Did the universe inflate? 

Sabine, have you read the "Noise level" sci-fi short story by Raymond Jones? What are your favorite sci-fi books and movies?

She IS Brilliant isn't she !!!

Sabine is one of the few people who I agree with on almost every point. Her logic is impeccable.

@@AndroidPoetry Not just her logic, but clarity in reasoning and arguments, objectivity in presenting pros and cons of each side of the debate, and to top it off, she does it all with some great sense of comedic timing. I tell you...just BRILLIANT!!

Light travels in both directions, anyone having a conversation with their friends understands this simple phenomenon yet Einstein's disciples believe people on earth are time traveling backwards and forwards in space-time relative to one another. Don't drink the Kool-Aid folks. Testing the speed light in on Earth is like riding a bicycle up hill, gravity will show you down. The biggest threat to humanity is human stupidity. The theory of everything according to humans that believe their intellect evolved from a monkey's brain. If the light waves from the sun were 8 minutes and 20 seconds in a past dimension of Einstein's space-time then people on Earth are just imagining the infrared warmth of the sun coming up on the horizon. The communications delay between Earth and Mars is approximately 20 minutes. We're either viewing the light from Mars in the future, Einstein's past dimensions of space-time or in real time, which do you think is more logical? Einstein's relativity is wrong light has no limitation of speed; it cannot be slowed down because it isn't moving. From every vantage point in the universe light is omnidirectional-instantaneously traveling in both directions. Light and electromagnetic waves are independent of each other. According to Einstein's relativity-time dilation's, photos taken of the Earth from the Discovery Space station traveled from the past to the future violating the laws of physics, conservation of energy and common sense. According to Einstein's projectile light particle proton light has a (constant speed) of 186,000 miles per second moving through spacetime, but if light has a (constant speed) then moving clocks cannot run slow through spacetime! :-) The speed of light according to Einstein's relativity is 186,000 miles per second, but according to physics if two mechanical watches were synchronized on earth and one traveled across the universe and back, there would be no difference in time between the mechanical watches proving the speed of light is instantaneous as the only way a mechanical watch will run slow is if you tighten the main spring. Big Bang, Einstein's relativity-time dilation and nearly all of science debunked. Using optical clocks, lasers and GPS to prove Einstein's time dilation-space-time curvature is like using a metal detector to find gold at Fort Knox. The closer you are to the electromagnetic fields, mass and gravity of the earth the more light bends aka gravitational lensing. If the speed of light is constant then past and future dimensions of spacetime and an expanding universe would not be possible, obviously destroying the twins paradox as each twin cannot move faster or slower than the other. A mirror is a wave reflector that flips images from left to right, but according to Einstein the images you see are the result of projectile light particle photons being transported into past and future dimensions of space-time. Explain how particle light photons can re-converge their molecular structures in mirrors and how this is done without violating the law of conservation of energy. From every vantage point in the universe light is omnidirectional-instantaneously traveling in all directions (forwards and backwards through Einstein's space-time) while violating the law of conservation of energy. Explain how Einstein's projectile light particle proton can travel all directions having a (constant speed) of 186,000 miles per second. Einstein would have made a great used car salesman :-). Light waves can stretch, bend-curve and occupy a state of superposition, whereas the hypothetical Einstein projectile light particle (photon), a particle that has never been observed cannot. Unlike a TV or computer monitor the images we are viewing in the universe are in real time, not a series of frames that create the appearance of a moving image. There are no DCU digital convergence circuits in space yet Einstein's disciples believe the light and moving images they see in the universe aren't really there, they're just video recorded images of the past 13.8 billion years. You could lead a cult to water, but you can't make them think. Neither time, energy nor mass can create itself into nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing simply because nothing has no properties. Time and space are independent of each other, not material bodies or fantasy unions that magically stretch Time, energy, and matter like a rubber band into space-time dimensions. Einstein's projectile light particle proton has a (constant speed) of 186,000 miles per second moving through spacetime and because so wavelengths of light cannot stretch through spacetime! Red-shifts are simply the result of decelerating electrons, as moving electrons of charged electromagnetic waves-light