Ripples From The Big Bang: Listening to the Beginning of Time 

Hello Manuel, To get started, all you need is a Google account. Check out Ripples From The Big Bang: Listening to the Beginning of Time to see how the process works: ru-vid.com_video?ref=share&v=70Y1Dri0umI

@@WorldScienceFestival is their any evidence that points to our universe being inside of a black hole??? Or maybe a theory that has some scientific facts that could theoretically prove our universe may just be inside a black hole???

@NATURAL SPIRIT even if that is true, and it might be, the moment the two membranes came into contact is the same event science has been calling the Big Bang, and the effects are exactly the same. The only real change is that we'd have a guess at the mechanics that caused it, other than "Let there be light"..

@@tyrasmith6477 More like that the Big Bang might have come out of it's theoretical opposite.. and possibly from a different place/dimension.. That would make the Big Bang more a contact point than anything.. Anywho.. theories.. we don't know, but they're intriguing, aren't they?

Lolll oh my ... all those self-proclaimed genius that understand the universe on RU-vid.

Chris Z. I have been on similar trip, my starting point was double slit experiment then quantum physics and finally cosmology,, Chris keep at it, it's magical

I thought I was nuts. So glad to hear there's others like me...I do the exact same thing. I've been lately hooked on this subject too.

Same here. I listen to them in the background and usually fall asleep at some point.

I easily fall into the same category, can't stop, will never stop listening and learning....

I love this stuff. Brian Greene is excellent. So thankful for RU-vid for all these great videos about various subjects. I've been listening to this particular video a few times in past weeks and go to sleep listening. I have a lot of stress from bad circumstances and enjoy these immensely as I need stuff that makes me think so I can try to take my mind away from the bad stuff for a little.

apnaem Yeah, I like getting to know what scientists are like.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! It is always very nice learning new things.. And Proffesor Green makes things that are difficult easy to learn. Keep watching these!! I would love to make these live. I live in NYC

sounds a lot like allowance to me

Lmao

Spoiled much 🤔

Much more interesting than hearing me talk about driving a truck.

Eric Johnsa Supernova inflational motif The "supernova inflational motif" is a Big-Bang inflational pattern of explosion-implosion-explosion. The Big-Bang occured according to the supernova inflatinal motif inside an ultra old and dilated maternal universe as Alan Guth suggested. The intermediate implosion occured due to recoil of the first explosion on the previous universe's brickall field, and provides solution to the Andrei Linde's initial conditioning problem also to the cosmic microwave background homogeneity(CMB homogeneity).

I never thought I'd want to be something called an astrobiologist.

There was no empty space then.

Or at least a wave that relates to sound.

imo tbh idk lol

Just a heads up that the LIGO experiment detects gravitational waves of a different nature than this; LIGO studies the gravitational waves created when massive gravitational events happen, like stellar mass black holes colliding. The gravitational waves created by the Big Bang are a very different beast, and we can't detect them. Part of this talk is about the BICEP2 project on the South Pole that was looking for a signature of those gravitational waves by looking at the polarization of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, an extremely difficult task. The BICEP2 discovery they're talking about in this video was announced in March 2014, and by June 2014 when this was filmed, I guess the team was still pretty excited. Unfortunately, since this video aired, further analysis of this discovery revealed that this BICEP2 announcement was not the smoking gun that they were hoping for. :/

What you saw are not primordial gravitational waves..Future man..they are merely from two colliding black holes...what these guys claim are waves from the bang..which wa proven wrong in subsequent experiments...

@@santanchalla4652 yeah, but they are proven to exist all the same. They are no longer just theoretical.

@@a_diamond nope...not true. Slmeone would have received a Nobel prize by now if that were true.

Energy yes, matter comes into existence and cancels itself back out all the time. It's a levelling out more than a creation or destruction.. technically with advanced enough science, we could re-seperate that particle and anti-particle into existence.. Most of the time matter and anti-matter cancel each other out almost immediately though. Within planck-time, which is parts of seconds. We and everything we know and everything we don't but that does exist in the physical reality, are what was left over because for some reason the matter and anti-matter didn't cancel out. Maybe gravity tugged on on particle but not as much on the other it whatever but matter is actually relatively rare..a fraction of what might come into being just long enough to disappear again... but here we all are, every atom of us made in the universe surrounding us.. and a lot of that in stars in the last moments of it's lifecycle.. Energy and matter can be converted into one another, much like water can be changed from a solid, into a liquid, into a gas.. it can't be created or truly destroyed, only separated from it's counterpart, but it can be cancelled out by it's equal and opposite.. What is amazing is that not all of it already has..

