Segre Lecture: How Did The Universe Begin?

[@ByronUHS]

RIP, Andrew ... I so much enjoy showing this talk to my own students. I love that this talk - perhaps his final public lecture? - highlights the obvious joy he took in the human adventure of doing science. This video is a great gift to his family, friends, and colleagues.

[@Gacha.Cupcake]

Pop I ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp9[p[[oppo⁹p9p999p⁹⁹

[@audreyfischer]

It's a great opportunity to learn from the discoverers themselves. Amazing that 5 generations of professor/students collaborated together in this CMB research. Special kudos to Paul Richards, the senior professor/mentor for he obviously had an amazingly lifelong impact on his students who, in turn, were able to pass it on to their students as well... and more than that, collaborate together to solve mysteries nearly beyond comprehension. ... so thank you!

[@VvDOPAMEANvV]

Thank you, Mr. Lange. You gave your life to this cause. I don't know why you decided to leave earlier, but I admire you none-the-less. Thank you for your contribution. You have given selflessly. What more could anyone ask for? Goodbye.

[@TheSmithDorian]

Your thinking of something called the doppler effect. Basically the faster an object (or galaxy) is moving away from you the more the light it emits is shifted towards the red part of the spectrum. It's about speed relative to the observers position not the distance away from it.

[@marcos5777]

A fascinating talk. Rest in peace. I guess it shows something about how fragile is the human mind. Such a brilliant man on a fascinating quest. But yet, he did not stay with us.

[@brainstormingsharing1309]

Absolutely well done and definitely keep it up!!! 👍👍👍👍👍

[@Zeropointbug]

Red Shift is not a distance measurement, but an intrinsic Red Shift to the object, regardless of how far away it is.

[@aqwertgbvcxz]

One doesn't have to go far to reject this idea. Our daily lives are so much dependent on chance and the choices we make.

[@vielbosheit]

It's actually so cool to be watching this just after they've reported detecting these gravitational waves. I wonder how incredibly Lange feels!

[@brownj2]

He is referring to the fact that the early stars tended to be large and blue. Distant galaxies have been red shifted and the amount of that red shift is a function of the galaxies speed and distance from us. This is what the Hubble law describes. The most distant galaxies we can see using optics are so far away that they only appear in the infrared.

[@vicachcoup]

They have done very well understanding 4% of the universe. You also need to consider how sentient life managed to arise in this universe [cue knee jerk anthropic principle mention]. Just for the record - why are the laws of physics so fine tuned? How did this universe start and what did it arise from [if answered in this video please point to where - it is long!]

[@NeedsEvidence]

Brilliant lecture, one of the best I have ever seen on this topic

[@Amberscion]

1:16:25 "If LIGO does not detect gravitational radiation directly in the next five years I personally will be deeply embarrassed." LIGO made it's first detection on Sept 14th, 2015. Here Lange made a fairly accurate, and totally non-embarrassing, prediction. Science, fuck yeah!

[@audreyfischer]

27: 47 "poetic idea of inflation"... one of my favorite parts of the lecture

[@oleh2007]

the key frase here is :"we don't understand it but should be thankfull for it"

[@AS-cy1jt]

its a little annoying when the camera is pointing at the speaker, but the speaker is pointing a slide with the laser pointer, and this is a production done by college level semi professionals,

[@jackjosephbroehl]

P.S. an implosion in slow smotion is sucked in force of waves seemingly that things get distorted. Thanks :)

[@VvDOPAMEANvV]

We don't know. That's why it wasn't included, and it's why particle accelerators, satellite telescopes and emerging fields of science are so important today. If you wan't to know how it all started, then you're just gonna have to wait it out. Perhaps you could join them in their efforts to answer these questions.

[@taleemikhidmat1579]

Impressive is just a word to express this lecture. The lecture is worth the energy in the beginning of the universe.

[@rkpetry]

Why did he say we're outside, the Big Bang event horizon? How did Inflation differ from Renormalization? How much of the CMB harmonics was gravitationally focused-in from outside? How much of the CMB variations is from early supernovæ-chaining-bubbles? Cosmic expansion increases particle masses, shortening their photon wavelengths. Did he ever show cosmic triangles are, 180°-flat? He never explained Guth-Linde Higgs field collapse: Finite probabilities are exhausted over infinite time.

