formations of stars planets and galaxies. Faster supernovas, etc... A photon speeds up in a hotter vacuum and slows down in a colder vacuum.

[@AmitRay47]

Considering the big bang theory of the birth of our Universe and considering some views on the existance of other universes than our own, Metaverse, are their any Theories/Hypothesis what effect the big bang would have had on the other universes?

[@HCheung-k2t]

The Expanding Universe theory wrongly assumes photon propagation does not slow down, and when photon propagates it does not go through energy lost and gain process.

[@SkepTank0404]

i still think, hubble's observations, and many others since, only show evidence of a collapsing observer (ie our general region in the galaxy relative to our galactic center) which can fluctuate due to proximity variations, and that such observations of even the tiniest variance of an observer equal the observed motion of distance increases between all bodies in space, relatuve to each other, by said diminishing observer.

[@vids595]

Well you're still dim.

[@SkepTank0404]

@@vids595 well, im not writing a scientific paper on my thoughts here. just sayin.. possibilities exist to solve problems.

[@TheBilly]

The trick is you need to make your pet idea consistent with *all* available data. The generally accepted view does this while yours does not

[@SkepTank0404]

@@TheBilly i disagree. the idea behind science has always been interpretation, even with the math. i submit much is misinterpreted. and some, wrong. and that with a good, actual look at tye concept, the result is as i stated; quantum fluctuation caused by the galactic core and our distance from it (also it is fluctuating and gradually decreasing) causes the observation of expansion. to my mind, it is a manipulation of an observer's volume with fixed frequencies of distant sources.

[@SkepTank0404]

@@TheBilly allow me to posit a prediction for the cmb, with 2 stipulations: simple geometry and length contraction. draw a circle, bisect it with 2 narrow, parallel lines (the longer the better), draw a wave of fixed freq. inside the lines. make a grid based on the radius of the circle. now, apply changes to velocity to you circle. apply length contraction to the circle (it will lose volume because of motion). make a new grid based on the new radius. measure the distances from center of new circle to observed freq of your first setup. now, the most distant freq is longer in change from closest. all caused by gravitation (changes in velocity between masses)

[@mrtimmelton]

if the amount of Dark energy is increasing, would that imply that Dark energy is related to Entropy?

[@schmetterling4477]

No.

[@prometeled]

how can something expand when it is everywhere the thing is that the visible is beeing deluted into the whole universe but thats to big for anyone else to see

[@vids595]

Understanding he difference between the universe and the observable universe might help you.

[@prometeled]

@@vids595 else

[@ricocapili6990]

In my opinion that Dark Energy could be our alter Universe🤔 An anti universe or anti matter universe. So therefore when matter and galaxies expand it goes with it not losing energy and continuous to repel. The force never cease to change whether on a quantum scale or universal.

[@fourorthree2]

The more technical the discussion gets, the more subjective and fictional it sounds.

[@NondescriptMammal]

I have a theory that studying and practicing theoretical physics for too long causes insanity, their minds go off the rails such that they eventually believe whatever crazy things they can imagine.

[@fourorthree2]

@@NondescriptMammal ...but an intelligence higher than theirs.

[@HWJJSCHUMACHER]

23 . 59 ... we CALL IT "BOUNCE"

[@walternullifidian]

As the voids get larger the universe expands, so it may be that that expansion of the voids causes the universe to expand.

[@ericfarina3935]

If by "void" you mean "nothing"... Please know. So-called "nothing" by definition, does not exist.

[@walternullifidian]

@@ericfarina3935 By "voids" I mean the cosmic voids that are surrounded by walls of galactic clusters.

[@erikhviid3189]

I love Roger Penrose.

[@HWJJSCHUMACHER]

DID YOU SEE THAT THE UNIVERSE EXPANDS NOT EVERYWHERE AT THE SAME RATE ???