@@a_diamond *Believe whatever it pleases you to believe* *I offer a different interpretational -model, and if it is wrong, then it is wrong, and many years of thinking came to nothing...yet your rebuttal offers nothing more than 'suppositional magic as truth'*

@@gerrynightingale9045 None of this was superstition or magic. It's science. Read a book once in a while.

@@a_diamond *I should expected this, and am not impressed how much you can 'Quote' from dogma* *I present an alternative that neither you nor anyone else can counter effectively because you have no comprehension of what I wrote, which is that 'Energy' exists of itself and that the actions of matter enable the energy to become manifest*

@@gerrynightingale9045 Okay, I apologise for getting snappy. Yesterday was a bad day on my end. Let's go back to the water example. Imagine you have a glass of water in an enclosed system. You can heat it, cool it, freeze it... So your glass of water can be a gas (water vapor), and if you make it colder it will form liquid (water), and then a solid (ice) if you freeze it. Would you consider that solid block of ice a "gas becoming manifest"? Because E=MC^2 means that matter and energy at the speed of light are the same exact thing. It means that while we may know one to be solid and the other not, that under the same conditions they will be identical. (Take that block of ice and the water vapor, bring them both to 70 degrees Fahrenheit, and both will be a puddle of water. In our closed system, the same glass full we started with. One doesn't "enable" or "disable" the other. It does not "work with" or "against" the other.. *there is no "other".* That's the point of E=MC^2. It's the same thing. Nothing is "becoming manifest". It's the same thing.. in a different phase. As such, your idea isn't "alternative" at all. You only are seeing the water vapor and the block of ice as two different things when they are in fact the same. On the upside: if we didn't already have E=MC^2, you might have discovered it. You're pretty close to it. So keep going.. That said, there is value in coming to things already known in your own way. I've certainly been there, but that does mean that sometimes when you ignore the road markers of others who have already been where you are, that you may find out they were there for reasons *other* than "misleading you" or "lying to you".. Sometimes it isn't a bad thing to read the literature available of other people who struggled with understanding what you are trying to get as well. It means you don't always have to reinvent the wheel.. That said, you'll probably end up with a wheel of your own all the same, and gain a deeper appreciation for them while you're at it, so go for it. Keep going, and maybe take it a step further. Try plugging in data into your ideas. Make your own measurements and experiment. Does what you think work? Can you take your ideas out of the abstract and verbal, and apply them? Because until that moment all you are coming up with is "doctrine" of your own, based solely on your own abstract thought, without any testing of it's validity. Right or wrong, you'll end up with new answers and new questions. There is no such thing as a "failed" science experiment (even if there are some we shouldn't do for various reasons..) Consider looking up Walter Lewin's physics lectures on MITx.. they might move you forward..

dark penises he means

The dark science of astronomy ....you're right! Brian Greene and all of physicists must be upgrade in astronomy in order to know that Albert Einstein was very poor in astronomy, that's why in special and general relativity Einstein had ignored refraction of light: ie.astronomical refraction and terrestrial refraction. Einstein's curved geometry of spacetime is false. The fabric of spacetime which curves around the mass is not the empty vacuum but the asmospheric medium,

@@gsanewphysics8902 You think after all these years astronomers haven't already thought of that? Especially terrestrial refraction, which is a well known phenomenon. Astronomical refraction is also known. It slightly shifts the position of astronomical objects in the sky. Of course, this is not a problem for space telescopes.

Regardless of "fluff", boundaries prevent inflation. A theory by any other name...

Brian gave her the first question because he knew there was a large segment where he'd be talking to the people who worked on inflation. She answered it with one word :/

Because she has a vagina. Probably.

+Arne Hanna - Yes, the BICEP2 data was bad because it understated the effect of galactic dust. BICEP3 is much more sensitive and is taking data now.