travel through the plasma of the universe each lump (or "quanta") of energy in the electromagnetic waves are charged then discharged to the next lump, eventually the energy dissipates causing the delay in radio communications giving the appearance of time dilation - longer wavelengths in red shift. Will the James Webb Telescope view the birth of the first galaxies? Nope, the universe goes on to infinity. Neither time, the atom, energy nor mass can create itself into nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing simply because nothing has no properties. The James Webb Space Telescope is not a time machine, you can’t travel back in time to view the beginning of the universe with telescopes that were made in the future :-). Light and electromagnetic waves are independent of each other. If science uses Einstein's wrongly theorized speed of light like an odometer to calculate past dimensions of distance and time, then using that same method to calculate forward dimensions of distance and time would mean the Big Bang was created and expanded in the future before time existed. Unlike a television or computer monitor the images we are viewing in the universe are in real time, not a series of still image frames that hypothetical Einstein projectile light particles photons create to give us the appearance of a moving image :-). The speed of electromagnetic wave is 186,282 miles per second vs Einstein's projectile light particle proton at 186,000 miles per second. Is this a coincidence or did Einstein plagiarize yet another phenomenon to fit the math of relativity? Electromagnetic waves in space can neither slow down or speed up, this is consistent with the law of conservation of energy. If light slowed down, its energy would decrease, thereby violating the law of conservation of energy so the speed of light is instantaneous and cannot travel slower than it does. If Einstein's projectile light (particle photon) had mass it's light could not travel across the universe, high speed particles traveling at 186,000 miles per second would break the Hubble and James Webb telescope mirrors, debunking the speed of light, Big Bang, Einstein's relativity and any science that uses relativity in their theories. Similar to a mirror light is a real-time wave reflector where light and images travel in straight lines-in all directions in space as they do on earth. The faintest stars and galaxies are neither in a past or future dimension of Einstein's space-time, they're in real-time. Everyone knows cell phone electromagnetic radio waves travel both ways, yet Einstein's disciples believe time energy, mass and light can only travel one way back in time. If you simply run the Big Bang theory in reverse you reveal the insanity of Einstein's relativity and Big Bang theory. If the expansion of the Big Bang were true, time, energy, mass and light would be in the future from the vantage point of an expanding singularity-Big Bang and planet Earth would now reside in a past dimension of Einstein's time dilation (moving clocks run slow) space-time 13.8 billion years ago :-). From every vantage point in the universe light is omnidirectional-instantaneously traveling in both directions (forwards and backwards through Einstein's space-time) while violating the law of conservation of energy. Explain how Einstein's projectile light particle proton can travel in both directions having a (constant speed) of 186,000 miles per second :-) It's truly amazing how the science and politics of the left are able to keep people denying reality, there are no DCU digital convergence circuits in space, yet Einstein's disciples believe the light and moving images they see in the universe aren't really there, they're just recorded images of the past 13.8 billion years. Pretending not to notice the gross contradictions-pseudoscience in Relativity is typical of Einstein's disciples, devaluing the source of any information that's in contradiction with their beliefs-theories. You could lead a cult to water, but you can't make them think. If the light from the universe travels to past dimensions of time then it's light is also traveling into future dimensions of time (instantaneously). “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” a state of superposition where time and gravity run inwardly, outwardly, in all directions in the same time frame, similar to the electromagnetic field having no beginning and no end. The Doppler effect is wrongly conflated with cosmological Redshift. As one approaches a blowing horn the perceived pitch is higher until the horn is reached, then becomes lower as the horn is passed. This phenomenon is caused by the physical movement of a mechanical soundwave traveling through the medium of air, similar to throwing a rock in a pond, the rock creates physical movement in the medium of water. Cosmological Redshifts are merely the GoPro fisheye effect where wavelengths appear to lengthen-stretch from the phenomenon of gravitational lensing. "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End" Magnetron

It could be that the Universe is actually 'turtles'. :)

As I have too 😂. But does it expand like us? I may grow fat but my organs stayed inside me. But as the universe expands parts of it expand beyond the horizon. What the hell is that!