[@grikalanovv]

Is it logical... If such an event happened, there must be a lot of mass(matter) even planets between the galaxies, outside their black hole gravity. We clearly said the distribution of matter is quite homogenized.😒 I would say inflation is an amazing process. It gave enough time to the universe to grow before everything actually became 6-7 super huge super massive black 🕳 🕳 🕳 🕳 🕳 🕳 🕳

[@minhnguyen-mk9om]

the Law of Physics, all the phenomenons in the Universe are way beyond our understanding, because our intelligence is still limited , we think we know alot but we dont

[@KaliFissure]

Neutron decay cosmology. The path of least action, physical processs solution to black hole paradoxes, dark energy, dark matter, and critical density maintenance. Matter/neutrons, which contact an event horizon become the vacuum energy for one single Planck second and then re-emerge distributed across the surface of the universe, from the lowest energy points in space where it is most permeable, deep voids, where the neutrons decay, as neutrons do, into amorphous atomic hydrogen. The decay from near point particle neutron to one cubic meter of hydrogen gas is a volume increase on the order of 10^45. Expansion (enough to compensate for gravity), Lambda, dark energy. The decay product, amorphous atomic hydrogen, doesn't have a stable orbital electron and so it can't emit or absorb photons. Dark matter. In time the hydrogen stabilizes and follow the usual evolution pathway from gas to filament to proto star to star until in the very distant future (13.8 billion years on average?), the neutron is again about to contact an event horizon. The universe is steady state. A constant flow down the gravity hill. Event horizons act as every pressure release valves, venting from highest energy pressure conditions to lowest energy density points of space. From aggregated singularity to diffuse, dispersed, distributed. And then gravity gathers it all back again. neutron decay cosmology.

[@kokomanation]

Dark energy seems to thrive where baryonic matter is absent.

[@howsotope8553]

I love Penroze

[@TheJohmac]

Being an intelligent layman, many of these theories seem woefully inadequate. The mathematics associated with string theory, quantum theory, and other cosmological theories such as multiverse theories and even Einstein relativity theory, seem to have a similar problem I have seen in statistical mathematics in that probability is often counterproductive to practical application. Just as correlation is often confused for causation, these observations that appear to support these vast cosmological theories are so miniscule that it seems to me to be akin to finding a grain of sand and using it to describe an island. All that said, the exploration of these ideas is fascinating and important, but I put no faith in it. And I will even grant that some of these ideas have resulted in technological advances. But that doesn't, again, mean that these ideas are sufficient to explain the history and nature of all existence.

[@vids595]

So you have education in advanced math.physics? No faith is required or asked of you by the way.

[@tristandrew5903]

I do hate pessimists who have problems by the trolley load but no solutions and only criticism for attempted solutions. A slug could not explain concorde but concorde has more chance explaining itself to a slug. Since humanity evolved intelligence from slugs to create concorde, it has to be more likely. Whether you all it causation or correlation is a moot point

[@TheJohmac]

@@tristandrew5903 My view is not pessimistic at all. Quite the contrary actually. Effective optimism requires some level of pragmatism. Dogma is corrosive to every belief system. Skepticism is not pessimistic, it's being open minded enough to both entertain new ideas, but remain teachable and prepared to change direction. But good luck explaining anything to a slug.

[@proksenospapias9327]

"Being an intelligent layman" ok buddy.

[@IAM0973D3]

Neither came first you need mass to create energy and a opposing force to this mass for the Big Bang as well inflation.

[@vids595]

No mass is not required to "make energy". If anything it is the other way around but that's not exactly correct either.

[@talkingmudcrab718]

8:25 Are they having a physics lecture at an Ayahuasca retreat? lmao

[@RickDelmonico]

As space becomes thinner, time becomes denser.

[@DoseofScienceDoS]

Space isn’t getting thinner, it’s getting bigger

[@RickDelmonico]

@@DoseofScienceDoS Space is not actually a thing. The material in it is getting thinner. It sure as heel ain't getting thicker.

