There are PROBLEMS with the Big Bang Theory!

[@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.

[@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....

[@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.

[@Chris.Davies]

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

[@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! 😄

[@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

[@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".

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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?

[@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?

[@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.

[@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.

[@johnworthington4556]

Dr. Keating... It the darkest point in my life.. I looked towards your life an thoughts... And, you positivity helped pull me through... Thank you for being you Sir.. I wish the best for you and your family.. Congrats on the two kids...

[@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?

[@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.

[@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!

[@MuharremGorkem]

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

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks so much ! Means the Multiverse to me

[@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!

[@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".

[@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.

[@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.

[@mbusbridge1]

I was half asleep when magnetic monopoles came up... that sound effect... I thought there was an angry beaver under my bed! Freaked me out man.

[@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?

[@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!

[@br3nto]

There’s a growing number of KZbin videos showing how magnetic fields and electric fields are actually the same thing but from different perspectives. If I understand them correctly, magnetic fields are simply relativistic perspectives of electric fields. Therefore, a magnetic field does have a monopole via the non-relativistic perspective, ie the corresponding electric field.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

No offense, but you do not understand it correctly. I recommend reading "Elementary Lectures on Discharges Waves and Impulses and other Transients" by Charles Proteus Steinmetz. General Electric was practically built on his expertise.

[@br3nto]

@@wesbaumguardner8829 sure. I’ll give it a read

[@גבריאל-ח3י]

While inflation is currently the best model we have today it has short comings. The one I consider the most impactful is the speed of c. Physical measurements have determined that c can change - either due to the material light passes through, or the effects of gravity. In order for inflation to be internally consistent the speed of light must have been much higher than today because there was no baryonic matter to slow it down and then slowed as the universe condensed.The Higgs field had to have occurred after inflation. Since I don't know how to reconcile this I am forced to wait for a better model. I tend to think in terms of a thought model where space-time is so small relative to c that c is amplified as a standing wave. In general terms it suggests that inflation was related to the dampening of c caused by expansion.

[@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]

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?

[@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?

[@objvst]

I'm am pretty sure someone has thought about this before regarding the magnet question when breaking a magnet in half you get two magnets not two separate poles? If you have a strong Bar Magnet then how many times can you cut it lengthwise or cut it shortwise and it still creates two dual pole magnets? At some point does it breakdown at the atomic level or just continue into sub atomics? Is there already a youtube video covering this problem?

[@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.

[@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.

[@forsaken841]

Keep up the videos, loving your content!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thank you, soooo much

[@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?

[@stay_at_home_astronaut]

I tried ordering some baryonic matter on Amazon. Will I get free shipping with Prime?

[@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?

[@diGritz1]

I ask the same question every time I look at KZbin's recommendation list.

[@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?

[@ThomasSmith-os4zc]

The problem with the big bang theory is that it makes absolutely sense what so ever.

[@andrewjohn6853]

Great presentation. It's great to get this kind of cutting edge content with nice graphics and explanations. Because of you we don't have to wait 7 years for the Discovery Channel to catch up with a poorly explained dumbed down version.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Hi Andrew, Thank you, very much

[@MarsStarcruiser]

Loving your nice lists of numbers for all the various properties involved. Really helps me understand many of the major actors that scientist are taking into consideration.

[@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?

[@sebastianclarke2441]

he biggest questions related to cosmic inflation for me are: does the exponential acceleration of it imply many causally disconnected universe's? and would we ever have any way of measuring how long its been propagating?

[@jyjjy7]

If you are really interested and can handle something high level I highly recommend Leonard Susskind's lecture Phases of Eternal Inflation which you can find on here via the search.

[@Norwegian_username]

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

[@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.

[@Norwegian_username]

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.

[@valemusichq]

I like this format of showing us real equations

[@Norwegian_username]

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

[@gregoryhead382]

Inflation is like saying x/y=z so, x × y × z inflates to 2.5, and becomes 0.5 to scale to explain electromagnetic models.

[@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.

[@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.

[@gilbertanderson3456]

A delightfully paced and amazingly articulated presentation with erudite backgrounds providing the equations. One can not presume that this can be bettered.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks so much. I aim to please

[@br3nto]

Isn’t flatness a predicted outcome of increased entropy? Then the flatness we observe simply means we live in a universe at a time/position where entropy is high. So the question in my head becomes, what would the universe look like at lower levels of entropy?