[@Staldren]

When an astrophysicist says something is "fantastic" I never know if I should be amazed or terrified.

[@garyliu6589]

What is the relationship between the last surface of scattering and the boundary of the observable universe? There are theory saying that we are unable to see beyond the observable universe because the light cannot reach us due to the expansion of space in the observable universe. If this is indeed the case, this mean we will not be able to see the last surface of scattering after some period of time? Are we able to calculate how long would that period be?

[@kennethholmes4612]

Andrew could sell me a car But not his beginning of the universe He can talk none stop, very clever.

[@eyeAMtwinkEE]

@magnormaxi Thought is the interaction between neurons in the frontal lobes of your brain.

[@BaldingEagle51]

A minute after writing this I googled his works and found that he died a year after this lecture. I'm suddenly in a strange place.

[@corydorastube]

Where precisely did you aquire this knowledge? How do you know that?

[@rockrhymrr]

they don't know!!!

[@BillOtinger]

How many UNIVERSES are their and did they all Start the same way ????

[@faustus999]

an excellent lecture, very interesting and illuminating.. i thought that the question from the audience was extremely pertinent one which really was not answered, and could'nt be."..when the universe began, why did'nt it immediately collapse into a black hole"??????????

[@robertclauer849]

Re: al d (or whatever): I am deeply offended that you refer to him as an egg head. This is a man who ha passionately devoted his life to science, which benefits everyone not just himself. Furthermore, he takes time to educate others on the subject. How could you possibly conclude that he is anything but a decent human being albeit an extremely intelligent one. Maybe your attitude is the problem and not this gentlemanly scholar.

[@scotty]

But do atoms ever cease to exist? Even when smashed together they split into other things right so some of them goes on right? Do atoms ever 'die'?

[@satanstrilogy2288]

This is really awesome!

[@divvy1400yam600]

Question: how do you focus a telescope on the CMBR, Are the frequencies present in the CMBR not also present in intervening space.? If CMBR is redshifted why does it show as low temperature

[@thegreatmonster]

So the gravitational waves 55:41 formed the groves the planets are turning in around the sun etc... What if those waves flattens out? What will happen to the path of the planets?

[@AS-cy1jt]

how about showing the slides he's talking about instead on him holding a pointer

[@widescreennavel]

If we allocated the proper funds to education we would have a three camera studio to film this. It seems science will always be done on a shoestring. It's symbolic but true.

[@MrKorrazonCold]

Vibrating Energy is motion! The locational spherical inward absorption density and outward emission density of electromagnetic waves, is oscillating energy and mass, antimatter and matter annihilation, input+0/1-output electric charge and EM-fields, or resonance and interference as time unfolds! Thus limited range of Spherical inward and outward wave-chain reactions and Doppler causes a redshift. Redshift with distance a consequence of less energy exchange, less overlapping EM-wave interactions!

[@TheLivirus]

@konman001 Biblic prophesies are often not very specific, and actually very likely to happen when given an unspecified amount of time. Eg. I got some accurate prediction about my life in my local newspaper: the horoscope column.

[@tnekkc]

Diff grad and curl... never seemed to use curl in industry.

[@d3lta42]

the question of the matter however is which sounds more crazy a talking snake and an omnipetant being that came from nowhere but does everything or a universe that sprang from nothing and had no cause to make the effect of it happen as well as creating not only matter and the laws of physics themselves but having events occur at just the right way given our galaxy and the earths past to be able to spring for life that questions it all...honestly there both crazy

[@scotty]

Heavy elements yes, but how do we know some of me wasn't there for the action?

[@vernonshiloh8554]

The one thing that I can agree with is that if indeed the universe is "expanding", (that I can accept) it would therefore have a starting point. That's where the problem also "starts". (It's not a problem for me). Prior to the "big bang", there supposedly was NOTHING! The question is therefore...if there was nothing before the big bang, what caused the big bang??? As one can see, the questions go on & on. A balloon can't burst if there is no balloon.

[@qqqqqqqqqq7488]

+SeanmathiasH A juvenile answer to a sophomoric question.