@@CAThompson Except for the early period of the Universe which was the "Turtle Neck".

@@amedeeabreo7334 😆 🐢

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics) "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg) "For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940) "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954) "Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman) "Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla) "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1600) "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) Far from 'Standing on the shoulders of giants', modern 'big bang' supporters are dancing on their graves..

Yep truth doesn't care about how many people believe in it.. ask Galileo lol. True science isn't democracy but many 'scientists' think it is. That's why modern 'science' is full of bs

@@fluentpiffle great quotes. Thanks

It's rather like Christians who argue Christianity must be the one, true faith because it's such a successful religion and there's so many Christians in the world. Ok, but what about the fact that nowadays Muslims outnumber Christians? "But that's the Devil deceiving people!" Sorry, NOT an argument 🙄

Same. I'm pretty used to Sabine deflating these misconceptions though.

That’s the best theory we have today by a lot, so we shouldn’t discredit it for sure. But that doesn’t mean it’s proven. And don’t confuse the inflation with expansion. We are talking about the first second of big bang. Expansion has way stronger evidences.

I agree, I knew it was thin on usefulness and some outliers (Brian Cox,...) ignore it completely, but I thought it was a wrap and we were just sorting the details of it. Sabine makes it sound really shaky indeed. :-/

@@juzoli Good point! Thanks.

I think Guth would ask her to cite another theory besides inflation theory that answers both the flatness and horizon problems. Well, Sabine??

It's good to have practice in letting ideas we thought we understood go, philosophically, scientifically and personally. This channel is good practice.

On the other hand, science is about debate. If a theory can stand up to all criticism, then it should be correct. Debate is a fundamental part of science. After all, nothing in our universe is black and white.

Science is the field where it is the most likely that someone will admit, “we don’t “ know, or “we are not sure”. Of course sometimes it is lost in translation, and by the time a study get into the morning TV show, it is presented as fact… But if you actually follow science, and at least occasionally you read the source material, you will have a pretty good picture of what is sure, and what is just a best guess.

A scientific argument is only scientific if it admits it doesn't know on it's own. This why it requires independent verification and must be testable. IE, if you have your own theory about something then put forward your rigorous assertions and then let others put them to the test. And no, faith, or screaming the loudest are not science.

@@OBGynKenobi I wanted to make a comment on irrationally based beliefs (such as faith & emotions) - I agree with you. In general, I believe open mindedness, skepticism, & a basic willingness to improve on ideas as more data is received, is what advances more precise understanding of reality.

From a higher distance, you then fail to see the details and complications.

@@mikemondano3624 Agreed. But there is much value in seeing the forest for the trees.

Spooky views at a distance...

The Universe begins when you are born and dies when you die.

Real experts do not fall into traps. I can tell who the expert is because non-experts are sometimes 100% sure of what they are saying. Experts never are.

Congrats. I would like to hear, and see, your opinion on patents and copyrights. Escencialy, how much of what is "created" is REALY NEW if a lot of our knowledge comes from ANCIENT TIMES and MULTIPLE PEOPLE? v.r.g. Can we legimitelly claim rights over an operating system or an electric car if we didn't invent the maths that lead us to our "creation"?

You can trust most science, but you can't trust most scientists.

cognitive traps perhaps, but career protection is in the mix as well

I watched that interview with Roger Penrose and Alan Guth a while back, and, well watch it and judge for yourself. My opinion was that there was a clear distinction in the way arguments were presented. Spoiler alert -- in case you want to pause this comment to watch it before proceeding ------ I was highly impressed with Penrose's calm, dispassionate, matter-of-fact approach as opposed to my shock and surprise a felt from Guth's. Penrose stood on his own ground demonstrating thorough understanding of the underlying problems and explaining his points in response to criticism, in contrast to Guth who waved his hands a lot, never explained any points he made, made lots of appeals to authority, continually criticized Penrose and CCC by naming authors of papers but never explaining what it was those papers said or indicating that he even understood them. His entire defense of Inflation amounted to "look at all of these other people who agree with me. I'm popular." Perhaps I'm overstating it, but I was expecting a lot more from him.