[@br3nto]

Also, I don’t understand why we need to come at the “problem” from a position of expecting more “roughness” and imbalance. Why would we expect imbalance and more roughness than what is observed? What would possibly cause an imbalance? It seems there is only a problem to contend with if we make the assumption that the universe was born into existence at some point. But surely, that is just an untested/untestable assumption.

[@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.

[@Thedudeabides803]

Thank you robot aka lex Fridman for introducing me to Brian.💪

[@DrBrianKeating]

Lol welcome to our family!

[@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.

[@b.bruster1462]

We’re missing something, Brian. Something really, really basic / fundamental / simple “thing/s” that would bind all the beautiful sciences, minds and people together Some ‘structural DNA’. The Cosmos is an incredible reflection of abstract delight. Cheers

[@Esch_atton]

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

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks my friend. Many more to come.

[@Meine.Postma]

So, taking a small sample from a dark patch of the sky and then multiplying the number of galaxies in it with how many times that part fits in the total sky is your number? I would say that is not a very accurate number. It could be many times more or less.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Yes basically. The number has a huge but finite uncertainty

[@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?

[@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.

[@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?

[@patryn36]

The first thought i get when i hear this is it is an assumption that the universe could be in any other shape than it currently is, it is flat because being flat is simply the only option. You would need to find a universe in a non flat shape to be able to have a shred of evidence that anything other than flat is possible.

[@b.griffin317]

Looking forward to the follow up videos to this!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks stay tuned it won’t be long

[@CraneArmy]

at what scale do all cows in a vacuum become spherical?

[@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.

[@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?

[@Bill..N]

Bravo Brian.. A master class of fascinating information. .

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks very much bill I appreciate you

[@TheMg49]

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

[@tenbear5]

Looking forward to this paradigm shift. It's overdue.

[@watersport86]

Thank you. I have always struggled with a few of these concepts. I have found very few good explanations.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks very much

[@jokerace8227]

Some of the parts are indeed a challenge for just about anyone to truly fathom, but Brian does present it pretty well.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks very much !!

[@edreusser4741]

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

[@laurendoe168]

I know cosmologists tend to dismiss this... but I am a strong believer in the anthropic principle. Out of all the possible universes, you must eliminate those that do not result in sentient life. Why? Because in those universes, they never question the beginning of the universe. So, our REAL probability of existing in our current universe is limited to one in (however many universes are left after elimination). This is still rather improbable, but now much MORE probable. And, the fact that we DO exist in this universe makes the probability... 1.000

[@Glicksman1]

My first thought when I read the title of this vid was, "No, really? (heavy irony). As to what you said, my first thought remains. Imagine having a problem with understanding anything that we think happened before anything existed. Why would that be a problem?

[@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?

[@RWin-fp5jn]

