There are PROBLEMS with the Big Bang Theory!

#Cosmology #BigBang #Inflation
The Big Bang model is one of the most spectacularly successful paradigms in all of science. We have robust evidence for a dense, hot, early phase of the universe, ranging from the origin of matter to the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation that I study. But how did the Big Bang itself happen? Why does the Universe have the peculiar features that it does?
The answer, according to many cosmologists, lies in the theory of Inflation. I've pointed out some uncomfortable consequences of inflation, such as the Multiverse, in previous videos. But today's video does a deep dive into Inflation's many successes and points out ways it solves several problems in the Big Bang Model.
An inflation crash course!
Cosmic Microwave Background maps courtesy of NASA’s WMAP and ESA’s Planck
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @drbriankeating
Support the podcast: / drbriankeating
And please join my mailing list to get resources and enter giveaways to win a FREE copy of my book (and more) briankeating.co... 📝
🎥 🎥 Watch my most popular videos🎥 🎥
Frank Wilczek • Nobel Prizewinner Fran...
Weinstein and Wolfram • Stephen Wolfram vs. Er...
Sheldon Glashow: • Sheldon Glashow: The P...
Michael Saylor The Physics of Bitcoin • Michael Saylor: The Ph...
Sir Roger Penrose, Nobel Prize winner: • Nobel Prize in Physics...
Jill Tarter • Jill Tarter: Time to S...
Sara Seager Venus LIfe: • Did Scientists Discove...
Noam Chomsky: • Noam Chomsky: Consciou...
Sabine Hossenfelder: • Sabine Hossenfelder: T...
Sarah Scoles: • Sarah Scoles, Author o...
Stephen Wolfram: • Has Stephen Wolfram di...
🏄‍♂️ Find me on Twitter at / drbriankeating
🔥 Find me on Instagram at / drbriankeating
📖 Buy my book LOSING THE NOBEL PRIZE: amzn.to/2sa5UpA
🔔 Subscribe for more great content www.youtube.co...
✍️Detailed Blog posts here: briankeating.c...
📧Join my mailing list: briankeating.co...
👪Join my Facebook Group: / losingthenobelprize
🎙️Please subscribe, rate, and review the INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast on iTunes: itunes.apple.c...
🎙️Listen on all other platforms: wavve.link/into
A production of imagination.ucs...
Support the podcast: / drbriankeating
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Plays the Race Card!"
• Neil DeGrasse Tyson Hi...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~

[@DrBrianKeating]

Are you convinced that inflation is the answer to cosmology's unsolved mysteries?

[@spaceinyourface]

Definitely part of the answer .

[@gregoryhead382]

If: ((speed of light/(m_e))N)^-1 = 3.03856333×10^-39 s^3/m^2 Then: solar panel power specific weight, transformer specific weight, & mass per power, are the results from Wolfram|Alpha.

[@sciencedaddio1643]

I am really look forward to this. Thank you. Equations, equations, equations please.

[@radical137]

Yes, but the part about isotropy might be confusing. The temperature of the CMB is isotropic, then and the temperature of patches of sky today are also isotropic. But, at the largest scales we can observe, there are anisotropic properties like strings, webs and walls in the structure of the distribution of the galaxies. Right? Also, there an infinite theoretical number of positive and negative curvatures, but there cannot be infinite positive or negative curvature. This would imply infinite energy density. There is one observed flat curvature, which may the result of some summation of positive and negative curvature.

[@sciencedaddio1643]

@@radical137 I think if you consider the size and amount of any fluction in a particular direction, as a percentage of the overall size of the universe, then from a probability standpoint you find the same probability for the same quantity and sizes of fluctuations in any direction. If you had no coordinate system, there would be no natuarally occuring patern(s) to give you any reason to believe one direction was any different, in any way, to all directions.

[@jyjjy7]

"So, the numbers become astronomical." Hmm, really. The number of astronomical objects becomes astronomical... you don't say 🤔

[@stay_at_home_astronaut]

I see what you did there.

[@objvst]

That's why they call it Astron-O'my?

[@sliglusamelius8578]

I’m thinking it was tongue in cheek….but you missed the quip.

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

@@sliglusamelius8578 I don't think they missed it... that's obviously why they made the comment, LOL! 😄

[@edreusser4741]

Did you say how large the radius of the casual circles are? In km?

[@morgunstyles7253]

I dont think there was a big bang. However , to say something happened a so many billion years ago, is based on our understanding of time as we know it. What was a year before our sun existed?

[@Thor_Asgard_]

as a physics student in germany such things always blow my mind. existence is really mindblowing.

[@notallowed337]

Agreed. Its so fragile and we take it for granted.

[@chriswinchell1570]

@@notallowed337 I’m convinced the universe conspired to exist just to screw me.

[@notallowed337]

@@chriswinchell1570 🤣🤣🤣

[@ibnyahud]

i agree these days I fall asleep watching TV or movies but get up dancing like a weirdo when I learn something incredible about our amazing world

[@kennethadkins8432]

Yes it is but you can see the macro cosmic geometric currvititure shape of our void in the universe that is the right energy/entropy state it is....