[@hawaiiguykailua6928]

Don't worry about the start, worry that in a BB model there is an edge of the universe and nothing exists beyond that, so how can an explosion happen if there is no matter to explode against? If it starts to sound stupid, idiotic, and contradictory its because it is. Its the heretics over at plasma universe like Peratt, Alfvens, Thornhill, Burbidge, Hoyle, and the greatest of all Halton Arp that make sense of whats observable. Unlike dark matter and dark energy which BB had to create on a blackboard because the model had failed by 10^108th power, thats a lot of fudging!

[@klaasdeboer8106]

I can recommend Lawrence Krauss, A universe from nothing, and further, the coversation between lawrence Krauss ans richard dawkins, "something from nothing" The question, "why is there something rather than nothing" is the central theme in the thinking of Lawrence Krauss.

[@CeanStrauss]

No physicist thinks there was an absolute nothing "before" the big bang. That's typically just a strawman argument used by the religious or ignorant. Luckily most anyone can overcome these handicaps of reasoning with an open mind and proper education. They're really not hard concepts to understand.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

near the big bang all the forces were unified... is there a name for the particle(s) that would have existed at that time?

[@qqqqqqqqqq7488]

+N Marbletoe There was the bull and the shat. The idea of unification of forces is a construct necessitated by bad math.

[@durtdawg51]

@mogley52 which of your postings are peer reviewed? Those are the ones I would like to read first.

[@simonruszczak5563]

Where did the sub-atomic dimensions spring from ?

[@S2Cents]

03:33 Lecture by Andrew Lange

[@enniopat]

As a non-scientist two questions at the moment intrigue me: We know the speed of light, but what of the speed of darkness...is it a stupit question.? Considering that the universe is essentially a dark and ever darkening place, can one move faster through this "dark matter/reality"? The other question is, whether our known universe and its atomic composition might aquire a totally new identity when subjected to black holes or big bang experiences. Hence no longer atoms as we are familiar of (?).

[@marcus9304]

You are probably correct. On the 2nd question. It could be studied using black holes. 🕳 To a point. Mostly theoretical. Speed of Dark? Probably no such thing. Idk. Dark seems to be more fundamental then light. Light is happening. A force carrier. Dark is there 1st. Dark and Cold are similar. Darkness is the way this Universe is. Hidden.

[@TomFynn]

@nibus126 No. They can't. The superposition of point sources makes neither for the near perfect black body spectrum of the CMB, nor does is result in the observed polarization of that.

[@998SBayliss]

Crazy yes, but we are learning more and more about the latter (scientific explaination) and the former (religions of the world) has been static for a couple thousand years.

[@scotty]

The stuff before which led to the stars led to what eventually became my very atoms right?

[@RollinShaw]

Could you cite some sources on the contradicting observations? Simply to enlighten myself.

[@newstart49]

If they would just begin with an acknowledgement that they really don't know how the universe began but have strong theories, it would be easier to watch and listen. Science has forgotten; without proof you have theory.

[@TomFynn]

@LonesomePaleRider Any reason why you are not using NBG or MK or class logic by Oberschelp? Finite axioms make things easier. An how does this shed light on the Oesterle-Masser conjecture? Don't worry about going mad. No mathematician has ever gone mad by what he (or she) knew. Only from what they couldn't prove to the world...

[@sebastianwatches7095]

i would say that anyone's point of view here is valid, but i would like to remind people of a few things 1) everything discussed in the videos is theories supported by observations; there is no 100% money-back guarantee that it is true or false 2) I believe in Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, and while there may not be any scientific evidence to prove scripture as fact, there is nothing to completely disprove it either case in point, literally everything is speculation and you can share what you think is right, but you don't need to claim that what you think proves or disproves that a religious or scientific belief is valid or invalid

[@scotty]

So atoms do die? I reasoned if they could survive supernovae in fact were made from them then what could cause them to cease to exist.

[@robertscatrley4109]

Agreed we know no more now from what ive researched my self . Political answer to the question by diverting the answer to mush . Nice one

[@ElusiveCube]

If light from the distant stars and galaxies emitting light yet the source no longer exists , and if we are capable to look as far as the beginning, does that mean that large percent of starlight we see no longer exists, in other words do we see way more stars and galaxies than actually exists? But than if this is true, should we be seeing way more stars and galaxies than we actually see ? Considering the wast universe is pockmarked by stars and galaxies no longer existing. Maybe that's why they say that, the stars and galaxies in the earlier stage of the universe were much closer, when in fact they were not, we just see a timescale where we see existing as well non-existing stars and galaxies thus appears they are mutually closer where in fact they are not.