So my take on it, is that we would be wise to connect the issues we have with cosmic inflation to the 100 years old issues we have in fundamental physics. These are all human perception issues, which can be lifted once we take a dual vision of the world around us, which is what quantum physics teaches us we should do. It is hard, but we need to think in two sets of definitions of continuum functions (grid clock inertia potential) and measures (space, time, mass , energy) at the same time: We need to see energy also has the function of grid and mass has the function of clock exactly as Penrose already mentioned, describing the quantum world. The next thing we then must understand is that both setups of functions and measures are orthogonal , meaning their inproduct is the constant of 1. Lets translate that to the (oscillating singularity) object we call 'universe'; If we imagine prior to the Big Bang , the grid was defined by energy and clock by mass, (just like at the subatomic quantum scale) then, prior to the Big Bang there was an equally 'big' universe, just only in energy terms. Moreover, if we take the inproduct of both grid settings, then we see nothing really changed after the Big Bang. The inproduct of 'energy as the grid' and 'space as the grid' remains the constant of 1. Only during the extremes (100% energy, or 100% space) it is zero. As such, we may think entropy is increasing, but from the perspective of the energy grid setting it is decreasing, again the dual grid in-product being constant. One may take the number of 'field lines' as a measure for max entropy on either setting (determining the size of the cosmos in a multitude of 1 or 0 information settings) but from the dual perspective it remains constant. Brian, could you pls at least in part spent some time on this dual setting of nature because I think otherwise we'll just ruminate the same problems over and over. Its great for cows, but we humans should aspire to try something new here. As an important extra notion; the idea that our universe being a singularity oscillating between max energy and max spatial grid state, has consequences for what we call the concept of universal 'clock'. 'Timewise' that clock currently unwinds but from its 'grid as an energy' perspective (thus also 'mass as clock function', it 'gains' in clock value when expanding in the spatial sense as more mass is created. It is what we would call an 'inversed arrow of time'. Now why does this matter? it matters because the concept of an 'inversed arrow of clock' would also be experienced in any smaller sized oscillating singularities occupying our universe, which (due to their fast oscillations) at times would therefor observe the external universal clock to be inversed form their own internal arrow of time. Since we see all observable galaxies as having (spatial phased) singularities at their core (ours being the wider sagittarius A singularity) we must realize the clear possibility that looking outward from our own galaxy, we have an 'inversed arrow of time' view relative to the rest of the cosmos. This in turn means the observed red shifted doppler effect of furthest galaxies is actually a blue shift, meaning the furthest galaxies are the most mature images and are heading towards us the fastest. Ergo: there is no cosmic inflation currently, but the crunch is already on its way. This solves the gravity issue and it obviously negates the need for the invented silly concept of ''dark energy'. Conscious this may sound complicated but it is the inherent consequence when looking at our cosmos / physics form a dual and symmetric perspective...

[@RWin-fp5jn]

As in addition to complete the dual setup of physics; lets then assume the entire cosmos is simply the product of oscillating singularities (oscillating between energy as the grid and space as the grid) at various nested scales, and where Dirac's spinors (twistors/bundels in relation to Riemann manifolds) governs the according geometric bending of fieldlines at each scale into their orthogonal spiraled field versions. So we start at the universe; that would currently be defined as an 'energy singularity' as opposed to its 'spatial singularity' status during the big bang. As an energy singularity it will wrap the energymass continuum into twistor-like spirals (see the shape of our galaxy or framedragging simulations of Kerr singularities). This means we would see its CMB as a cosmic wrapped ribbon energy grid, looking at it from the inside. The inside of the wider energy singularity (thus also our cosmos) is governed by emergent spacetime as the grid. Next level we have the galaxies; these are spatial singularities, which will wrap spacetime into a similar shaped twistor spiraled structure, which is why we see spacetime as galaxy spirals. The inside or the wider space-time singularity we call galaxy is governed by the energymass continuum. Next level we have stars: A star is again an energy singularity that wraps the energymass grid in a spiral around it (as confirmed and measured by the Parker satellite). Its wider surroundings (solar system) is governed by emergent spacetime. Notice that once you leave the solar system the 'energy as a grid' starts to become apparent (as our voyager crafts are experiencing). Next level we have atoms which are again spatial singularities, which again will have wrapped spacetime around them and are governed by an emergent energymass continuum (which is why atom bound electrons 'move' in terms of energy and mass ('quantum leaps), not in terms of space and time. Also; our outside oblique view of these atomic 'integers' or 'quanta' of energy windings is the geometric reason we speak of 'quantum' physics in the first place. Next in line, you have inside the atom the atom's core which is again an energy singularity governed by by spacetime. etc etc. As such the atom has in principle the same setup again as our entire cosmos; its is all built on singularities on ever larger scale, alternating between max energy and max space grid, with Dirac's spinors as governing rule to geometrically pivot between straight and orthogonally bend (spiraled) versions of the same fieldlines....

[@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?

[@pedrosura]

In the book "A Universe from Nothing", Lawrence Krauss argues that a Universe with a net zero gravitational energy, is what you get when you have through inflation a fast expanding Universe where mass spontaneously appears for mass/energy conservation as mass/energy which are positive grow while getting offset by negative gravitational energy potential as the Universe expands. A Universe that results out of this type of expansion, Krauss argues, should be flat. Can;t be any other way...So, what makes our Universe improbable, the fact that is is flat or that the initial conditions were such to start the expansion? Or, is Krauss even right?