[@Chris.Davies]

I'll go further: The Big Bang Never happened.

[@darioinfini]

We can study inflation in real time as we print endless supplies of money to chase limited goods and services. They must have been doing it at the beginning as well.

[@captainzappbrannagan]

You would need a particle collider the size of the universe to test inflation, I'm not sure we will ever have certainty, thankfully we don't require certainty. I'll be interested in testable prediction review.

[@thomasgilson6206]

2:12 Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "in the *observable* universe"? The statement, as is, implies that there is a known size of the universe and it exactly corresponds to the optical horizon at our current location and time. That could even be modified to read "in Earth's current time- and space-adjusted observable universe".

[@bigdefense777]

I’m not smart enough to know if you’re right or wrong, but I respect you talking about alternate points of view and showing the issues with the things everyone seems to take for granted

[@chuckschillingvideos]

2:58 "Inflationary cosmology is a paradigm that predicts an early, ultra fast, exponential expansion of space-time itself" I'm wondering how the past can be "predicted" ?? Inflationary cosmology is a potential explanation, but NOT a prediction of the origins of the universe as we know it.

[@Barbreck1]

False premises from the outset: "Cosmic Genesis"- That's an assumption- not an established fact. "Why do we need it" (Cosmic Inflation)- We don't, except to justify the earlier assumption. "Why is inflation successful"- It isn't. It's a poor hypothesis built upon scant evidence.

[@Chirality452]

It would seem to me that if flatness is a strong as presented here going back to the earliest intents of the universe then at the classical level (GR) in the FLRW solutions we are in a k=0 case which is inherently Euclidean. When we go far back we will get into quantum gravity regions which would be over come classical GR. Could the possibility of us being in a k=0 universe be the explanation of flatness? This has the implication that the universe was infinite from the start. That is it didn't start from a point or rather a region a Plank Length in size but it was infinite at t=0. Any thoughts about that? The k=1 would seem ruled out as it would be more curved the further back you go and topological different. K= -1 is also always infinite as well.

[@keithmcgarrigle2653]

Scientists have the data on the most red shifted Galaxies from the Hubble telescope the Ninties. They could collect new data. The difference between the data would prove the expansion of the Universe or not?

[@GamesBond.007]

How exactly can one imagine space being other than flat is mind bending. Just because you assume space can bend somehow, or draw some imaginary curves on a paper doesnt make it plausible. Space alone cannot take the surface of a sphere, or any geometrical object. Space cannot be spherical, cubical etc. Those are geometric figures that can only exist inside a flat 3d space. I dare you to draw a sphere inside the surface of a sphere.

[@glennnile7918]

So if I have this correct, the big bang happened, from nothing, in a place that did not exist before the big bang? Perhaps a much more plausible explanation is, at some point, something did not have to have a beginning. I will take one impossibility over two impossibilities all day long. Am I wrong?

[@JimGobetz]

More excellent content, these videos make a great addition to your interviews. Thanks as always Brian, your work here is much appreciated

[@DrBrianKeating]

My pleasure!

[@d1d234]

Thank you so very much for creating these videos. After listening to many different theoretical Physicists explain the same thing, I can finally take my first step into understanding. You explain why the Inflation Theory makes sense. I’m a little wary of the Multiverse idea simply because something with a number of 10 to the 500th power of “Verses” seems excessive, especially with no way to test the theory. Penrose’s idea is more within the realm of what I can grasp, but still seems untestable. Still, being a believer in Jesus, none of these ideas is outside of what is possible or believable according to the Bible simply because the Bible says so very little about such things. On the other hand, what it does say extends beyond what can be said about either a 4 Dimension Universe or a single Universe. After all, what can a “Heaven” be unless it is another Universe, something existing in extra dimensions, or something else we can’t even grasp at. I do understand a Physicists dilemma in wanting to have a Condition of Physics to NOT be by fiat. We all want to know HOW it all works. We also want to know Why, but they are separate issues, perhaps.

[@marbleman52]

Douglas Rundell....Yes, trying to wrap our un-trained physicist minds ( at least my mind ) around the math and explanations in this video is, as the saying goes: "mind boggling". You said that the idea of 10 to the 500th power of multiverses seems "excessive". Yep, that's a big number, but an estimated 500,000,000 galaxies in the known Universe, with each of those 1/2 Trillion galaxies having about 1/2 Trillion stars in it....is also a huge and almost incomprehensible number..!! And how far past our 'known' universe does the entire Universe extend? Can you imagine that just in our own Milky Way Galaxy, how many of those 1/2 Trillion stars has it's own type of solar system and in those untold numbers of solar systems there are the right conditions for intelligent and sentient life? This is also mind boggling. And I agree with you, I am a Christian and I see no conflict with science and the 'why 'and 'how' math and theories of our universe. You are correct, there is very little written in our Bible about how the universe began. In Genesis 1:1 it says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." Okay, but it doesn't say HOW LONG that beginning lasted. And which beginning...the beginning of the universe, or perhaps the beginning of our Solar System and the forming of Earth? We are not told. The estimated age of the Universe is, what, about 12-14 billion years. And geology puts the age of Earth at about 4 1/2 billion years. So...Earth wasn't formed until about 8 billion years after the universe began. So...once again I ask: which beginning? There is no conflict here. The conflict is with Christians who try and make Genesis a perfect, chronologically accurate time-table of events...."in the beginning". Genesis was not written to be that and was never intended to be that.

