Big Bang 4of4: From the Big Bang to the Earth & Poetry

[zelimirvulic]

there is one fundamental problem, THE BIG BANG definitely could not exist!!!!! The early space was a vacum!!!! There is no sound in vacum, so there could not be BANG. The big bang needs to be renamed into Big expansion, or something like that.

[theinquisitor]

While the term big bang is quite inaccurate, and was in fact coined by a critic of the theory, the early space wasn't in fact a vacuum.

It was quite the opposite. Matter was extremely dense, and collisions between particles was frequent. So there would have been sound of a sort, vibrations moving through the mass, which would continue until the matter expands to the point where significant regions would be out of physical contact. But I agree that the name is very misleading.

[gregg4]

@theinquisitor

It was Fred Hoyle who coined the term in a somewhat sarcastic/mocking way.

He believed in the steady state model.

[91BROWNIE91]

if the vacuum of space is the space of nothinigness between to objects, what do you call the nothingness that was outside and around the "point" of the big bang before it happend? Is there a vaccum outside of our universe?

[theinquisitor]

Well space isn't nothingness, it's space. Empty space itself is something that has properties.

Also, there wasn't anything around the "point" of the big bang. It's probably not accurate to call it a point either. If the universe is infinite, then it was just infinite space at infinite density, and if it's finite, then it's space was curved so it wrapped around itself with no boundary, like the surface of a sphere.

Asking what's outside space is like asking what's north of the north pole.

[91BROWNIE91]

you have a point. But with your analogy of the surface of a sphere, if it is like a sphere, that implies that there is something or "nothing" beyonce the sphere. The sphere has to be somewhere, it can't just be there all by itself can it? Does that make sense

[theinquisitor]

Yeah it's a limited analogy. The problem is that our brains evolved to handle things on a certain scale, and so the curvature of spacetime is just beyond our intuitive grasp. So there's really no way to get a gut level understanding of the geometry of curved space.

But perhaps another analogy that might help is if you imagine a rope that's been shaken so that a wave moves along it. The wave can't move outside the rope, and so it is with matter in space.

[theinquisitor]

The idea is that matter is waves in the fabric of spacetime, so matter can no more leave the "edge" of spacetime than the waving part of the rope can leave the rope, or a water wave can leave water.

Ultimately mathematics is the only way we can really get a handle on things so far beyond our intuition. The analogies are drawn from the equations and are necessarily limited.

Either the universe is finite, or goes on forever, and neither alternative is comprehensible to our intuitions.

[RichardRoy2]

1a. @theinquisitor Here, try this on for size; space is a medium through which we can witness the impact of energy. In other words, space is not nothing; it's a medium we have yet to identify the full nature of. As with anything else, I expect we'll discover it has limits, such as compressibility. We call it a vacuum only because it is so, relative to what we're used to dealing with. If we rid space of everything we're aware of, what remains is what we're...

[RichardRoy2]

2a. @theinquisitor: ...not aware of. I think there's still much to discover resting outside our perceptual range.

[theinquisitor]

@RichardRoy2, indeed, what science has shown us more than anything is the vastness of our ignorance, how much there is still to learn.

Regarding the vacuum, as I understand it, it does have structure and properties. Such as the curvature of the space-time, and the energy of the vacuum created in particle pair-production and annihilation. On the quantum scale, the vacuum is full of activity. Matter and energy themselves may be deformations in the fabric of space-time, twists in the vacuum.

[RichardRoy2]

@theinquisitor Thank you for your response. There is still so much I have yet to wrap my head around, such as time space curvature, no pun intended, but I make myself chuckle nevertheless. I suspect someone has yet to present that concept in a manner that I can connect to conceptually. Once in a while I come upon gems I may find connection to in the future. Your reference to deformations in the fabric are fascinating. Thanks.

[GermthaVicious]

My knowledge of elements is pretty bad, but he says 4 hydrogens came together in the star and the star eventually exploded into a supernova and the carbon was spewed so then that's how carbon came to be, now I might sound stupid right here because i don't know alot about elements, but could other elements combine inside future existing stars and create newer elements and put them into our universe? Sorry if this is a retarded question.

[theinquisitor]

No it's a good question. All the elements up to iron are produced by fusion in the stars. This process releases energy, which is how the stars generate heat and light.

However, it takes more energy to fuse iron (and heavier elements) than you get in return. Heavier elements than iron can only be created in the intense energy created by a supernova explosion which occurs only when very big stars die.

