I used to love this channel, but there are no time/date stamps for these Interviews. This interview could have been conducted 20 years ago. In cosmology that amount of time can render these old pieces irrelevant. Although, in this instance, Mr. Guths hypothesis is still relevant.
Just imagine the Collision between “Unlimited and Infinite” Which Big Bang Implies. At that “implosion And explosion”!? One presumes, There never was any marble to begin with! Just Unlimited?! And we exceed our Language abilities to define it to ourselves.
Год назад
Which subject of math is this equation for? I'm curious to know.
Want to know the universe? Then go back to Faraday and discover for yourself what a charge is. Knowing how a charge is created you will understand how the universe(s) are created. Discovery is not a linear process, it is more iterative and chaotic; constantly going from one concept/problem to another slowly building the whole. Once you find the magic ingredient henceforth it is just collecting butterflies.
Some Particle accelerator Diameter that!? But I think your calculation on 70 Light Years is worth checking again! Just in case the “Higgs” Big brother is in disagreement with you!?
5:00 AG: right one of the key ideas that came out of this is inflation, inflation is the proposal htat the early stages of our universe were uh dominated by a period of exponential expansion driven by A PECULIAR KIND OF MATERIAL whose existence comes out of particle physics uh so it takes any standard particle theory and extrapolates it to very high energies uh one finds that there exists are predicted to exist PECULIAR KINDS OF MATERIALS that literally turn gravity on its head and cause gravity to become repulsive and 5:39 Bob: these energies are at that level where you have this Gruand unified theory with the various forces we talk about four forces or some electromagnetism weak for strong all these forces unify (AG: correct) and so this is that magic area so to speak (AG: that's right) of extremely high energy (AG: that's right that's right) 5:55 one doesn't necessarily have to go to such high energies to to find inflation inflation could happen that ernergies of as much as uh six or ten orders of magnitude it below that actually but we don't know for sure but at that leve we expect to have it right yeah (Bob: so you make this strange stuff) that's right you make this strange stuff exactly 6:17 uh the stuff um does't stay forever at least not in a typical location um because it's fundamentally unstable so it does decay now whilst decaying here it may still be expanding elsewhere but that's a different story let's focus on where it decays (right 6:34 ) uh when a decay it it produces a region which becomes universe I sometimes call it a pocket universe because it's not necessarily everything that exists uh and we would be living in one of these pocket universies 6:48 Bob: at that decay moment that's when you have this sort of explosion then people think about a big bang that's when you had have this development or emergence of all the hot energy and particles and anti-particles kind of this caldron that we classically call the Big Bang. (7:06 AG: that jis correct) and then it proceeds. AG: that's right. Inflation when this repulsive gravity material decays it sets up precisely the initial conditions that had been previously assumed in the context of the hot Big Bang Theory. (7:22 Bob okay ) and then the hot big bang proceeds. Now in our situation when inflation ends and when the Big Bang as we commonly call it the hot big bang begins can we ask how big we were at that time 7:33 AG: uh yeah we can't sya how big everything was at that time we had no idea how far it goes beyond what we see but we can calculate how big was the region that evolved to become what we now observe today uh and 7:40 it was very small it was about on the order of a centimeter across if inflation did take place at these Grand unified theory scales (okay) uh so about the size of say a marble 7:55 Bob: right and I think uh earlier in your career you thought it wasa grapefruit. 8:00 that's right the grapefruit got smaller uh that had to do with the change in the estimate of this grand unified theory uh scale 8:09 Bob but it's all because of the particle physics that's strictly from particle physics that's right Bob: so you're able to estimate but even at that time when we started our post-inflation (I appreciate Inflation Theory a lot but our universe is not a continuousness of hot Big Bang the Inflation. Instead, it's not true to make the simple more tediousness. According to Torah, Gn1:2, there exists A Nothing The Real produced by Self Contraction of LORD God, in cosmological term Metaverse The Primordial, or theological term, House of God, בְּרֵאשִׁית, which replaces AG's Peculiar Stuff, an ultimate destruction force to destroy AG's grapefruit [in BTS term, one of the bigest known Twin Primes] into God's Stuff with infinitely many a same the prime, 1 & the prime superposition in the empty set, and then all elementary particles and Dirac Sea evolved from Disorder the Ultimate.)