[@killermmouse8874]

@@RickDelmonico well space is a thing it’s the fabric of space time. But your thought is almost the same as from a sci-fi book where each dimension you move down the faster time goes

[@RickDelmonico]

@@killermmouse8874 You are not paying attention. At finer scales the energy goes up. Prove me wrong. I've heard this over and over from major physicists. The denser (more matter) a region of space is the slower clocks tick. In empty space, clocks tick faster. This is a pressure gradient of spacetime. Einstein's relativity.

[@RickDelmonico]

@@killermmouse8874 Does Time Cause Gravity? PBS Space Time KZbin Channel

[@Eigil_Skovgaard]

Expanding in what?

[@vids595]

The observable universe is expanding based on observation, we do not know if it is expanding "into" any other space/times or simply expanding. Not every aspect of the universe should you expect to make intuitive sense to an animal that evolved to operate on the surface of Earth.

[@Eigil_Skovgaard]

@@vids595 That's comforting, Aaron, then the far fetched idea of an expanding universe is put into the right frame of animal science. You probably know that the so-called redshift has been misunderstood for light from objects that should be moving away - but don't?

[@bballen3097]

@@vids595 Our ability to observe to greater distances is certainly expanding, and it would seem that distances between objects that we can observe are expanding, but the universe is everywhere and we don't have knowledge to speak of everywhere.

[@wulphstein]

Why don't you decompose the expanding universe into a large number of expanding spheres that expand at the speed of light and are constantly being created..?

[@vids595]

What does that mean and why would you? Have you taken a college physics class?

[@javiermk1055]

If the dark energy average density is constant, as the universe expands, it can only be because it is pouring "over here" from "somewhere outside". Simple. ask any 5 year old. Connected universes, maybe thru black holes or other artifacts of the sort. We need to a) keep things simple, b) not be afraid of wild theories. You heard it from me first!

[@geradakiapen4083]

The Universe expands due to time (space time)... As time progresses time also dilates... Time dilates due to everything in the Universe has data (quantitative & qualitative) and a timeline.. the timelines of matter (mass, particle etc..) cause distortion of time and dilation of time ultimately causing the Universe to expand... The distortion of timelines of "Quantum" particles to the massive planets and stars etc. all contribute towards the distortion and dilation (timeframe intervals) of the overall timeline of the Universe... (Distortion - as in changes in data/information in timelines impacted by energy, forces, other matter, other timelines, bonds, etc. setting up the boundary of the timeline and the dilation along the timeline). As everything in the Universe has a timeline and timeframe intervals then there's a high probability that the Universe also has a timeline and timeframe intervals... A stone, a human and an atom all have a starting point and an end... There is data in the past, in the present and in the future for everything in the Universe and for the Universe itself (data storage, energy storage etc... as time progresses so to will storage increase)... To each their own, this is my perspective... (Who knows for sure but the creator of the Universe)...

[@HWJJSCHUMACHER]

"THIS IS RIGHT" ::: WE LIVE IN THE 86th "BOUNCE" AND GO INTO THE 87th BOUNCE !!! (SAYS MY GURU)

[@BenjaminGoose]

Take your meds.

[@bluesque9687]

The understanding of this universe should start with understanding duality. I think we are obsessed with unity or singularity or just plain number 1. But what if for our understanding, not merely for counting purposes, we start with the number 2. So, if you see a 1 then another 1 must exist.

[@Archbishop-Desmond-Tutu]

0 and 1 are dual

[@bluesque9687]

@@Archbishop-Desmond-Tutu yea 0 and 1 are dual... but you can't do much math with 0 that affects a change... and then it quickly degenerates into a mere philosophical inquiry.

[@Archbishop-Desmond-Tutu]

@@bluesque9687 u and I seem to wonder about the same sort of things. It's all duality. I try to think about how to extract all of reality from very basic dualities, like 0 and 1

[@Archbishop-Desmond-Tutu]

Sorry, I didn't mean extract. I meant something more like recover

[@bluesque9687]

To recover or to understand or represent anything in 0s and 1s is the whole computer science all over again. I think in terms of more like 1 and -1. A sort of opposites.