[@ElusiveCube]

I wish I could undestand you more, my english is not so good, perhaps my coment is not so clear

[@ElusiveCube]

***** I think you are wrong, when a astronomers looks at the starts he is clearly stating "WE ARE LOOKING BACK IN TIME" no you do not need to translate cause I speak 4 languages and I doubt if you do and even if you manage 1-2 they are probably not same as mine, but thank you.

[@vielbosheit]

Yes, some of the objects we see in the night sky are going to not actually exist at the time we receive the light they emitted. For the purpose of studying them, however, it really doesn't make a difference.

[@dwaynecarpenter7691]

ElusiveCube listen you just dont understand!

[@dwaynecarpenter7691]

Sorry wrong person you understand perfectly, a religious guy didn't understand he's stuck on the 6000 year thing

[@MrKorrazonCold]

Big bang's 360, 24/7. Mass Higgs-field vector +Mu of observable universe acting upon accelerating mass +/-m from a distance radius! Time is relative represented by line symmetry of a central ref-frame. Thus limited range of Spherical inward and outward wave-chain reactions and Doppler causes a redshift. Redshift with distance a consequence of less energy exchange, less overlapping EM-wave interactions cascading down from a distance radius acting upon a central ref-frame (you) accelerating mass!

[@purplepick5388]

"Folks, this is how the universe began but for what ever reason we don't quite understand yet..." And they are all well educated and have Nobel prizes. Genius's, absolute genius's. Can I get one for, " I don't fucking know!"

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

This is an invitation to see a theory on the nature of time! In this theory we have an emergent uncertain future continuously coming into existence relative to the spontaneous absorption and emission of photon energy. The future is unfolding with each photon electron coupling or dipole moment relative to the atoms of the periodic table and the wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is part of a universal process of energy exchange that forms the ever changing world of our everyday life.

[@glindin]

He did not really answer the question "why did not the universe collapse into a black hole in the beginning?" 'Because we are here' and 'because it did not' is not really a satisfactory answer. I have been wondering the same for a long time, never gotten an answer and I really sheered up when I heard the question, not so much when I heard the answer. ;)

[@morningmadera]

he did answer it, you didn't get it ... the answer is basically inflation

[@bxs0099]

@ 3:21 to skip to the talk

[@RonRonnard]

It could be, that gravitational waves from inflation extinguish themselves by a process similar to interference annihilation of waves. Then they never can get observed and this then would be the prove, that they exist, if a theory would get developed, which could explain it.

[@qqqqqqqqqq7488]

I have just started watching. I predict they will offer nothing as far as a suitable explanation.

[@qqqqqqqqqq7488]

1:15:26 . I knew it.

[@niteexplorer9934]

please skip to 4:00

[@thomaslwilson2840]

The fundamental assumption is that the laws of physics that we know are those operating at the start of the universe. This is a reasonable assumption, and seems to be the case for rather high redshifts, but it is not guaranteed to be true. Still it is the best we have. So much better than many things that many believe.

[@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 source of the CMB 13.7 billion years in the past?

[@schmetterling4477]

The source was the size of the entire universe. Two different observers do, of course, detect two different CMB signals from two different parts of the source.

[@blulagoon21]

Two questions that scientists cannot answer about the big bang. If (as they say) there was nothing before the bang, not even time, then how could there be a TIME for the bang to happen?? . Second question unanswerable is , what was the trigger that set off the bang ??

[@commander554]

@sbergman27 ..... I really didnt understand what you said.

[@michalchik]

Actual lecture begins at 3:35. Thumbs up to save people time.

[@serbanmike]

Is that so? (starts at @11:45 min in this vid) Professor Lange says ” at about 1sec. in the lifetime of the Universe it was a so hot density , so hot that matter and antimatter were produced in copious amounts and as Universe expanded, cooled temperatures dropped, one can no longer produce matter and antimatter so copiously” and later he adds “ fortunately for us and for reasons we don’t entirely understand, there was approximately 1 part per billion asymmetry of matter of antimatter “ and out of this asymmetric existence of matter we evolved to be what we are today. My question is: it was that hot density of WHAT that generated matter and antimatter copiously?