She's amazing and I'm going to practice being like her.

She´s done that for years. It´s hilarious, sobering and educational - all at the same time.. Watch the episode where she is dismantling the fusion energy sector and ITER

You should watch her theory of everything dis video.

@@SandSeven The music video? I have. :)

@@belledetector The first video of hers I think I saw was her ripping into particle physicists who want a bigger collider. I didn't know who the heck she was at all but it was entertaining and enlightening.

Most scientists are bad philosophers, and vice-versa. Scientific inquiry would benefit greatly from undergraduates getting a solid basis on philosophical fields such as Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Physics, Philosophy of Mathematics, Logic, Dialectics, and Epistemology, as well as a basis on Rhetorics to better defend themselves from it, and on practical Rationalist topics such as Bayesian Inference and Cognitive Biases.

Why not buy a copy of Barbara Ryden's "Introduction to Cosmology", to give yourself an excellent overview of these topics? Make sure that you do all of the homework problems at the end of each chapter, to make sure you understand the math involved. There's only 60 of these problems, and some of them are fun to solve!

I think the video before this one was about that very topic

@pyropulse I don't think you should assume malice. I think instead we should take this as further evidence that even the smartest people are susceptible to their own biases and can fool themselves and others into going down a questionable or less-useful path. In Guth's case, inflation has gotten a lot of good press and it's his baby, I can understand a strong personal bias to keep working on it.

Alan Guth just needs to find the right parameters out of a collection of 9000!

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics) "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg) "For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940) "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954) "Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman) "Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla) "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1600) "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) Far from 'Standing on the shoulders of giants', modern 'big bang' supporters are dancing on their graves..

@pyropulseI am happy to admit my ignorance, see that? I'm joking. Going 'well akshully' at me joking about going 'well, actually' isn't a great look either. 😆

I skip the well, actually and go directly to well, Sabine says... saves me a lot of time, cheers

@@jonhowe2960 'Well SABINE says...' does have a nice, authoritative ring to it. :)

Making predictions to track targets, goals & objectives is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Physicists making predictions is empirical proof of a new law of physics! From a converging, convex or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All observers have a syntropic perspective. The Necker cube is a good example of duality and you should watch the spinning dancer:- www.medicaldaily.com/right-your-eyes-science-behind-famous-spinning-dancer-optical-illusion-336122 Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise. Brain dominance is based upon the (time dependent) Hegelian dialectic:- Master (Lordship) is dual to slave (Bondsman). Left brain dominance is dual to right brain dominance. The Hegelian dialectic is dual if it is dependent & independent of time (both at the same time). Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato' cat. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat. The spinning dancer is visual proof of the Hegelian dialectic. Duality creates reality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

If it's a tweak for getting a result, IT'S NOT A PREDICTION, IT'S A CHEAT Scientism adepts keep surprising me year after year

@@alastorgdl Scientism? Sounds like some butt hurt chri$tian who can't deal with reality to me. You do know "scientism" (not a word) made that computer, your lights, your heater, your indoor plumbing, your car and your house all possible. Delusional religoids never surprise me with their inability to understand reality. They are all the same.

I can see her peers reacting to the public perceptions resulting from some of the rhetoric used here. Terms like "crappy" might be acceptable within the group but it creates a different dynamic used elsewhere.

@@marktrued9497 well, she is very opinionated.

Well, you won't find it here. Watch the 1.5 hour discussion, debate between Alan Guth and Sir Roger Penrose. Both Nobel Laureates BTW. Inflation theory has literally become the standard model for Cosmology by a very large plurality among the theoretical physicists & cosmologists. The data is supported regardless of her subjective opinions. Inflation theory solves the flatness and horizon problems. It still has challenges such as the measurement problem but it nevertheless the leading theory.