If a Particle is developed enough to explain the Cosmos, then it could explain it to another particle, which might be at level, to comprehend the explanation. So, if Life speak to a paticle, it must be through a particle, if Life speak to an ant, it must be through an ant. If Life speaks to humans it must be through humans. All Life-Unit's speak their own language, on their own level, therefore a particle can't explain cosmos to a human. there is humans as can explain cosmos.
Yes, from the perspective of zero existing, we can prove that 1 is contingent on 0. This is because in the natural number system, which includes zero and the positive integers, 1 is defined as the successor of 0. In other words, 1 is the next number after 0 in the natural number sequence. Without zero, we would not have a starting point for the natural numbers, and therefore, we would not be able to define 1 as the successor of 0. So the existence of 1 is contingent upon the existence of 0, since 0 is the starting point from which we define the rest of the natural numbers. In summary, 1 is contingent on 0 because 1 is defined as the successor of 0 in the natural number system, and without 0 as a starting point, we would not be able to define 1. [Quarks exist. Quarks have mass but no size. No spatial extension, zero size and exact location only. Subatomic so 0.]
ja the old question: what is there left if you take them away completely, quarks and energy too and time is an illusion and you cant put stuff into nothing - impossible!...
I'll believe in a god before I belive the universe was the size of a marble. These people have convoluted and waded in so much math and made so many tricks for their illusions to work they have truly become lost.
Hmm? 2:00 In- He says “there is not really any limit as to how long you make the Particle accelerator”!? - I thought that Particle accelerators are hollow doughnut shapes... which implies that they are already non limit Infinite!? Implying Particle, Once in, there is no “non infinite”!?
when heat / temperature was 10 power16 geV at 10 power-37 seconds, there was not yet 70 light years of space? how would temperature of 10 power16 geV have been generated?
Love Guth and almost all on this channel, and this channel itself. I think though looking at "plausible" answers kinda gets lost in these types of discussions. The numbers and concepts are absolutely mind boggling.
Sent me on a lucid dream… Hahaha… I was on a “merry-go” round that was making music in a tubular phi Dampner shape, etching sound into the fabric as bolts of light, each pocket with the magnetic marble levitating as a “Nodal Nesting Point” in a Implosive Sphere radiating Light from Sound… I have the Electric Circuitry Numbers too… It’s SONOLUMINESCENCE… A Quantum Anagram of 3:6:9 Every Music Lover Shall Rejoice… I can make it, with “ONE” line of Code…! RA!!! 369 3V6 V=9 108x5x345.6= Structured Light… Quantum Gravity, Photosynthesis and Consciousness from: “COMPRESSION=INTELLIGENCE”…
Walter Russel's book 'Universal One' ^ Very good and much better than the bullshit Guth has to proffer. Maybe you like junk and inconsistency; maybe you value the consensus more than being True to Heart.
Alan Guth's inflation theory is based on observational evidence and makes predictions. Walters Russel's book the Universal One is based on consensus and what he thinks is emotionally satisfying. Science does not rely on consensus that is how new theories can arise. Philosophy and religion are based on coming to a consensus on what is true. The reason why the Universal One was rejected is because a year later Paul Dirac came up with quantum field theory which described matter and all the interactions of matter even making predictions in condensed matter physics about quark gluon plasma and neutron stars.
@@anteodedi8937 modern particle physics are bunch of fancy marbles smashing conjectured without basis will be able to explain how the factory made those marbles . It's a billion dollars worth of mess , what an utter degeneracy , Schwinger would roll in his graves at the state of non pertubative , utterly nonsensical modern fantasy particlelism and atomism absurdity . Nonsense on stilt
@@anteodedi8937 Since the 1980s, physicists have invented an entire particle zoo, whose inhabitants carry names like preons, sfermions, dyons, magnetic monopoles, simps, wimps, wimpzillas, axions, flaxions, erebons, accelerons, cornucopions, giant magnons, maximons, macros, wisps, fips, branons, skyrmions, chameleons, cuscutons, planckons and sterile neutrinos, to mention just a few. We even had a (luckily short-lived) fad of “unparticles”.All experiments looking for those particles have come back empty-handed, in particular those that have looked for particles that make up dark matter, a type of matter that supposedly fills the universe and makes itself noticeable by its gravitational pull. However, we do not know that dark matter is indeed made of particles; and even if it is, to explain astrophysical observations one does not need to know details of the particles’ behaviour. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) hasn’t seen any of those particles either, even though, before its launch, many theoretical physicists were confident it would see at least a few. Talk to particle physicists in private, and many of them will admit they do not actually believe those particles exist. They justify their work by claiming that it is good practice, or that every once in a while one of them accidentally comes up with an idea that is useful for something else. An army of typewriting monkeys may also sometimes produce a useful sentence. But is this a good strategy?