[@animefurry3508]

Sabine sent me, and im not disappointed, in fact very impressed!

[@averybrooks2099]

Welcome, you should check out the interviews. The Wolfram/Weinstein interview is pretty interesting if you're looking for something fun. :)

[@guest_informant]

I'm here from Sabine too. Having a look round. See what it's like.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Hope you stay. I have my second conversation with Sabine coming up this month.

[@GamesBond.007]

If the universe sits on a flat sheet of space, then according to present science it means it has no mass at all. This proves that: 1. the universe does not exist 2. scientists live in a paralel universe.

[@humblegrenade118]

More stuff is being added to the Universe all the time , and there is a lot more energy in the Cosmos now than there was billions of years ago that could not come from a Big Bang Theory, and the Universe has expansion contraction cycles that sciences haven’t figured out yet and their stuck on the expansion only Theory and the Bang that started it, so science is still in the box about a lot of things

[@KaliFissure]

Neutron decay cosmology The physical process, path of least action solution to black hole paradoxes, dark energy, dark matter and critical density maintenance Neutrons/matter which eventually contact/cross event horizon horizons become the vacuum energy for one Planck second then re-emerge in lowest density points of space where they decay into amorphous atomic hydrogen. The decay process from neutron to proton, electron and neutrino (hydrogen) is a transition from near point particle to one cubic meter A volume increase of 10⁴⁵ times Expansion. Dark energy The decay product, amorphous atomic hydrogen, doesn't have stable orbital electron so can't emit or absorb photons Dark matter In time the hydrogen stabilizes and follows usual evolution pathway from gas to filament to proto star to star until in the distant future it is again about to contact an event horizon The universe is steady state but constantly locally evolving A continuous flow down the gravity hill Event horizons acting as one way energy pressure release valves venting from highest energy pressure conditions to lowest From aggregated singularity to dispersed distributed diffuse Neutron decay cosmology Think it through It's inevitable

[@samwalton9472]

This is not a critical comment but rather an observation as I find it truly amazing that with all of the brain trust on this planet, no matter what theories are created and explored, none of them can work without injecting theology at some point. They are all cool theories but the truth of it is that something doesn't come from nothing and nothing is something (apply that to before the big bang, what the big bang 'inflated' into and the material to form / explode from the singularity). I encourage you and your colleagues to continue your work without theology. I believe that injecting faith will skew and / or cover up legitimately explainable phenomenon. However, once you have exhausted all of your explanations, the one that is left over, no matter how improvable, will be your answer. I may not be part of the collective post collegiate brain trust however, I already found my answer and I take comfort that it is theologically based.

[@sanjuansteve]

I think black holes are simply super dense spheres of mass (not unlike neutron stars or white dwarfs, just more dense) that have become dense enough that their event horizon diameter exceeds the sphere’s diameter, going black from our view. If a neutron star is neutrons touching neutrons with no apparent motion, I think black holes with their next level of gravity and density have the quarks and gluons pressed together with no remaining apparent motion or vibrations at all. I think Einstein's wrong, that time is constant and that dark matter is the limiting factor to the speed of light. I think it’s not 'space-time' bending but rather gravitational and dark matter density variations.

[@JungleJargon]

It's not plausible that everything came from nowhere. It's more likely that the limited measurable quantities of matter, time and distance, that we see, came from an infinite unending source. The logic is that you can't have anything without having everything. Try charging your phone from an equal or lesser amount of charge. It has to be a greater charge.... from a greater charge... from a greater charge... ✨ Anything proves everything. It's called contingency. At some point there has to be an infinite source for every limited physical thing.

[@RavenJack23]

Also have you done a good segment on the electric universe. I have seen some debunking videos that appear, to me, to fail to attempt to steelman some of the ideas. So for instance, some will say - oh electric universe proponents think gravity doesn't do anything - which is of course ridiculous and untrue. In particular - what do you think about the idea that perhaps we are misinterpreting redshift - that perhaps the redshift-distance correlation we see is from something other than expansion?

[@trinity9365]

I really enjoy your teaching Dr.Keating and I’m fascinated by physics and cosmology, but I have no education at all. I get that the universe is flat and the observable universe is 93 million light years across, and all the same temperature, but how deep is it top to bottom?

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

We might never know how we came to be as well matter but sure it would be a need to know how systems work: say sub atoms, atoms, cells, organs, our body, planets, stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies etc.