Would you still write a conditional sentence with two "woulds" in it? Sorry for being insufferably pedantic.

Probably posting from his phone or tablet. I think he changed what he had written and didn’t go back and proofread what he rewrote. Been there. If I were still teaching research methods...

Saying predictions are really overrated is not proper science, is the exact contrary You got the idea critical thinking is conducted by gonads

The argument, if I remember correctly, is that it did start off smooth, but if it didn't expand as fast as inflation theory proposes, then it would have gotten 'lumpy' by the time it reached 'full' size. Inflation gets it to that size (however big in the early universe would have been considered 'full' size or 'big enough') while maintaining the original smoothness.

The Inflation theory (framework actually) was created for other mathematical reasons related to how the Higgs field should behave and artifacts that should be present but aren't (I think). Flatness was just a bonus that arose from the Inflation solution.

I remember the same thing, it was needed to explain the smoothness of the CMB. From what I remember, inflation was basically saying that, for a time, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. Otherwise, the CMB would be more intense in some directions as opposed to others. I don't recall hearing about any mechanism proposed to say how something can travel faster than light, but never mind. I guess that the alternative would be to concede that there is something fundamentally wrong with the Big Bang Theory and that's a bridge too far for most cosmologists.

I have a crazy idea at spaceTimeCells followed by the standard domain suffix, which would support either inflation or not. The idea is the universe is a cell/bubble that keeps dividing making smaller cells but remaining the same size. The first division was the first tick of time or what we’d call the moment of the big bang. Cell/bubble membranes form at the speed of light (I don’t know how or why they form) and grow to the middle. In the inflation period, many membranes form at once, so rather than the cells creating a doubled next generation, they create a 2^n next generations.

@@kurt9395 Everyone knows entropy decreases backwards in time back towards the Big Bang, so that the Universe had to have begun in an anomalously low entropy state. Out of that state emerged (evidently, apparently, according to observations) an anomalously smooth distribution of matter & energy. Out of anomalously low entropy = high order came an anomalously orderly distribution of energy. So, you could just say, "the Universe began in an anomalously ordered state" (= known fact) and leave it at that (?) This YT channel also has a video about how the Universe is far more clumpy than originally thought ("Cosmological Principal" episode)

Not sure what you mean by Dark Energy and Dark Matter as theories?? They are not theories in themselves. Thus they are called "dark".for a reason. But you are correct in your hopeful findings by the James Webb. It will indeed be an exciting ride.

@@Ascendlocal They're hypothesised to exist. There's not a firm distinction between what is a hypothesis or a theory.

Pride isn't helpful

@@eriknelson2559 One can take pride in oneself and one's work without being arrogant. Pride in one's sorry can encourage us to do our best.

Making predictions to track targets, goals & objectives is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Physicists making predictions is empirical proof of a new law of physics! From a converging, convex or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All observers have a syntropic perspective. The Necker cube is a good example of duality and you should watch the spinning dancer:- www.medicaldaily.com/right-your-eyes-science-behind-famous-spinning-dancer-optical-illusion-336122 Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise. Brain dominance is based upon the (time dependent) Hegelian dialectic:- Master (Lordship) is dual to slave (Bondsman). Left brain dominance is dual to right brain dominance. The Hegelian dialectic is dual if it is dependent & independent of time (both at the same time). Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato' cat. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat. The spinning dancer is visual proof of the Hegelian dialectic. Duality creates reality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

Yes. Reminds me of all those advertisements that start with "9 out of 10 dentists agree...."

Why not? Broadcasters, especially the BBC, do it all the time, especially wrt global warming, dangers of smoking, fracking. With global warming, firstly there will be an interview with a serious scientist who has spent years researching the subject - then they will turn to a complete amateur numpty, often ex politician Nigel Lawson, with absolutely no relevant qualifications whatsoever, an give him equal time to bring out his preposterous views. Listeners are then left thinking the science is still in doubt. NO IT'S F****G NOT. And it's the same for any scientific theory that might damage someone's commercial interests - Big Tobacco, Big Sugar, Big Oil, Big Pharma...