[@Krisoler]

The big problem with the cosmic inflation model is that it is a geocentric model, since it is considered that the Universe is exclusively the observable Universe, and that the observable Universe was microscopic in size and that suddenly with cosmic inflation it would have expanded greatly, while retaining considerable homogeneity. However, nothing assures us that an alien living in the confines of our observable Universe has its own observable Universe and that it extends beyond ours, and so on, there could be endless observable Universes for aliens living in the confines of other observable Universes. The logical thing (not geocentric) is to think that the universe is infinite (if it is flat), so that in the Big Bang the infinite Universe was not of a microscopic size but was equally infinite although with a gigantic density, that is that there were very little space between particles, but the number of particles was equally infinite! This may sound absurd but perhaps what happens is that space is not fundamental but emergent, space would simply be the intensity with which particles and bodies interact computationally with each other, a lot of interaction would be expressed as a very curved space-time (a lot of information with a longer computation time), little interaction would be expressed as a less curved space-time (little information with a shorter computation time): Dark energy would be the acceleration in the breakdown of communication between particles in a search for make computing more efficient! Perhaps in the Big Bang the infinite Universe was something like a Bose-Einstein condensate in which all the particles were at their fundamental energy level, since there was so little space there simply could not be another quantum state, of course when saying that there was little space we are really saying that all the particles interacted very strongly with each other, then the Universe expanded and new possible quantum states arose, that is to say that some particles began to interact less with others and that allowed new quantum states to be possible! And perhaps Roger Penrose's Eons changes are moments when particles suddenly "decide" to communicate very intensely with all the others (a process that could very well be called Cosmic Death), which suddenly makes space disappear and to start a new Aeon!

[@schmetterling4477]

You need to get help with that. ;-)

[@glomerol8300]

Penrose's Escher's 'Angels & Devils' looks fractal and maybe it is. Fractals appear everywhere in nature. Furthermore, if recalled correctly, they are self-similar and infinite in scale. So Penrose is onto something. As I've said elsewhere, the universe could be one giant fractal.

[@NondescriptMammal]

It's not fractal, it is simply a particular hyperbolic transform applied to a circular tessellation.

[@s4uss]

Way too much weird stuff is happening for this to be the original universe. This is all a simulation with pretty arbitrary laws. Can you imagine the original universe making such weird laws, with gravity and quantum mess. If you think about this universe as a simulation, a lot of the things make sense. That indeed it's all programmed and abstract, which makes it almost impossible to extrapolate into cohesive "theory of everything". And it annoys me that physicists never even touch on this. Because implications of this and our perspective on this would and should change pretty substantially, looking at it all from a simulation point of view - which is with everything we know and logic and statistics can tell us - is far more likely than this being the original universe. Talks physicists are having now are not complete or wholesome. Logic and philosophy is missing from their ideas - in which simulation theory naturally would emerge as a very likely truth. You just can't reach "theory of everything" if you're tunnel-visioned, and only go from large scale to smaller, you need to simultaneously start from the smallest and philosophical and logical implications and try to meet somewhere "in the middle".

[@nunya_bizniz]

If we are in a simulation, there would be no way to ever know. It's impossible. It's a waste of time to contemplate. We have no access to outside the simulation just the same as if we built a simulation those simulations could never have access to our reality. If we are constructs, there is no way to test or know this.