[@Kneedragon1962]

serbanmike Good question. First, I'm not a physicist, I'm a complete layman. Let's step back and go by analogy, where I'm comfortable. In the beginning, just like it says in the Bible, there was nothing. Our universe was a potential, and that's all. Then something dropped into it. What it was we don't know, but it was very hot and very dense. Think the centre few km of a huge neutron star. Perhaps a truly huge black hole in another universe got so big and heavy, it ruptured the space time continuum there and dropped out, wound up here. That's my speculation, but it is pure conjecture, I have no real theory or mechanism to support it. What arrived was so dense and so hot it was above the transitional point between matter and energy, hundreds of millions of degrees. It wasn't plasma, it was more like pure energy. So the object forced back the boundary, the edge of this new universe, from size zero, less than an electron, think singularity, and expanded it, and as it expanded it cooled, and as it cooled it became possible for energy to condense into matter & antimatter, which theory says they should have in more or less equal quantities, so they made contact with each other, and converted straight back into energy. But as the boundary receded, at massive speed, particles began to appear that didn't immediately make contact with others, because the density was dropping. This is the 'primordial soup' that physicists talk about. Out of that primordial soup the first subatomic particles 'condensed', and with that, we saw the arrival of things like time, weak and strong force, gravitation, and at some point, a speed limit for light. With that (cause or effect, I don't know) the momentum and mass of all the stuff moving apart at many times the speed of light, got huge. Because the mass was multiplied, due to relativity, the momentum was huge, so the energy was huge, so way more stuff condensed out of the soup than had gone into it. It's a bit like the loaves and fishes. So stuff kept condensing out, in pretty equal parts matter / antimatter, touching and going flash & bang... Skip forward nearly 14 billion years, and either all the antimatter went one way and the matter went the other, or there's some reason why more matter will condense than antimatter, or perhaps antimatter is still around but for some reason it doesn't quite behave like matter, and we can't see it. Perhaps it has something to do with dark matter or dark energy or both - we simply don't know. If you're looking for a good theoretical basis for this guff, I'm sorry to disappoint you. We don't have one. At least I don't. This is what appears to have happened, and we're trying to construct theories that explain it.

[@pseudorandomly]

serbanmike The very early Universe consisted almost entirely of photons and neutrinos. Collisions between the extremely energetic photons created particles of matter and antimatter, which in turn annihilated to create photons again. As the Universe cooled, the photons lost energy and could no longer create significant numbers of particles. At that point, the existing matter and antimatter particles annihilated without replenishment to leave the excess of matter we see today.

[@serbanmike]

***** Thanks. I was reading somewhere about what you just wrote in your post. And beyond that, there are some theories sustaining that even now particles appear and disappear in a quantum foam(the fabric of our physical universe), a concept of quantum mechanics devised by John Wheeler in 1955. I know of the primordial soup where sub-particles where initially “boiling”. I cannot grasp the idea of photons losing energy since they have energy only while in motion, and a constant speed and I believe that to be 300.000 Km/s. But Fritz Zwicky in 1929 came with the theory of “tired light” which affirms the photon as gaining or losing some of its energy (therefore its speed is not constant). Later Dr. Paul LaViolette mentions in the “Pioneer effect” the same thing, namely that photons have a variable energy. For you, all these ideas may be crystal clear, but that’s not my case. I still have a big question mark in my head regarding the Big- Bang and the “primordial soup”. I still ask the question “ who” or “what” originated it. You also say “As the Universe cooled ….” etc. -this implies that you believe in some kind of time evolution of the Universe. But time and space are only some thought forms/concepts that we, earthlings, use to orient somehow in the physical world, they have no “real” self-standing equivalence.

[@pseudorandomly]

serbanmike "... quantum foam ..." This is quite well-established; the effect of the quantum foam on particle interactions can be calculated and has been experimentally verified. "... photons losing energy ..." The energy of a photon depends on its wavelength -- shorter wavelengths have higher energy. "... tired light ... speed not constant ..." No. Photons are massless; they *cannot* travel through free space at any speed other than c (as you mention, about 300,000 km/sec). Their energy depends on their wavelength and is not energy of motion. Tired light hypotheses (which relate to wavelength and not velocity) fail observational tests. "... time evolution of the Universe." This is an observational fact. As we look farther out into the Universe, we're effectively looking back in time because of the finite speed of light. The early Universe was *very* different than the Universe at the current time.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

serbanmike re "hot density of WHAT" since there was probably only one force at that time (all the forces unified), i guess it would be hot forcons. forcions. forcium? idk what it's called. i can't find a name for it anywhere! good question. what's that stuff called, anyone?