[@raphaelklaussen1951]

Lets not confuse "improbable" with "impossible". Should someone who wins the lottery forfeit cashing in the prize because he feels his luck is practically impossible? Don't think so. Enjoy your improbable universe and the statistics that made it possible.

[@corthew]

I don't know...According to the Christian Science community, if one person wins a race that 100,000 entered, the race must have been rigged because the odds of that one man winning are so incredibly high. Ok...Maybe that wasn't their exact argument but it was words to that effect. ;)

[@jacobostapowicz8188]

God did it

[@carlosoliveira-rc2xt]

Winning the lottery isn't improbable as it happens every week. Where are all your universes?

[@yziib3578]

If I was playing poker and someone, call him Bob. For the last 5 time Bob deals the hand, he get a Royal Flush. Should I marvel about and be happy about the money I lost because I am experiencing a once in a life time improbable event. Or should I use statistics and probability theory to question if I am playing in a fair game?

[@MuharremGorkem]

The most informative and well-presented video ever on the topic! Thank you Brian!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks so much ! Means the Multiverse to me

[@DingoHammer]

There seems to be a fundamental contradiction with big bang cosmology. If the entire universe was condensed into a point in the beginning then it should have remained a black hole, from which nothing can escape. Big bang cosmology implies that there is a mass limit for black holes beyond which they will explode into a new universes.

[@gspaulsson]

no matter/energy can escape because nothing can move through spacetime faster than c. But nothing limits the expansion of spacetime itself, hence hyperinflation.

[@corthew]

My personal opinion is that the "big bang" never ends or begins. As stuff is thrown out from the center it expands away from it, releasing energy as it goes. As it reaches the outer limits of the actual, (not known), universe, it loses that energy and begins falling back toward the center. Also, when someone say, "god did it", the correct response is, "yes but how". And if they then say, "its not for us to know", the response should be, "then why did God give me a mind desiring to know".

[@forsaken841]

Keep up the videos, loving your content!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thank you, soooo much

[@humphrex]

i never like the idea of the bigbang since it became popular. it makes no sense there was a "beginning", thats semi-religious bullshit. Most likely the universe always existed.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Could be!

[@Togidubnus]

Two years on, and the JWST keeps throwing up an impossible this, an impossible that, things that "shouldn't exist". It's usually at this point that a theory, when it is no longer backed up by observations, is thrown out.

[@damienroberts934]

Not 'God of the gaps', but, 'materialism of the chasms'...

[@Joshua-dc4un]

I don't think anybody is stuffing their beliefs into those chasms. Unlike religion

[@damienroberts934]

@@Joshua-dc4un Materialists do it all the time - Your comment is so clichéd. No thinking Christian accepts blindly. It is based on all sorts of evidence, argumentation and historicity. I would point out that materialists have no explanation for the big bang, the extreme fine tuning of the universe that makes life possible, the actual origin of life on earth from dumb and random chemical processes, or the origin of information at the centre of all biology that is encoded in dna... to say nothing of the fact that 'natural selection acting on random mutations' is increasingly coming under fire as woefully inadequate to explain anything other than the breaking of genes.The rhetoric is empty. MATERIALISM CAN'T EXPLAIN ANY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. Starting with those mentioned above. Chasms indeed.

[@Joshua-dc4un]

@@damienroberts934 I see you just want to spout borrowed arguments. There's a difference between not knowing and not knowing therefore X (god, which is what christians do)

[@damienroberts934]

@@Joshua-dc4un What is 'borrowed'? They are mainstream scientific facts. Materialists by definition believe in materialist causes. If they haven't been found or proven yet, they have 'faith' that materialist truths will be found in the future - that is not in the spirit of 'not knowing'. I say again - materialism of the chasms.

[@Joshua-dc4un]

@@damienroberts934 so what materialist beliefs are you referring to

[@milanpintar]

Can't the CMB temperature be caused by energy coming from another dimension or even more likely, a scalar variable that represents the real universe in which the observable universe is being spread into?

[@fredd841]