[@flydungas]

yeah and maybe it was programmed by a guy named Jesus Godson

[@schmetterling4477]

If all you have is a simulation, then you are a man with a dull mind. ;-)

[@davidwilkie9551]

Experimental Neuroscience "took advantage" of a situation where the Corpus Callosium was cut to prevent "Brain Storms" in susceptible people, by checking out the after effects on vision, hearing and motor coordination etc. One such effect was the discovery of Left-Right visual centres being on opposite sides of the brain instead of directly in line with the forward part of the brain, of which eyes are an extension of nerve tissue during foetal development. So in short, if you put a card in line with the centre line of a fixed gaze, the Subject under study experiences two different worlds in parallel, one hard-solid mathematical, and the other more emotional and associative. So it's a reasonable Neurological Thesis to reverse the Observable process and suggest a reason why Cognitive Biases exist according to learning by doing Intuition and seeing direct connections to memorise. The "World View" of Rote Learning, is literally seeking one side of Actuality with a Cognitive Bias to feel half-truth in separation, in a Universe of QM-TIME vibration in which separation is this (understandable) illusion. Specifically, the Institute for Art and Ideas has a Charter to provide the appropriate Teaching and Learning Curricula, Cultural Environment that reconnects the development of the Gaian Ecology of information In-form-ation. "I see what I eat is not the same as I eat what I see", not in vertical integration of Reciproction-recirculation QM-TIME Completeness e-Pi-i Singularity, that is. (Because leadlag time duration timing modulation as distance in 2-ness is not superposition of orthogonal-normal relative-timing ratio-rates proportioning in landscape horizons, distance vertical height superimposed orientation.., speaking Artistic-holistically in conscious awareness of Mind-Body Completeness)

[@vids595]

string of gibberish.

[@tajzikria5307]

Truth is nobody knows!

[@al1383]

Hear me out.... We know the universe is expanding. We know space is "growing" between galaxies. But, does space "grow" everywhere? Like between the moon and the earth? Black holes are so dense they displace the fabric of the universe, that is the same area of the black holes size. This displacement of the fabric of the universe is now in multiples around the black hole. Because we have multiples of the fabric of the universe, we also have multiples of the expansion of the universe. THIS is what causes gravity.

[@schmetterling4477]

Gravitationally bound systems are not expanding unless the universe were to accelerate rapidly in the future.

[@birhan2006]

total vacuum and infinity are in conflict

[@bitkurd]

Lao Tzu described Penrose’s model thousands of years ago, without having any computers and telescopes 😅

[@vids595]

Interesting, can you post a link expanding on this? I see no support of the claim.

[@proksenospapias9327]

And one stoner in 856 AD while high, started telling stories about giant lizards 30 ft high. That doesn't make him a paleontologist and it sure as hell doesn't make Lao Tzu a cosmologist.

[@CACBCCCU]

Penrose's ideas for a cyclic universe are dependent on "space-time," a worn-out dead-end religious concept. He supposes continuum problems with space-time can be avoided by extending it down to accepting particle scale gravity wells but stopping there to avoid imagined instabilities that would otherwise result heading down to Planck scale. Suppose coldness in matter gives gravity a retro-reflective focus, gravity becomes more efficient at covering unlimited range as a result of cold focus, eventually starting a big cold reset. Suppose gravity is carried by dipoles that are Planck scale yet pitch-rotate at galactic scale rate instead. Big Bang came from a priest who studied under that famous quaker political pacifist and amateur water divinator, Richard Nixon, oops I meant Arty Eddington. Astro Arty was the most prominent popularizer of taking the idea of "let's suppose for our metrology that gravity doesn't change light speed" and turning it into the mandatory religion of curved spacetime with an assist from Minkowski. It's all joyously downhill into heat death from there. You could use a clock that produces photons at a regular rate to serve as a check on a clock that produces photons in a regular color, because Heisenberg rules out clocks that do both. So, it's a foregone conclusion that GPS (re)calibration is(was) not an open process even as it mooted the need for GR theory in the first place. I'd also suggest that encoding the geometry of an entropy-correcting code could naturally involve three intersecting quark orbitals sharing a nucleon's gravity center and flattening out to overlap least when cold.

[@deanodebo]

Your entropy-correcting geometry hypothesis begs the question, sir.