The process has limits and uranium is the heaviest element that results from this process.

[theinquisitor]

I hope that answered your question. Let me know if you have any more questions, or if I can clarify my previous answer.

If you're interested in some documentaries about cosmology, there are a few playlists I've arranged which you can find on my main channel page. I'm pretty sure that "Stephen Hawking's Universe" and "Origins" deal with how the heavy elements are created in the stars. They're both fascinating and entertaining.

[GermthaVicious]

Yeah, thanks alot man, lots of insight on that, I will definatly check out more of your videos, and Stephen hawkings is amazing I will check that out. Thanks for the uploads and feedback.

[BoriquaBoy4694]

i kinda want to have this little poem.

if you could get a copy of it and make a link to copy it that would be great

[Gogargoat]

So the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Distant galaxies are moving away from us faster than closer galaxies.

Is there a point in distance from us where a galaxy would move away from us so fast that it's light would never reach us, and so is it then possible that it only seems that the universe is finite in size but that it could actually be infinite? (sorry, english isn't my native language)

[GermthaVicious]

It's not proven that the universe is infinitly expanding, there is a theory, "The big crunch" where the universe collapses in on itself and then a new big bang can create another universe and more life can exist and this cycle is repeated infinitly.

[VarialProductions]

k-pax

[coreydmt]

from my experience with the study of time by the use of psychoactive plants in a shamanic practice,i have applied the laws of physics to my works and by transending my ego the big bang has become a linguistic metaphor of fractal unfoldment for me

[greycloud24]

so basically you ate some magic mushrooms and thought about time and you expect us to consider this science?

[ocanter]

I have to admit, this lecture is great fun, but listening to the "poetry," it's easy to see why the author of Genesis left out some of the more tiring details.

[gustavonarez]

lol

[Clausfarre]

Nice upload. Thanks.

[Asthfghl]

Wow he's totally confusing the chemical elements :))

[theinquisitor]

I suspect it is an error in speech rather than an error in thought.

[Asthfghl]

I suspect that chemistry isn't his strongest field, and that's normal.

[drdirs]

If you've ever been to uni lectures on science, you'll know that all professors, as intelligent and experienced as they are, tend to be absolutely terrible at giving presentations. They stutter and pause and go off on tangents and get confused, and if you can't filter out the noise you'll leave the auditorium no smarter than you came in. After a while you get used to it though. Sort of like learning a foreign language.

[Asthfghl]

I know xD

[tinatalk]

time is always beginning

[perspectual]

so if time has no beginning then how does it start? we must view time in a liner form, if it were circular (a model with no beginning or end) then we would be reliving curtain days, our perspective of time must be liner, if it wern't then things would be moving arbitarily, one day we wake up its summer, the next winter. None the less a seamless model had a starting point

[theinquisitor]

Well even if you postulate the existence of other universes before the big bang, the problem of explaining the existence of those universe is the same as the problem of explaining ours. I think that the answer will ultiamtely come from investigation rather than philosophy. Philosophy is great for coming up with ideas, but until they are tested, they're just hypotheses.

DVDjHex doesn't think that the big bang was the way it happened at all, but don't ask me to explain his ideas.

[theinquisitor]

It's important to remember that there is a lot of misrepresentation of what science is and what particular theories are really about. Hopefully new media like this will make the more accurate descriptions more available.

The evidence for the expansion of the universe from a singularity is very compelling. The redshift of the stars tells us they are moving away, and the microwave background radiation gives us an image of the early universe. It all fits the theory.

[DVDjHex]

It does not all fit the theory. That is simply wishfull thinking. Go to a library. Check out Astrophysical Journal. Read science magazines. Google search for specific areas of discord (regarding redshift z, CMBR, galaxy formation, stellar ages, etc). You will see for yourself, instead of blindly defending something you know so little about.

[theinquisitor]

I admit that my understanding of this subject is nowhere near an academic standard, but I think it's a bit unfair to say I'm blindly defending it. It's not like there aren't a lot of professional scientists who support the idea.

However I do understand the frustration of seeing people confidently get things wrong, so I will look into it futher. If you're really concerned you should make a video response so more people will know.

[theinquisitor]

I also find the concept of a beginning hard to understand, but no harder than the concept of infinite time going back forever. The big bang was an event which is as far back as we can measure. There may have been something before, and I don't think the theory prohibits this. The theory really isn't a theory of origin, it's a description of how the universe formed from very close to the beginning to now, and the best explanation for the evidence so far.