Don't Forget the Law of Large Numbers: A Statistical Perspective on the Uniformity of Universal Temperature" When exploring the mysteries of our universe, it's easy to get lost in the grandeur of cosmological theories. The Big Bang, cosmic inflation, and the steady state theory all provide fascinating frameworks to understand our cosmic origins. Yet, as we delve into these theories, it's crucial not to overlook a fundamental principle of probability and statistics that silently underpins our understanding of the universe: the Law of Large Numbers. The Law of Large Numbers states that as the sample size increases, the sample mean tends to converge to the true population mean. This principle applies universally, whether we're flipping coins or observing cosmic microwave background radiation. In the context of cosmology, we can consider each observable point in the universe as a 'sample' of universal temperature. Given the sheer scale of the universe, these samples number in the billions upon billions. According to the Law of Large Numbers, such a large sample size should result in a sample mean that closely approximates the true mean temperature of the universe. Importantly, this predictive power is not contingent on any specific cosmological origin story. Whether the universe began with a Big Bang, evolved slowly over time, or has always existed in a steady state, the Law of Large Numbers predicts that a sufficiently large sample will converge towards a uniform mean temperature. This is because the law is driven by the scale of the data, rather than any specific physical or cosmological processes. However, there are potential pitfalls to this approach. The Law of Large Numbers could potentially obscure significant temperature variations across the universe. In such a vast sample size, there could be large regions of the universe with vastly different temperatures that might be overlooked when focusing on the mean. Moreover, the law assumes that the samples being drawn are independent and identically distributed. This might not always be the case in cosmology due to factors like gravitational effects or dark matter. Additionally, there are practical limits to how much of the universe we can observe. In some regions, we might lack sufficient data to draw robust conclusions. Despite these challenges, the Law of Large Numbers provides a valuable predictive tool. It offers statistical reassurance that the uniformity we observe is not just a coincidence or a result of our particular vantage point, but a characteristic of the universe as a whole. Yet, we must remember that while this uniformity supports the Law of Large Numbers, it doesn't necessarily validate any specific cosmological theory about the universe's origin. Since the sample size is so large, the mean temperature of the universe cannot be used conclusively to back up any particular theory about how the universe began. This uniformity mainly substantiates the predictive power of the Law of Large Numbers, not any particular cosmological origin story. In conclusion, the Law of Large Numbers is a crucial lens through which to view the uniformity of the universe's temperature. While it offers a powerful tool for predicting and affirming this uniformity, it's important to remember its limitations and its agnosticism towards any specific cosmological theory. As we continue to explore the universe, this principle of probability and statistics will remain an essential companion, reminding us of the power and potential pitfalls of large numbers.

[@KelzBernard]

From the 14:50 to the 15:10 mark, Professor Keating begins to say that the only explanation for this fine tuning of the universe is that it was placed there by Hand, and that scientists reject this because they don’t want to impose the notion (or fiat theory) that there was a MIND behind the creation of our universe. These topics even existing within the scientific community is a somewhat nuanced approach to admitting that faith in God is not by any means unscientific. I am shocked at how stubborn us humans can be. We will take any alternative explanation for our existence as long as it doesn’t involve God.

[@mikebellamy]

_"physicists hate 'God'... how can we get rid of that idea"_ is your *BIGGEST problem!* The bible tells us _"the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom"_ that is the ability to discern *truth.* When you ask the question _"Where did all this stuff come from?"_ it is imperative you define what you mean by _"stuff"_ Thermodynamics requires us to describe _"stuff"_ by its _"momentum"_ and _"position"_ ie divide it into ENERGY and MATTER because they behave very differently over time or history as described by the *only* measurement that distinguishes past from future. ENTROPY. The simplest result from doing this is to run the video of the universe back in time from now. ENERGY as known from the CMBR can go back to a point we call the Big Bang but matter in the form of highly ordered stars and galaxies cannot. They must get bigger and more ordered as energy flows back in and is converted back into matter until they reach a point of maximum fuel, maximum order and minimum entropy. There is a simple proof of this: Mass of the universe = 1e80 protons Mass of a proton = 1.67e-27 Kg Mass of universe = 1.67e53 Kg Escape velocity v = square root (2GM/r) Rearrange to show radius for given M and v, r = 2GM/v^2 Now if v = speed of light (3e8 m/s) then the mass M will collapse into a black hole if contained within that radius Plugging in M = 1.67e53 and v = 3e8 m/s we get r = 2.48e26 m *That is if the mass of the universe was ever smaller than a diameter of 52.5 billion light years it would collapse into a black hole!!* Since also there is no experimental evidence that matter can be formed from collision of high energy photons (energy) without an equal antimatter particle the theory of the hot Big Bang producing all the matter in the very early hot stage of expansion is wrong. The result is all the *stuff* of the universe ie matter could only be created after the very rapid expansion of space and time. This is exactly the model given in the bible in Genesis about 6000 years ago: Day 1 God said _"let there be light"_ (wave energy which could be collapsed by a mind into particles with a very long history) Day 4 God _"made the stars also"_ (after the rapid expansion of space God collapses some of the wave to make the stars) QED.

[@oscarwindham6016]

The universe is definitely finite, according to Genesis 1:1, when one accepts the hypothesis that the word earth in English Bible Scripture, specifically the King James Version Bible, is a homonym that sometimes means the planet earth, Luke 18:8, and other times the word earth means the universe, i.e. Genesis 1:1, 2:1, Job 1:7, Isaiah 40:22, 66:1, Matthew 6:10, Revelation 12:9, and beyond this finite universe/earth which, by the way, is totally encapsulated in a water curtain and or barrier called the firmament, there is the infinite expanse of, up until now, unaccounted for antimatter that we who are of the Christian household of faith call the kingdom of heaven (Genesis 1:1). Just so you know.