[@CACBCCCU]

@@deanodebo A question of why do protons never decay? Treating entropy increase avoidance as an error correction process begs a question of anything else to you? A question on the relevance of closed system engineering physics (thermodynamics) in earth science and cosmology? Feynman suggested quantizing gravity (with monopolar quantized negative energy, it seems) would create runaway feedback, which apparently would destroy the universe with a sort of tornado-like efficiency. He was begging a question. It was a question of why anyone should believe him. As far as "sir" goes, a case of feigned politeness at this point would not look good on you. If you noticed that it points back to a cold gravity focus concept, then good for you and have a nice day in advance.

[@pelimies1818]

..and we’re back on the endless tower of turtles..

[@RickDelmonico]

These appeals to perpetual motion and something from nothing are supremely dissatisfying and violate the first and second law of thermodynamics.

[@carywalker7662]

I don't believe those laws apply to the universe itself; they apply to closed systems. We already know energy is not conserved in an expanding universe. Our uncovering of the laws of nature have gone from the medium sized to the very small and the very large because we are roughly medium sized. However, if we could have started at one extreme or the other and worked our way through to the other end, we would have a better understanding and likely realize that some "laws" of the medium spring from something more fundamental and different.

[@quantumentanglementsolved2531]

The expanding universe is one of the human’s greatest blunder. And it’s sad that we keep sliding in factual observations to back it up.

[@schmetterling4477]

You need to get help with that. ;-)

[@LuvHrtZ]

The Universe has ALWAYS been the same size relative to itself - you need to see this from a different perspective. To say that it suddenly 'expanded' within a microsecond is just jibberish. If time and space didn't exist at that time then how can any sane person use those terms to describe what was happening? I've actually heard respected scientists say that it was about the size of Mars... but compared to what?

[@schmetterling4477]

You need to get help with that. ;-)

[@James-ll3jb]

What is Sean Carroll even doing there??!? Twice defrocked of tenure, Chicago and Cal Tech😅

[@HWJJSCHUMACHER]

8.40 ... ::: THE BIG BANG STARTED FROM A SINGLE POINT ;;; BUT EVERYWHERE AT ONCE (NOT LIKE A OLD TV SCREEN BUT MORE LIKE A NEWER FLAT SCREEN"

[@HWJJSCHUMACHER]

SORRY ::: "NOT FROM A SIGLE POINT"

[@bballen3097]

A single point is not everywhere. The universe is everywhere, not everything. Nothing can exist or occur without a place for it to be. A big bang is an occurrence in the universe which may have occurred at one point and affected many other points. We can not know if it affected all points everywhere because we can not observe everywhere.

[@vids595]

It's hilarious that the comments are nothing but very confident idiots, who could not do calculus and have never taken a physics course.

[@nellwhiteside3042]

The Universe is self-organising - no god necessary.

[@md.noorulkarim5542]

Your cell phone is self organising no manufacturer needed.

[@bballen3097]

@@md.noorulkarim5542 A cell phone is not naturally occurring but nature is. Nature has produced a life form with characteristics that led this life form to produce a cell phone.

[@physicshacks6349]

@@md.noorulkarim5542 ignorant Muslim

[@JCO2002]

Inflation is nothing but a patch job.

[@peterwilliamson2965]

That plant needs to expand away from that hand!

[@goldy1323]

sound is catrastrof.....

[@rd9831]

Scientist: in the first millionth millionth second, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. Me: but nothing can move faster than the speed of light Scientists: light was not discovered then. .😂

[@BenjaminGoose]

Nothing *in the universe* can travel faster than the speed of light. The universe itself is not bound by this rule.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

Expansion of the universe has no speed exactly, it has a speed per unit distance.

[@tubehepa]

FWIW, as to 70 percent antigravity; Rgveda, puruSa-suukta: tripaad asya amRtaM divi (three quarters of Him [is] immortal in heaven...) 😂

[@gtg309v]

When someone starts talking about dark energy and dark matter, they are talking out of their ass.