@@Pippins666 Thanks for venting your frustration with politics and popular media. That had nothing to do with what I said - that's why not.

And that's true, but i think some people draw erroneous conclusions from that. For some people, the 1 out of 10 always is right.

@@juanausensi499 They're still being democratic but they changed the question after the fact. 😜

our next target should be missuse of the word "literally "

Cool. I'll be awaiting your peer-reviewed article on the matter.

@@unduloid Will you really though? Do you even read papers on the subject and not just New Scientist articles?

Can't you just solve this problem by saying the universe just started homogeneous like we observe?

Have a look in the Janus Cosmological Model where involvement of negative mass and variable magnitude of cosmological constants overtime may solve this problem. It looks quite promising to me.

@@guyg.8529 Thanks for the suggestion

It's not necessarily a weakness if you actually need this many parameters in the model. The problem with too many parameters for a model is that it can cause overfitting (i.e., making your model extremly accurate or even too acurate to the data points you have but you can't extrapolate or interpolate new data with it), but if you have too few parameters you can underfit (i.e., you can't even predict the data you have with this model). That means that you need the least complex model to tune that you can still fit to all of your data, and to avoid or decreasing the chances of overfitting you would just need a lot of data (the more complex your model is the more data you will need). But in QFT we have huge amounts of a data and QFT predicted it correctly to amazing accuracy, that means it's unlikely we are overfitting here.

Yeah I couldn't believe my ears when I heard that argument. So ridiculous lazy and unscientific

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics) "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg) "For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940) "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954) "Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman) "Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla) "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1600) "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) Far from 'Standing on the shoulders of giants', modern 'big bang' supporters are dancing on their graves..

Any theory with practical use should produce some kind of testable predictions. Even if the people who made the theory didn't intend or weren't aware of those predictions, we're dealing with a universe wide phenomena. If a given inflation model is worth anything, poking it with a stick long enough should produce something that can confirm or debunk it. Not really a fan of this video because it doesn't do a good job establishing that reality. If inflation is real, it would have consequences on a cosmic scale, and any worthwhile theory should point to where those consequences demonstrate themselves.

Inflationary big bangs are not only caused by the mythical inflaton field. Penrose CCC does not require an inflaton for instance, but does describe an inflationary epoch. Last I read of CCC though was Penrose was now postulating the need for a new field, so it spoilt things a bit along the lines of putting more in to the model than one gets out..

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics) "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg) "For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940) "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954) "Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman) "Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla) "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1600) "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) Far from 'Standing on the shoulders of giants', modern 'big bang' supporters are dancing on their graves..

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics) "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg) "For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940) "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954) "Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman) "Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla) "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1600) "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) Far from 'Standing on the shoulders of giants', modern 'big bang' supporters are dancing on their graves..

So Does God if you are inclined to have faith in popularity of mention.

@@alphalunamare Not really explain that please in more detail it makes no sense

I was knocking 'popularity' as a means of assigning credibility to a theory. Inflation is designed fit with observations in cosmology on large scales so it is hardly surprising that it does.

@@alphalunamare Designed how do they design observations? You can't design these observations. Once more what you say makes no sense at all? Again in detail how did they "design" observations? They built galaxy's to move way from us? What you are say is just silly

@@jonathanjollimore4794 Read what I said ... I said nothing about designing observations. I see that I left the 'to' before the word fit however.

I think "Yeah, that guy again" would be catchy enough and appropriate. Mugs too.