[@fredd841]

If you invited all the people in the world to this food event, it would seem like everybody brought rice, just the sheer number number of people eating rice would drown out the rest of the worlds cuisine, the main impression would be that everyone on Earth eats rice, the size of the sample, the sheer size of the sample can give a false narrative by drowning out the variance that the example used in this video of everybody or I mean the 40,000 and bringing the same disgusting dish wouldn’t be accurate, it would be more accurate to say that every Bradley brought something and the dishes closely resembled of this disgusting dish, so everything looks like this disgusting dish and it would contain rice

[@jimyguitar3177]

There currently could be a earth like planet with intelligent life 25 billion light years from us. They would detect the CMB from all directions 13.7 billion years in the past also? How big was the universe 13.7 billion years in the past? Or how much bigger is the current universe compared to the universe at the time of the CMB.

[@sebastianclarke2441]

These new style of direct teaching focused lessons are great and will bring in a whole new audience, tip that algorithm in your favour and bring in those big numbers you deserve, here's to 50k before the end of the year! Keep up the good fight Dr Brian!!

[@DrBrianKeating]

amazing to hear! Thank you, Sebastian Have a great weekend!

[@conormacnessa7723]

What did the universe expand into?

[@cygnusustus]

"Where did this stuff come from" is a great question, to which "A Magic Sky Daddy" is a really poor answer.

[@bigdefense777]

Why? Could be someone writing code misinterpreted as a deity. Same difference

[@cygnusustus]

@@bigdefense777 Yes, because that is a really poor answer as well.

[@bigdefense777]

@@cygnusustus doubt

[@cygnusustus]

@@bigdefense777 foolishness

[@bigdefense777]

@@cygnusustus the funny part is neither you or I know But you’re very impressive. Keep telling yourself such.

[@johnworthington4556]

Dr. Keating, you are a great father... Focus on that.. If the size of the image determines your might then perhaps you should nominate yourself .. How unlikely.. I really don't want to hear this.. You are just a nice person and you are wrong about almost everything you say.. And, I can prove it.. take care of your family... but not at the expense of science...

[@melvynbraithwaite8563]

The first Big Bang creating Universes is not the answer it was more by zHarmonics The String Theory was nearly right it should be The Strumming theory The plucking of the Strings. Perhaps created zmusic creates a New Universe. MBraithwaite Yorkshire Viking

[@debyton]

If we assume that the assumptions being made that produce infinitely various topographies (curvatures) of space-time are correct, with a flat space-time being one possibility, then all that is required of nature, if you will, is to provide infinite change (aka: time) to vary that topography until the one or more states, flat or otherwise, able to produce you and me arise, enabling us to ask the question; Why is this space-time flat?

[@JamesSCavenaugh]

5:28: "Can understand processes going all the way from when the universe was 1 second old until today, 13.8 Gyr later!" -- But what exactly does "1 second old" mean if spacetime is rapidly expanding? The quoted text seems to implicitly treat a second is a second is a second, but that can't be true.

[@Mevlinous]

15:30 why do physicists or cosmologists presume that the universe could even in theory have taken some shape other than completely flat? Why is it such a so called unlikely “setting”. If flatness is so unlikely, isn’t it more likely that that “setting” is “greyed out”? Rather than it being exactly set to 0 curvature?

[@StereoSpace]

It's interesting how many times you use the phrase 'what we would like'. I think Richard Feynman would roll his eyes at that. More interesting to me, what is the initial fine tuning of the universe in so many parameters - in defiance of all statistical expectations - pointing towards?

[@darioinfini]

I hate to be dense amongst the brilliant but I don't understand something about the "smoothness" problem of the CMB. If you expand a gas doesn't it cool off asymptotically toward zero as the expansion continues? And isn't that phenomenon the same everywhere not requiring the two gases to communicate to equalize with each other? So if you start off with a large expanding explosion shouldn't all the areas of that explosion cool off essentially the same way over time, not because they're equalizing with each other but because everything tends towards absolute zero over time? Shouldn't the non-actively star heat centers all cool off like an expanding gas everywhere in the universe? In other words, if they all approach the same low temperature over time, why do they have to "equalize" with each other? After awhile they're all independently going toward the same near zero temperature no?

[@ajg3768]

Who knows maybe 4% visible matter we see ( including Earth) is just flying in the space between universes, stuff 13,7 billion light years traveling with almost speed of light is being pulled by neighborhood universe?.

[@redambersoul]

With first issue (Flatness) you have not mentioned that there are also could be many (possible) universes /(M-Theorie) but there is only one in which a species / physics like we are / experience would emerge. So we do live in the only "possible" universe from the standpoint of our existence.

[@ruthiematteson6827]

"Flat".... then... "more flat"??? Flat implies no fluctuations in any direction. I would prefer they used flat-ish.

[@capitalismblows]

Try as you may, the beginning of the universe will never make sense. Some can believe God is eternal but if he had the energy to create the universe then He had to be the universe and therefor the universe is eternal. No matter how you imagine the universe, magic or not, it always comes out eternal. We have really only two choices, the universe is eternal or it doesn't exist. I coose exist, infinite and eternal. The most fundamental law of physics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, is violated by anything but an eternal universe. Speculate all else as you please, you won't ever fool me. By the way, just like individual electrons move slowly in a wire, is it not likely that individual photons move slowly in space or any medium, and the light wave propagates at what we call light speed? So much for Doppler effect redshift and universal expansion. Also it would be impossible for an infinite universe to expand.