[@Pngiaca]

Anyone else feel like you are being taught Cosmology by a very intellegent Kermit the Frog?

[@MrKorrazonCold]

Everything is two opposing fibonacci vorticies! Only difference between solids, liquids, gases and plasma is Volume! Everything is forming out of the locational spherical inward logarithmic absorption density (contracting+ E) and the outward exponential emission density now (expansion- c2) or acceleration of electromagnetic waves inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the input+0/1-output electric charge forming the EM-fields or resonance and interference as time unfolds!

[@divvy1400yam600]

viewed a sample of the vid. didnt see any maths but the point holds.

[@VvDOPAMEANvV]

I had no idea until I saw your comment, then I verified your claim online via the LA times. Why? Do you know?

[@JosephStern]

Thank Heaven for KZbin.

[@spiffaz]

Sagan's point has been owning since before I was born. :)

[@TodayUntilTomorrow]

It only makes sense if one views "inflation" as a quantum event. As a quantum event there is know way to determine what quantum preceded it. It's really not even a question.

[@n.g.h.calmarena7013]

The strongest reason for a creation has always been that mankind seems to have been born with two questions on its lips: How did it all begin, and how will it all end. Everything has a beginning and an end is a bottom knowledge that everybody accepts, because everything we see and experience during our short lives on our planet has just these two qualities: A beginning and an end. But if you accept the thesis "something can't come out of nothing," you must define at least one subject with an eternal existence. I don't know if cosmology still must be logical; and if it must not, it is not science anymore. The creation of everything out of nothing is a physical abomination, and shouldn't be accepted.

[@staregion]

"why didnt the universe collapse into a black hole?" The big bang was the dividing of pure energy so no mass was present.E=MC2..(if E=M, M=E, and C is only the conversion rate) after the cooling energy could convert to mass or matter. Gravity was one of the original energies. It is commmon to think of gravity as a force but a force is only an applied energy. This an over simplification but the force of gravity could not act until there was something to act on. James E gambrell

[@helenback6810]

Primeval fireball. Hmm! Wonder where that came from? No takers here I see but what's new with just another unanswered question?

[@plasticvision6355]

Your comment here is as stupid as any other you've posted on any other forum. Let's assume for the moment that there is no plausible answer to this question. How exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that god did anything? You certainly didn't and cannot do so as a result of knowing the science because on other posts you've shown yourself to be a scientifically illiterate imbecile. So by my reckoning that leaves only three plausible options. 1. You don't know what you're talking about and are pulling stuff out of your ass. 2. You think an idiotic book written by people who had no idea what stars were let alone where they and everything else came from, let alone the solar system or the galaxy it resides in. 3.You believe and are quoting someone else (other people) who are equally stupid and scientifically imbecilic as you are, and you don't have either the intelligence or wherewithal to fact check where they got their stupid ideas from. Is it all three? So stupid, as usual.

[@plasticvision6355]

You are a near perfect example of what the person in the comment immediately about this is talking about, though of course you're not American as I recall, but you are equally imbecilic in your outlook, knowledge and disingenuous approach.

[@RichieW]

I'll take my chances, thanks.

[@b11k22]

theres somin i dont understand: if the big bang is true, and we will expand, then shrink until the universe shrikns on iteslef, and the big bang happens etc...when did the first big bang happen? i mean its impossible for something to have and infinite number of past events, so there must have been a first big bang, but wer did that first big bang come from?

[@scotty]

The first atoms formed about 400,000 yrs after the big band. Wow what the heck. I wonder, is that when some of my atoms formed? Did some of me begin then?

[@MrKorrazonCold]

Electrical potential from surrounding masses as waves come forming work! Mass Higgs or Hubble-field vector +Mu, of the universe acting upon accelerating mass +/-m, from a distance radius! Everything is two opposing fibonacci vorticies seen in human math! Only difference between solids, liquids, gases, and plasma is Volume! Everything is forming out of the locational spherical inward logarithmic absorption density and outward exponential emission density now of accelerating electromagnetic waves!