[@pedrosura]

@@paulthomas963 I have read (without checking the math if this is correct or not) that you could solve Einstein GR equations assuming that speed of light is variable and space is flat. So gravitational bodies "slow down and curve light" through changes in light speed (similar to light going through glass) while space remains flat. You still get gravitational lensing and all other effects except that space is flat not curved. It's hard to tell both scenarios apart even though scientists have abandoned the flat space idea because of Einstein.

[@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

[@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.

[@garyk1334]

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

[@243david7]

Great work Dr Keating, That gave my brain a spring clean (bit of a flush through)

[@DrBrianKeating]

Lol. Thanks David. Stay tuned for more!

[@chrisgriffith1573]

When the cosmos is seen as infinite, then the inflation is different. If there never was a single point to everything, then there is no place to need rapid inflation, as the pressure is created by everything around it, and a constant is being exerted all along the curve, nothing is needed to maintain a difference in outward expansion. Remember that time is also different at this point in the universe, so a set distance does not relate to what it is today. It could be also seen as a "draw" or pull to move outward, not a push. Something always existed, there has always been something, and it has always been everywhere, this is what Roger Penrose is suggesting, a morphing of "stuff", from one Epoch to the next. What we see as the Big Bang is as far back as can see within our Epoch, and is the dividing line between them. The homogeneity of the universe is all about how very large the universe really is to us, infinite in size relative to our vantage point, possibly bigger than what we can even conceive of as infinite. Extremely large scales explain extreme flatness and homogeneity at the same time. Just like time and space are related to the equation of distance and speed, time and distance are also related to averaging the smoothness and homogeneity of the universe. There has been so much time, many epochs for which everything has been averaged into what we are observing, if anything it prooves that there have been more than one epoch before our Big Bang.

[@myothersoul1953]

There has always been something seem to me to be the unavoidable conclusion from the assumptions of science. Every theory of cosmogenesis posits something(s) along with some mechanics. "There was nothing and then there was something", is a statement not a theory.

[@chrisgriffith1573]

@@myothersoul1953 Yes ...and that statement is incorrect, there was never a place that did not share that "infinite density", and it was also never a "single point"... it was everywhere at once, it was its own universe in the Epoch before...

[@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.

[@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.

[@fivish]

There is a lot of stuff and energy that had to come from somewhere and it needed a very long time to get where it is. Most independant cosmologists reject the BBT and CMBR and Red Shift interpretations and go with a universe infinite in space and time.

[@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?.

[@douglasfielder4621]

It doesn't matter how much matter there is. How and why are the same questions even if there was only one atom.

[@angelalmaguer311]

Great presentation Brian, I had never heard you free-solo for this long and I really enjoyed it. Although I’m a chemistry major, boy I’m jealous of your students!

[@dirtbird7415]

How did it get there , I would just take a guess it's been there in some shape or form for quite some time. I really dont know , if we ever get some direct physical evidence to explain it , that could be interesting.

[@DNTMEE]

All those other possibilities for the shape of the universe tend to be irrelevant. What counts is the curvature we measure. It may be the only one actually possible in any universe. No matter how improbable. That would also lead me to think the possible number of shapes is, in reality, finite and not infinite as the math may indicate.

[@jettmthebluedragon]

Well how would you know the WHOlE universe is infinite?😐 the observable universe is finite but what what the ENTIRE COSMOS besides the only thing we need to worry about is how can a planet like earth can have carbon life ?😐and not just that why so specific? 😐

[@sebastianclarke2441]

how does the smoothness of a Neutron Star compare with smoothness of the CMB?

[@978clickit7]

It compares! A Neutron Star is smooth as a result of contraction. The collapsing core is smoothed out during CONTRACTION. Watch Paul Steinhardt’s lecture on “Removing the Bang from the Big Bang “ Big Bounce cosmology.

[@warddill1081]

Why do we think that radiation which reaches Earth has not be morphed by its travel to appear uniform while its origin may not be so?

[@DrBrianKeating]

Good question! A lot of people thought that before COBE FIRAS. Check that out on Wikipedia

[@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.

[@BarbaraMerryGeng]

Very good mini lecture My perspective has been properly updated & expanded appropriately ! Thank you ! 🌌

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thank you, MMB!

[@alittleofeverything4190]

Why don't we capture more Deep Field images?

[@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."