[@barrystanton6693]

Couple of problems: It’s not the number of little fingernails in the night sky; it’s the number within the entire radius of the circle drawn by your entire hand at full stretch. And how long is your arm? 😆 How can you decide on half a trillion galaxies if Hubble can’t see to the very end of the universe?

[@Mevlinous]

What if the solution to the horizon problem is a little like explaining how pendulum clocks hanging on a shared wall will naturally fall into synch? All galaxies share the same fabric of space, so what if that shared nature allows some kind of balancing of “temperature” to occur, even at distant points. There has to be a more elegant solution than such an inconsistent and seemingly artificial inflationary model.

[@pinchopaxtonsgreatestminds9591]

Everything in the Universe is shrinking, that's why they appear to be moving apart. It's not complicated, it's relative. All the stuff that you see is just gravity spinning in holes. When gravity spins in a hole we call that a particle. We don't fall towards the Earth we are rebuilt towards the Earth particle, by particle as gravity moves down, and spins in holes. Then those holes have a scale determined by spin, and so the Universe shrinks all that down at the same speed.

[@johnworthington4556]

I do really think you would work out well in economics.. God already gave us a space ship called Earth.. WTF ever.. It happens.. Im just another jack..

[@devalapar7878]

Is the flatness really improbable? The universe might be infinite. In an infinite universe universe flatness is the most probable outcome. For example, if you blow up a balloon infinitely big, it will be flat locally.

[@wulphstein]

IMO, the physics community will have to exhaust itself in its effort to explain away fiat or God-Creator. But after they fail, then we can look at the big bang like a form of engineering, at which point it will make a lot more sense. Only then will we be able to make significant technological progress.

[@Carlos-kt1wo]

Imagine inviting 40,000 friends and asking them to bring a dish, any dish. If the temperature of all the dishes is exactly the same, will you still suspect that they conspired?

[@fredd841]

There is no need for a conspiracy about the uniformity of the temperature of the universe, I would suspect that all the sample sizes are enormously large, and then all we need to do is to apply the law of big numbers from the field of statistics and econometrics to predict the uniformity in the data, I have written a better longer explanation blow this comment. Please read it it might be interesting or give some interesting insights or idea

[@KelzBernard]

So because these particular scientists simply "do not believe", they reject the evidence of a Creator. If the evidence for a creator was not substantial or was far fetched, the issue would have never arisen.

[@elaadt]

Great video! I'm looking forward to the following ones. I have but one question: how does one go about measuring angles of a triangle on the cosmological scale?

[@wanderingquestions7501]

A trillionth, trillionth, trillionth of a second of the big bang you say. Given the mass of that locality, which is likely a billion, billion, billion times the mass of the nearest black hole, how long - exactly - was that second? What the second a billion years long? . It certainly wasn’t as long as one of our seconds. Mere chalk on the board.

[@daves2520]

Very interesting. Dr. Keating states that physicists don't like to invoke a "mind at work" to explain initial conditions. But the scientific method is about making observations in the natural world and then drawing conclusions from those observations; in this case, the observations lead to a Supreme Being setting the initial conditions. Why are scientists so reluctant to accept this conclusion?

[@TheMg49]

How about a Big Bang (unimaginably humongous cataclysmic event) in a preexisting, maybe infinite, universe? Do we then still need an inflationary interval?

[@morgunstyles7253]

Id like to see a video addressing what time was before we decided a year was a trip around our sun. We say something is a billion years old. Was the time of the trip around the sun the same then? Whos to say it took 365 days around the sun a billion years ago. Maybe it only took what we now call a week. Or perhsps it took several of what we now call a year. I think we can only measure time by our own invention, rather than whats real.

[@roncraig3582]

Brilliant lecture Dr Keating! I really enjoyed this. So many "unsolved mysteries" out there that still need to be solved...

[@DrBrianKeating]

Indeed. Thanks so much Ron!

[@circlebodo991]

i have a feeling that the assumptions and calculations around distances might be leading of track... cant express my thoughts good enough, first this is not my language and second i have no physics degree, so everything i come up with might be bullshit at all... but i feel like the concepts of time and distances are made up by humans which might not suit the reality of our universe.

[@user-dialectic-scietist1]

And the Horizon problem as I have already explained always will be in the past, because the microwave radiation from the reality today for the very far objects will come to us after few billion years of time. Good lack then.

[@ramborambo2072]

multi universe..and so on and so on how they started and so on and so on...WORLD FOR TRUMP

[@bombud1]

"we can tell what happened 1 second after the big bang". after that "maybe, perhaps, probably" "triangles add up to 180* therefore the universe is flat."

[@RavenJack23]

I have seen analysis that claims that magnetism is just a relativistic illusion generated by electrons moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light. Have you heard of this and what is right/wrong about this notion? (speaking to the magnetic monopole question).