Where did your big magic sky demon come from?

[@TheRodmena]

It was amazing. Although the data was old.

[@eyeAMtwinkEE]

@Domodeath The book of Genesis doesn't say the universe is 13.7 billion years old though. That's just the tip of the contradiction iceburg.

[@starwarsROXmy]

I'm very inrtested into this stuff. I think WE Will never know for real. if only if only :(

[@ohwhererehwho]

What if the universe began with extremely dense spacetime in which black holes were seeded or emerged due to the surface field characteristics of early spacetime? Spactime behaves a lot like a fluid/film with interface and surface tension. By fractal reduction, smaller particles would evolve. Perhaps the arrow of time travels in reverse for the majority of antiparticles. Does CME polarization occur as a light beam curves as it traverses irregular patches/potholes of expanding spacetime? etc.

[@MrKorrazonCold]

Mass plasma-field vector +Mu, of universe acting upon accelerating mass +/-m from a distance radius! Thus limited range of Spherical inward + and -outward wave-chain reactions and Doppler causes a redshift! Redshift with distance is a consequence of less energy exchange, less wave interactions, less Spherical inward waves acting upon +you-, and outward waves accelerating now from other time dilating inertial ref-frames acted upon by their own observable spherical region of the infinite Universe!

[@konman001]

@FlashTwister - I listened to many cosmology lectures - they have is nice 3D visuals and "theories" (which by their own definition of "theory" are NOT theories). If all is chance then who or what judges the results of each die roll or how to read each die roll properly? 2 interesting facts regarding 2 famous cosmologists: Einstein NEVER denied existance of God - he only said that "God doesn't play dice" Stephen Hawking said that he "doesn't fear death" but never said that he doesn't fear God

[@rkpetry]

P.S. Thank you, for the lecture. (I ran out of Comment space for several lines.)

[@tubedude709]

if it looks like andromeda galaxy then it probably is. it had the same shape billion years ago. but i don't think it works like that

[@RAM_DOS]

I can save everyone a lot of time. Go to 1:15:25

[@tor1302]

upvote this

[@calvintrainer1212]

How do we know the universe will expand into forever? What if it expands into itself? At far end of expansion it may curve backward into itself, but at another entrance point. It may come together to begin another big bang eventually. Have you ever see a vampire squid video? Where its 8 arms "expand" and curve backward and envelope itself with the arms. The motion is what I am trying to express: 1 end it races outward, another end it curves backward and meet itself at another singularity point

[@TomFynn]

@LonesomePaleRider If you're following in the shoes of Gottlob Frege, please show how you got around Russell's paradox. Oh, and as for making sense: No you aren't. But if you want to be taken seriously by us mere mortals, please publish after you've found a way to express yourself in our language...

[@TheWeepingCorpse]

Maybe, if proton decay theory is correct, the atoms will start to decay in about a googolplex years. The universe will continue to expand so the "space" between particles will be so vast that nothing will ever interact with anything else. Just a vast, dark, featureless expanse of space. I've often wondered if such a place is like the opposite of a singularity. i.e. everything that exists spread out over an infinite space vs everything that exists squeezed into a infinite small point.

[@biohazardcel]

@Zurround100 it's not that there is no "before" the big bang; it's that it's impossible to know. It's like going north of the north pole.

[@MrKorrazonCold]

One's logarithmic inward light of Mind is Positive. The unconscious mind of man, of which the two opposed lights of normal mind is its negative expanded reflection, like the reflection of the body seen in a mirror, or seen in a dream-state, is a ray of Universal Mind, wherein gleams the Clear Light of Reality, the Light that illuminates every living creature and sustains or gives coherence, or unity to all objectively existing things!!!

[@calvintrainer1212]

Why did they pick IHOP for a lecture?

[@MrKorrazonCold]

Everything is Fibonacci thus two opposing vorticies! Only difference between solids, liquids, gases and plasma is Volume! Mass-plasma field-vector +Mu of universe acting upon accelerating mass +/-m from a distance radius. Everything is spiralling out, of the locational spherical inward absorption density and outward emission density of electromagnetic waves! The inward spherical wave-fronts energy density compressing wave-amplitude the shorter the oscillating wavelength generates volume in mass!