Yeah. Once you have high academic credentials, just say anything and it will become generally accepted as a credible theory or a proven fact. Grand unified theory, the theory that turns gravity on its head thus producing repulsive gravity. The repulsive gravity in turn gave birth to inflation. However, the precondition for the merger of electromagnetic, weak and strong forces is a very high energy. How did the three exist together as one at such a very high energy state? What was or is the source of such high energy? Some "magic number" or "strange stuff"? This reminds me of my childhood theory of the origin of the universe. I theorized then that the universe came about as a result of an explosion that occurred when extreme cold and extreme heat merged. What was the source of the extreme heat, remained a "strange stuff." So just say anything wild, it will become a theory and probably will be accepted as a fact.
JWST observation is making it very clear that the man made Tool we standardized and represents Time works well imposed on space in solar system and on human scale but in the macro and micro if fails and gets more complex. The treatment of it in an objective manner has really set science back the past 80 years. The explanations in all fields of study haven't kept up with our mechanics and technicians out in economic markets and industries
Particles can only explain the universe to the point that bricks can explain a house. However, the particle-antiparticle template that the cosmos demonstrates is found in all aspects of "Existence:' good-evil, black-white, matter-space, positive-negative, theism-atheism, etc. ... This template serves as the basis for the *"3rd Law of Existence."*
@@tschorsch *"Sounds like woo."* ... Revolutionary breakthroughs in universal understanding are often labeled as "woo" by those who struggle with comprehension.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC like ? Give an example . This might help : Woo generally contains most of the following characteristics: Anecdotal evidence: Prefers to use testimonials over actual studies. (Much less likely to go wrong.) Panacea: Is a simple idea that purports to be the one answer to many problems (often including many diseases). Pseudoscience: Has a "scientific-sounding" reason for how it works, but little to no actual science behind it; especially: Science woo: Uses words that sound scientific but make no sense in their context, such as "quantum". Quote-mined studies that, if bent properly, appear to support the woo. Appeal to authority: Claims that a scientific authority supports the woo; this is usually combined with a quote mine. Studies from different, unrelated fields. Disdain for objective, randomized experimental controls, especially double-blind testing (which is kind of what makes epidemiology actually, y'know, work. And maybe one or two other obscure corners of the field of scientific endeavor…) A supernatural and/or paranormal involvement; failing that, the preternatural. Persecution complex: Claims to be persecuted, usually perpetrated by the government, "Big Pharma", or the entire worldwide scientific community (see Galileo gambit). Usually accompanied by a claim that the public and/or scientists are blind to the discovery, despite attempts to alert them. A hypothesis that remains virtually unchanged for years or decades, despite changes in the evidence for the woo. This is sometimes presented as a strength. And, almost always, a willingness to share the woo-peddlers' precious knowledge/insight/revelation… for a price. And repeatedly. (Because if it didn't take the first time around, then the victims didn't believe sincerely enough.) Not every characteristic need be present for something to be woo. Woo manifests itself as a gradient, rather than a binary: the more of these tactics that are used, the more likely it is that the idea is woo.
@@mohannadislaieh3009 *"I am wondering what are the other”laws of existence"* ... Here are all five explained in detail: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-G4qcJZTHR3s.html
@@richardmarcus3340 How about a dry run, here in this comment thread. What would you tell him? What background do you have, and why does your particular orientation hold weight? What particular insights should Alan Guth learn from you?
@@Yzjoshuwave I would illustrate alternatives to current theories which would explain, amongst other things, gravity. I would address this need for a multiverse to explain the fine tuning they assert is mere happenstance. A simple correction to our standard model would solve the "crisis in cosmology" and establish pathways forward for the whole science community. Whether or not my particular insight or orientation holds weight is laughable given some of the theories I have heard over the last 58 years. I hour of his time is all I would need. Certainly any educated scientist would sacrifice 60 minutes if it meant finding answers to some of the long standing questions in cosmology... right? Current papers suggest they'll come to the same conclusions in roughly a decade or two but I'm getting tired of watching otherwise intelligent men overlook the simplest of mistakes made by others nearly a century ago. That and I probably won't be around in ten years to witness their enlightenment.