[@Paine137]

Explain the acceleration of the Universe and the additional gravity required to keep galaxies together. Aaand, go:

[@HWJJSCHUMACHER]

8.15 ::: YOU CAN NOT UNDERSTAN IT ::: BECAUSE YOU ARE LOST IN "PARTICL PHYSICS"

[@Brucec-x6r]

There is no physical universe.reality exist in the human mind and nowhere else

[@Paine137]

Ok, Neo.

[@HWJJSCHUMACHER]

WHY IS THE (THREE DIMENSIONAL) UNIVERSE DOES NOT EXPAND EVERYWHERE AT THE SAME RATE ??? YOU HAVE NO IDEA !!!

[@johnlawrence2757]

You can watch this man’s body language and the fixed expression on his face and perceive that he knows he has wasted his life trying to prove how clever he is, and in consequence has spent all his time analysing a concept - warped space time continuum and gravitational waves - that everyone knows is a fantasy

[@schmetterling4477]

You need to get help with that.

[@johnlawrence2757]

@@schmetterling4477 my advice to you is:- if you have nothing to say, don’t say anything - si on n’a rien à dire, ne dites pas rien

[@pr9415]

Dark energy and inflation are essentially the same thing😮

[@luigicantoviani323]

Penrose transfering knowledge and some others jibber jabbering

[@BlueScreen28]

🙃

[@flattieconvert4684]

We are not living on a spinning wet ball flying aimlessly through a space. Water finds its level and rests level. It does not bend around a ball no matter how big.

[@vids595]

Well, no dumber than the other comments so carry on I guess.

[@trevorbates8972]

I can help...you see...there are two, prime, universal dimensions. One riding over and through the other. The big-bang is what set the first static dimension in motion with millions of galaxy sized, massless clouds, hurtling away from the epicentre of a collision force that occurred at 186000 miles per second. A galaxy cloud accelerator was responsible for this collision, and ensured the high-speed expanding dimension clashed with the static dimension creating holes which are an imploding force...just as the Higgs field, gravity, and all electromagnetic forces have...but we need the Holy Bible to track it all succesfully...especially when it comes to tracking the electromagnetic behaviour of the living cell.

[@vids595]

sounds like you need help yourself rather than offering it.

[@trevorbates8972]

@@vids595 You obviously have no concept of The Grand Unification of the Four Universal Field Forces...so I forgive you. It is the field concealed within hormones that I am specialising in and when you realise that it is already contained within the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, you will want it too.

[@vansf3433]

expanding of human ignorance

[@SpokoSpoko]

Sean Carroll shows a centimeter definitely too big. Most likely he confused it with an inch.

[@HWJJSCHUMACHER]

"BUBBELIG QUANTUM SOUP" ::: HAHAHAAAAA HA HA

[@IvanMectin]

And the simple answer is....We don't know! You have a choice of 2 religions. God or Space Science. Both are based on Faith. None are based on fact!

[@ericfarina3935]

Disclaimer: the kinds of points you learned about in geometry do not exist. There is objectively no such thing as a discrete finite point, but the perception of the point limited to a given space is what allows us determinative focus. Every probability wave in the Universe converges on a point-that is what we call "present". There is only one present at any given time. The probability waves that are internalized by the point form the object-this is how reality is realized. In this way the object becomes the effect resulting from the infinite Universe, and because the Universe is infinite, so too the object is infinite even though not all probabilities are internalized. This is what distinguishes probability from reality. The probabilities which are not internalized are rejected-that which is not internalized is externalized. In this way the object becomes the cause resulting in the infinite Universe, and because the object is infinite, so too the Universe is infinite even though not all probabilities are externalized.

[@ericfarina3935]

I will hear no more of this "we don't know" nonsense. There is Only One Truth: The Universe is Infinite. For your information, I got that line from Stargate SG-1 Season 9, Episode 1. And I'm pretty damn sure the Ancients knew what they were talking about!