[@monkerud2108]

No, not convinced, but some variation seems to be true, didn’t need this video to realize that tho :7). The issue with the ticket out of a hat probability tuning argument isn’t what you said, its true that it has to be accounted for by some principles ect, but the unlikely hood argument is weird, you could say they same thing about the hamiltonian in particle physics, it could be anything, there are infinite variations within infinite different kinds of hamiltonians, one if them has to be true in some sense as an definition of the equations of motion or evolution, not necessarily a holomorphic one within a purely classical theory ect, but one evolution really has to be the right one no matter what it is, this doesn’t actually help in any way outside the he philosophy of physics or metaphysics, at least thats the way i feel about that particular issue. But other than that this was a great video Brian 👍🤓

[@executivesteps]

I wait fondly, for the time I knowingly hear on YT the term “deep dive” for the last time! That’ll be a “real game changer”. Uh no uh wait 😎

[@Esch_atton]

Really killing it with these presentation style videos Brian! Keep up the good shit!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks my friend. Many more to come.

[@fredd841]

Also, the law of big numbers in statistics predict the uniform temperature or the flatness problem, without even looking at the sky

[@tomusmc1993]

I dont understand the statement that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. Aside from temperature, galaxy distributions are far from isotropic. Is it that when talking about the universe, you are talking only about space time itself, and not the contents contained inside it?

[@jeffbisscrx]

OK, what makes anyone think that the math that they do even remotely implies that realty should follow it? For example, what exists besides a theoretician's math that implies that any other universe can exist but our flat universe? What in reality even implies that other universes even exist? It seems that math may be a problem in physics.

[@objvst]

The whole thing about the Big Bang Theory does not make any sense about a pinpoint of everything explodes into everything. First, the energy to take everything to a pinpoint requires it be outside the pinpoint to hold it there so that violates the pinpoint. Second, if it's a self-crushing pinpoint of everything how is that even possible. Third, the size of the Universe by just known distances is insane to a factor of infinity so the time to Bang and Crunch the Universe is prohibitive. Conclusion, the Universe always was, always is and always will be. The Big Bang or Big Crunch is just a cheap trick to credit a God who is Banging and Crunching. The Universe is only answered by "Existence Exists." by Philosopher Ayn Rand.

[@johnjdumas]

Size 1,000,000 pants and extreme quantum entanglement. If atoms are shrinking and the resultant freed energy is transferred everywhere instantly?

[@Thumper770]

The flatness problem is easy. The reason that triangles are flat within the universe is that you aren't measuring the surface of the universe. You are measuring three points inside the universe. We do not exist on space. We exist within space.

[@garyk1334]

Whatever happens once can undoubtedly happen again & again & again ..... And we know it's happened once

[@nothingmanofgod.6288]

How its magic were all began from nothingness why its all exist ONLY GOD KNOWS👽

[@CrazyTechy]

Loved your recent interview with Avi Loeb. Now, if you can only interview Galileo.

[@GamesBond.007]

For all the cosmologists out there: the ballon analogy makes no sense in a flat space universe. Maybe use a disc ? Cause god is a DJ anyway..

[@paulleard8349]

So why does the universe have to have a beginning? We humans have a birth and death cycle, but we live in many containers for our existence. The universe is not a container so, it's existence is endless in space and time.

[@GamesBond.007]

I am convinced that DeFLATion is the answer...since after all this inflation you've got a flat (universe)

[@sanjuansteve]

The natural first assumption for any physics student to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle while also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from electrons to solar systems are in orbit with something else pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space, and given that we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, is that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel where the speed of their orbit determines the wavelength and the diameter is the amplitude which would explain the double slit, uncertainty, etc. No?

[@SourDeeSloth]

This all makes me think of one day, the "science-fiction" novels of today will fiction, and today's fiction will be science-fiction!

[@maddoxmiller8805]

I will not give to many clues to how I reached this theory but all I will say is the universe is being contained much like the brain is contained in a skull. That is why can't be big bang .

[@user-dialectic-scietist1]

The temperature problem is a fact that is telling us that the Universe is eternal and infinity and that it not bother if the temperature is almost the same under our perspective, because in another part of the infinity Universe the conditions there gives the possibility to speak for an open system that escapes the all thermodynamic death.

[@stuboyd1194]

I don't think I'll ever understand those maths equations.

[@espabilastopkillingthenatu3242]

these kind of videos i n f l a t e our knowledge and our love for the Whole Universe!!!!!well done for this excellent presentation and wonderful work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks very much

[@alastairbateman6365]

BIG PROBLEM! If as we are told the rate of expansion of the universe is continually increasing and the galaxies we can see way back near the start of cosmological time are receding at near the speed of light away from us and the matter we are now made of no matter its form or distribution was also travelling at the same speed way back then, how fast are we now travelling?

[@fredd841]

How can you explain that the statistical law of big numbers will predict the same thing as what we are observing if we use huge datasets

[@akashshaw9950]

Adam riess estimates that his results, taken at face value, indicate a universe that is only 12.5 billion to 13 billion years old