[aaahahahahahahahahah]

Could you please more lectures???

[theinquisitor]

I'm going to post one soon about nuclear reactors.

[DVDjHex]

Everyone: Listen from minute 4:30 onward. It is a summary of the 4 videos. It all came about when reading the Bible to his daughter. Then he goes on the read a "poem" about Creation. (Hint: it is not at all a poem) LOL.

[DVDjHex]

Expansion is not real, i.e., there is no expansion, and hence, there was no big bang. Hubble's law is not a law (it's violated accross the board). Redshift z is a de Sitter effect in a stationary universe. See for example Coldcreation Theory.

[theinquisitor]

I'm having trouble finding anything about cold creation theory, except for some stuff on forums. Can you point out some observations of violations of hubble's law? Also everything I can find on the de Sitter effect is about a model that describes an expanding universe. I just don't follow what you're trying to say. What's the basis for this, where's the evidence?

[theinquisitor]

Hmm, I found a website called coldcreation dot com, but I thought it was wrong when it said it was an art gallery. Then I look at a page called Theory, and see what I think is what you are talking about. It reads like anthropocentric poetic nonsense. Perhaps something an artist might come out with thinking he knows what the word theory means. Are you ColdCreation from the Hypography Science Forums?

[DVDjHex]

If you google coldcreation theory you will find the information you are looking for. Coldcreation must be one word, not two as you wrote blow. Search exact phrase.

That paragraph in the CC website reads more like Ilya Prigogine than anthropomorphism, to me.

Violations of Hubble's law are everywhere in the observable universe. See, e.g., SNe Ia data, interpreted as accelerated expansion.

[DVDjHex]

Coldcreation must be one word, not two, as you wrote below.

My point is as clear as it is simple. There are alternative models (such as the one here highlighted) that are in agreement with observations. The beauty and elegance, absent from the standard model, resides in not just predictive power, but too, in that the laws of physics never break down (new physics, dark energy, dark matter, strings, branes, are not required).

[itscameron]

NOBODY KNOWS WHAT CREATED THE UNIVERSE ITS AN AMAZING MYSTERY. SCIENCE MAKES ALOT OF SENSE. RELIGION IS FAITH, HENCE BELIEF WITHOUT LOGICAL PROOF. SOME AMAZING UNKNOWN POWER CREATED EVERYTHING WE SEE, BE IT GOD, BUDDHA OR THE SOME FORCE OF POWER BEYOND OUR COMPREHENSION, WE'RE HERE. Lets not ruin the planet, where are all the cities gonna go when all the humans die? The roads, The waste. It's not gonna be like when the dinosaurs were wiped out.. It'll be DIRTY. Isn't it amazing?

[theinquisitor]

Whoa take it easy on the caps man. If the human race does go extinct, it will certainly be a strange mystery to whatever intelligent civilisation may evolve millions of years later, where all these ancient ruined structures came from. Although given enough time everything will turn to dust. Some bacteria will probably evolve that will consume plastic sooner or later and it'll all be buried. Unless we survive of course.

[DVDjHex]

...Continued: The speculation that both began in a primordial flash of radiation (remember 'let there be light'?) is one of the main similarities between Fiat Lux and the big bang. If nothing else, these similarities, couple with the fact that both are doggedly or dogmatically defended, provide evidence that both concepts are equal in that they are derived by pure thought, that there is no connection between nature and the supposed origin of the universe according to either concept.

[theinquisitor]

There is evidence for the expansion of the universe and the microwave background radiation was found to be at the temperature that was predicted by the theory. The big bang theory is not a theory of origin. It's a theory about what happens after t=0, about the expansion of the cosmos from that point. Before that, we really don't know, but that doesn't change the evidence. What do you have that fits the evidence better?

[theinquisitor]

I can't believe you're actually comparing dogmatic religion with science. Science is a process of examining the evidence and finding solutions that work. Everything is science is potentially falsifiable. Nothing is religion is falsifiable. Religion is about faith, science is about doubt. How could they be more different? The big bang theory was widely opposed, but the evidence was just too overwhelming in the lack of a better explanation.

[DVDjHex]

My contention is simple. Try not to misunderstand. The big bang itself (the initial event, called the primeval atom by its coinventor, the Priest George Lemaitre) is what I compare to biblical creation. NOT SCIENCE. Obviously I am pro-physics, general relativity, thermodynamics, and too QM. I am anti-big bang: a 100% atheist, if you will. I hope that is clear now. Stay cool bro.