@@brothermine2292 I would totally support

I think I'm blessed because if not I wouldn't have met someone who is as spectacular as expert Mrs Kimberly. I think she is the best broker I ever seen

Thanks for introducing me to Mrs Kimberly. My first investment with Mrs Kimberly gave me profit of over $24,000 us dollars and ever since then she has never failed to deliver and I can even say she's the most sincere broker I have known

Mrs Kimberly has changed my financial status for the best.all thanks to my aunty who introduced her to me

Yes I' m also a living testimony of expert Mrs Kimberly

Mrs Kimberly is obviously the best, I invested $3,000 and she made profit of $28,000 for me just in 15 days, Her success story is everywhere

+

The big bang hypothesis was NOT based on "accelerating expansion." It was based on Hubble expansion, which was an interpretation of the red shift observed by Hubble in the 1920s. For many decades it was assumed that the expansion was slowing due to gravity, and might eventually collapse to a big crunch. No one dreamed of accelerating expansion until the observations of the red shift of very distant supernovae in the 1990s.

Relatively little money is spent on these things you consider unimportant.

@@brothermine2292 minor detail corrected. Expansion was the key word. It doesn’t affect my point.

@@brothermine2292 minor detail corrected. Expansion was the key word. It doesn’t affect my point.

There is only spacetime, space and time together. The "absolute ruler" follows from the constants of nature (e.g. Planck length). Do you also have problems with expansion of the current universe, not due to inflation? That is measurable from inside that universe.

Bit of a late response but hopefully I can shed some light. Essentially the key quantity of interest here is something called a hubble size, which is loosely the size of you’re universe (things you could have been in causal contact with). If you look at the CMB, which was emitted 13 billion years ago, the Hubble size is about 2 degree on the sky. But everything in the CMBis almost perfectly isotopic. So regions that were never in causal contact have exactly the same statistics. Inflation explains this by supposing that the universe begins with an exponential period of growth, during which, if you do the maths, the Hubble size shrinks. So you can start with a region within a Hubble size, and have two different areas become separated (like in the CMB) but still contain the same statistics (up to QM effects). The number of 80 magnitudes corresponds basically to the difference between a Hubble size at the CMB time to our current universe. This is a lower bound on inflation, it must have at least blown up the universe this much such that the Hubble size shrunk by enough to observe the different regions of the CMB being isotopic.

Anyone can make a documentary in their garage.

@@mikemondano3624 I meant like the ones in national geographic or DW what kind of documentaries you watch

Dude, you're wrong at the basic level. NOTHING in science is a fact (that's why we call it 'theory') because future scientist might (and usually will) develop better theories. That doesn't mean Newtons theory of gravity it's wrong, it's correct for 99% of purposes one might reasonably need. That's why we use Einsteins theory of gravity for the remaining 1%, not 100%, because for all the other cases it's overkill and there is no need to bother with it. The fact that some future theory might be 'more' correct doesn't mean nitpicking of today makes theory wrong and you shouldn't trust it. If we have a theory at all it's because it does something well, and is as close to a proven fact as it gets. It's that simple.

Some theories (plum pudding model of the atom for instance) are garbage and thrown out. Other theories (bohr model of the atom for instance) are mostly garbage but can help understand stuff and hang around. Modern theories (Quantum model of the atom for instance) are usually brutal to work with mathematically but conceptually not that hard and extremely accurate. The low hanging fruit has been picked, after all.

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics) "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg) "For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940) "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954) "Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman) "Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla) "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1600) "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) Far from 'Standing on the shoulders of giants', modern 'big bang' supporters are dancing on their graves..

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics) "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg) "For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940) "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954) "Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman) "Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla) "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1600) "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) Far from 'Standing on the shoulders of giants', modern 'big bang' supporters are dancing on their graves..

I would love that!

Oh, great... yet another thing that only the ultra-wealthy will be able to afford. Like quantum computers.

I have been working on a new video with two other people for, like, a year, but it seems neither of us got much done. I certainly hope that eventually it will become reality!