[@IvanMectin]

@@ericfarina3935 Dark Matter, Dark Energy make up 95/96% of everything in the Universe. What are they? Be the first Eric! Stargate 🫣

[@ericfarina3935]

@@IvanMectin "Dark Energy" is a misunderstood effect of observation in the infinite Universe. As we proceed from an infinite precession of physics, the Universe *appears* to expand. This is evidence of an *Objective Frame of Reference* , which can be described as an "Eternal Spectrum". There are wavelengths that would seem "inconceivably small" to us, and frequencies that seem "inconceivably vast" to us. The Universe did not "emerge". *one could say, it has always been expanding, and it will expand forevermore. No matter what your perspective, all knowing observers will agree, that the Universe "appears" to "originate" and "expand" from a so-called "singular point of infinite density"* . This is what scientists call "Dark Energy" or "the Thermodynamic arrow of time" (they haven't realized yet that these are one and the same).

[@ericfarina3935]

@@IvanMectin "Dark Matter" is an umbrella term, for a literally infinite variety of phenomenon. I'll give you the short explanation: Whatever happens on scales so "small" or "vast" that we can not readily perceive and/or quantify it, still affects us directly in every moment. This is what scientists call "Dark Matter".

[@atmanbrahman1872]

God created heaven & earth.

[@mrmustard1633]

what's the equation for that one?

[@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos]

“Man created God in his own image.” - Ludwig Feuerbach

[@notanemoprog]

Who created god?

[@smlanka4u]

@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos, CMB radiation showed that the early universe was very huge. And the name called Big Bang was helpful for creationists to prevent people from thinking about energy collisions that could happen in an existing universe. If energy beams collided and made matter and antimatter during the Big Bang, then it is safe to say that it was a Big Bounce. Astronomers and scientists should try to change that name (Big Bang) if they are really truthful. The interpretation about the growth of space called ‘increasing vacuum energy’ is simply like a misleading interpretation because it can be some extra space that comes faster into the observable universe uniformly. Likely, there was a lot of extra space outside the observable universe. Energy is not something that exists, and energy is an output. So the name vacuum energy is an irrelevant answer because it only mentions the output, ignoring the growth of space (virtual particles). The space (virtual particles) inside galaxies shows that space doesn't make extra space from nothing. Probably, the earliest state of the emerging universe and near the edge of the expanding universe made a state of point source energy fields that could collide later becoming matter and antimatter. Perhaps, high-speed beams of energy must collide with each other to make matter and antimatter including the virtual particles in space. Probably, the virtual particles would conserve their change without a positive energy. And observations show that a lot of energies require a lot of space to begin with scientifically, and the massless energy beams use space to exist and collide with each other. The wavelength of high-energy particles is relatively small, but it doesn't make their electromagnetic waves small. So comparing the capacity of energy in high-energy particles relative to its wavelength with the wavelength of energy in the early universe to tell that the early universe emerged from a very tiny high-energy (singularity) that didn't use a lot of space because it had an almost infinitely small wavelength is not a good analogy. Also, the space between galaxies doesn't show a growth with Dark Energy. So Dark Energy is not likely a product of existing space. According to Abhidhamma, “a rain of energized water (like water sticks, water robs, etc) fills the world (island universe) gradually, and stays stably-filled for a long time until cosmic air (virtual particles) comes into the filled world (island universe), causing to start the expansion. And then, the world (island universe) stays stably-expanded until the contraction.” Virtual particles in space (like air) can come into low dense areas of space (between galaxies) from outside of the island universe until those virtual particles can go there with a maximum speed (upto the speed of light) to distribute virtual particles uniformly between galaxies. It is the most possible explanation.

[@thstroyur]

@@mrmustard1633 God = Creator of the heavens & Earth. Happy now?

[@bornatona3954]

What those insects talking about ... that's proving stone age never end

[@buca512boxer]

Sean is wrong. Sir Roger is right.