[theinquisitor]

That's fine, but I'd still really like to hear your alternative explanation for the evidence of the expansion of the universe. I get that you don't believe in the singularity, but do you acknowledge the hubble constant, that all the galaxies are moving apart? What's the alternate explanation, or at least, what are the problems with the big bang theory. Is there a book or website you can suggest?

[macman13]

"in that they are derived by pure thought"

Um, sorta, the big bang theory has been able to make successful predictions, the bible hasn't. And if god was trying to describe the birth of the universe by simply saying "let there be light," he really skimped on the details.

[DVDjHex]

Science fiction, nothing but science fiction.

Notice, too, the story of the big bang is virtually identical to creation according to the Book Muller read to his daughter.

[theinquisitor]

Er no, the big bang theory is based on evidence. What's your explanation for the red shift?

[DVDjHex]

The big bang concept is based on extrapolations and interpretations. There is nothing wrong with that. Much of cosmology has to be based on interpretations of observations. But that by no means implies the bb model represents this universe. If redshift is a general relativitic de Sitter effect then the bb never happened.

[macman13]

"Notice, too, the story of the big bang is virtually identical to creation according to the Book Muller read to his daughter (the bible)."

Uh, no. First of all, the book got the dates off by a factor of a million. Second of all, the bible gives no detail, all it says is, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." That doesn't pass as science, it doesn't explain anything. Also, the bible mentions that all the stars are on a "firmament" in the sky.

[DVDjHex]

Are there differences between biblical creation and the big bang? Of course there are. However, speaking only of the big bang event itself (something which today is beyond the scope of the model, i.e., the bb theory begins shortly after t = 0, not at t = 0), there are many similarities: there is by definition no information to gather from it, no physical law can be used to describe it since physics breaks-down, it remains foreven hidden behind a vail (event horizon)...

[KT45]

I hope he writes another updated book on the concept of the big bang

[yancur]

Really nice videos, thanks for uploading it theinquisitor! Any chance you might post some new videos like this in future?

BTW: Who was this profesor, I didn't catch his name..

[theinquisitor]

His name is Richard Muller, of the University of Berkeley, California. I'll probably upload a few other interesting parts. There's one about nuclear power plants that clears up some common misconceptions and exaggerations of the dangers. There is a whole semester's worth of lectures by him on google video. There's a link to them in the description panel.

[yancur]

Thank you. It would be great to have some more videos. In fact the more the better :) One can relax watching them, and in the same time learn something new.

Thanks for the link didn't notice it at first.

[doriansalvador]

i was in that class last semester..... not in the video though...too bad...

[siciliano29]

Please explain to me how the universe "began" 14.5 billion years ago if it's "infinitely" big? The very word "infinite" implies there is NO beginning! wtf?

[theinquisitor]

Infinite space, not infinite time.

[siciliano29]

Same difference - you can't squeeze an "infinite" amount of space into a single point. If "space" is infinitely big, then it must have been infinitely small at one point. I guess that's just something I don't understand about "infinity" - if space is infinite in both directions, how can there be a "middle", aka, the current form of the universe? To be in the "middle" of infinitely expanding space would take an infinite amount of time.

[theinquisitor]

There isn't a middle. There are no absolute measurements, it's all relative. At the point of the big bang, the density was infinite, but the space was still infinite too. The analogy of the points on the infinitely long rope is useful. Points are spaced a certain distance apart on the infinite rope, but as you stretch the rope, they get farther apart. If all the points on the infinite rope were in the same place, the rope would still be infinitely long.

[siciliano29]

Suffice to say, infinity is an extremely complex and odd concept... I understand your take on it conceptually, but I'm still trying to work out how it's physically "possible". ;)

[theinquisitor]

websnarf did an interesting video about infinity that might be relevant.

[Mjhavok]

Why was he reading the bible to his daughter? Of all the things to read to a child. I don't think he believes in it though.

[theinquisitor]

I suspect he left out the nasty bits. I'm not sure what his religious beliefs are if any. He implied that he thinks a deistic god is possible. He could be using the bible the way it should be used, as a fictional story to entertain children. When his daughter asked a factual question he immediately switched to science, just as he would if he had been reading harry potter to her.

[Mjhavok]

Yes. If he is religious you can tell he doesn't distort science because of it.