@@SabineHossenfelder ❤❤❤❤❤❤

You might not have been convinced but the Nobel Prize committee was. Oh, and BTW, gravitational waves imprint on the CMB when confirmed by peer review, will be like killing two birds with one stone. Eternal inflation is the natural predictor from inflation, just as black holes were to General Relativity. And of course we have now a visual proof of a black hole. Eternal inflation theory also answers the fine tuning of our pocket universe and the resulting Anthropic Principal

Note the definition of Dark Matter has expanded to where any answer to the gravitational anomalies will be Dark Matter even if it some idea that does not include matter. Your statement is correct the hypothesis that Dark Matter is made up by particles is still unproven yet its often stated like it's a proven theory (I have a major problem with Science using a different definition for Theory than the general public one)

@@RedRocket4000 Would be better if it was called "gravitational anomaly" or even "something" from the beginning.

Why does the universe must have a beginning? It is the weakness of our mind to assume that everything must have a beginning and the end.

@@johnwalczak9202 those are my thoughts as well. I believe there's no beginning of space and time. It's the only explanation for existence that makes sense to me

Excellent question. You have to carefully distinguish between flat space and flat space-time. Space can be flat in an expanding universe, but space-time can't. When people talk about cosmology they usually refer to the curvature of space, not space-time.

If you draw lines on a paper, and expand the paper uniformly, then the lines stay straight, angles stay the same, and the paper stays flat. You can repeat it in 3, 4, 5 or n dimensions. I don’t say this is happening, but this is a geometric possibility. The default possibility.

@@SabineHossenfelder Hi. I'm sorry about all the inflation in the universe. I didn't mean to do it, it just happened. I fell asleep when I was supposed to be keeping an eye on things; and the whole universe just blew up on me.

@@SabineHossenfelder Thank you for your answer! Easy to mix things up, I guess. Maybe a topic for a video? :)

@@SabineHossenfelder why can’t space time be flat in an expanding universe? Is it because of the connection between time and the speed of light?

I hope Sabine keeps making videos of it while it lasts.

If they did that they wouldn't be able to get new grants or publish!!!

@@obsidianjane4413 They'd have to cook up something else, then.

your dissertation would need approval from your boss and peers; they would then be admitting their mistakes in public...

It's too bad the tool of science gets corrupted by egotistical scientists. It's not even right to call them scientist at a certain point.

While I do feel for you, it’s not usually what happens in science. Usually disproving an established theory is encouraged, since it gets a lot of attention. Your bosses theory probably wasn’t very established at all and since it’s probably also wrong, he sounds like kind of an idiot. But as we have seen in this video, there is always another camp, just waiting for good counter arguments! Also, why people don’t trust scientists is because they think 10 minutes on Google is just as good as studying a subject for years. They have a gut feeling and think that’s just as good as real research.

@@bobysze Your optimism is cute

@@nas8318 it’s my own experience as a researcher. I feel sorry, that your experience seems to have been very different. I can also understand, that early in your career (even more so pre PhD), there aren’t a lot of options, if your boss is a d**k. In the end though, it has nothing to do how the public sees scientists and science in general. Most people aren’t in research, but many have had a bad boss once.

The instant the universe was created is probably similar to the instant all life is created. I like your analogy of two people discussing what the edge of the earth looks like. l thought of a similar analogy when I heard people discussing what the edge of the universe looks like, l thought it would be like discussing what the edge of your mind looks like.

That instant all mind and intelligence was created so no human mind can fully explain what happened at that point apart from surmises and conjectures in the form of theories

Psssssst. Cosmology is all just magic thinking with math.

This is not necessarily the right question. Current models could be wrong and leave us with no explanation, but no explanation does not mean we should consider correct whatever model can account for observations. I still think prediction ability is the key for a sound theory.

Physicists observe that our universe is expanding and assume that it originated from a point, the big bang. The math doesn't work out, so they introduced inflation as a fudge factor. I think a more likely explanation is to do away with the big bang singularity assumption. Perhaps the universe is cycling or steady state.

@@trucid2 The maths does indeed work out. Observational data supports the Big Bang model. The Big Bang model works well even without inflation. Inflation was only introduced to explain the homogeneity of the CMB. That's only one small part of the overall model Steady state was disproved decades ago. It doesn't come close to agreeing with the data that's been accumulated over the last century.