In mathematics, the common logarithm is the logarithm with base 10. It is also known as the decadic logarithm and also as the decimal logarithm, named after its base, or Briggsian logarithm, after Henry Briggs, an English mathematician who pioneered its use. It is indicated by log10(x), or sometimes Log(x) with a capital L (however, this notation is ambiguous since it can also mean the complex natural logarithmic multi-valued function). On calculators it is usually "log", but mathematicians usually mean natural logarithm rather than common logarithm when they write "log". To mitigate this ambiguity the ISO specification is that log10(x) should be lg (x) and loge(x) should be ln (x).

Haven Tierra What an Atheist. You have posted your copy/paste job in other threads without given credit to the source or even identifying it as a copy/paste job. What's amusing is your ignorance to its irrelevancy, while you imagine you're tricking people into thinking you're an intellectual.

Agreed. Like in electrochemistry's mathematics, the common logarithm is the logarithm with base 10. It is also known as the decadic logarithm and also as the decimal logarithm, named after its base, or Briggsian logarithm, after Henry Briggs, an English mathematician who pioneered its use. It is indicated by log10(x), or sometimes Log(x) with a capital L (however, this notation is ambiguous since it can also mean the complex natural logarithmic multi-valued function). On calculators it is usually "log", but mathematicians usually mean natural logarithm rather than common logarithm when they write "log". To mitigate this ambiguity the ISO specification is that log10(x) should be lg (x) and loge(x) should be ln (x).

Haven Tierra I have to admit that what you are talking about is over my head. Are you saying that the number 10 is profound in some way other than the fact that mammals have 10 digits?

***** Brian Greene is an Atheist hack who believes in the Catholic Big Bang.

The Big Bang makes sense. Who cares if Greene believes in it? It's not like he's claiming it's a fact, just his belief. As for being Catholic, are you sure? I'm a scientist. Well, junior scientist (only have an Associates Degree) but every other scientist I know of doesn't believe in any religion, other than Intelligent Design.

Haven Tierra The Catholic Big Bang was conjured up by a priest in 1927 to explain Biblical Creation and is endorsed by The Vatican. It supposes that the universe (space) is finite, and was brought into being within 'no-space' by a creative explosion of . . . 1. What's your definition of 'no-space'? 2. What exploded?

Actually most photons never really “collide” with baryonic particles (what is traditionally called matter), since most space is empty. Also the whole discussion towards the end was of how the experimental physicists rule out interference from things like galactic dust that might distort the CMB

I'm not exactly sure exactly what you're asking, but I will say that as the universe expands, it's taking the waves of light passing through the universe with it. Wavelengths of light get stretched and longer the farther they travel through the universe. It's a phenomenon called "redshifting" because existing light wavelengths are moving toward the red end of the spectrum. That's why the James Webb Space Telescope, which just launched last month, is so finely tuned toward infrared -- It wants to look at some of that early light from the universe that was redshifted by the expansion of the universe.

@@tedsword If the whole Universe expands, then fields, waves and particles (as its integral parts) expand too? Or just the "edges" of the Universe expand making more room for the matter in it? Looks like the Big Bang was not "the only, one time source of matter" (Genesis from the Bible). The matter most likely has lot of (permanent?, occasional?) sources across the space-time.

And to prove that Dark energy is indeed real is by the use of gravitational lenses

Flawed experiments and flawed results..you had to download this crap twice...but unfortunately the experiment was proven wrong within the next few months..all this was a sham

I'm not a physicist, so I can only give an answer as a layman on the subject. The answer is no, that is not why they are called black holes. There are other objects that significantly bend spacetime (spacetime is the medium through which light travels -- gravity is not actually bending the light, itself, but rather the path that the light takes). Look up "gravitational lensing" and you'll find some cool Hubble pictures out there, if you're interested. The lensing effects in the pictures were not created by black holes. Black holes have such a strong gravitational pull for their size that when light crosses a certain radius called an "event horizon," it will never again escape beyond that event horizon. There's a much more detailed explanation for this phenomenon, if you're interested. You can find it by looking up "light cones", and you'll see diagrams where basically, all paths forward all bend toward the singularity in the black hole. This World Science Festival video is not about black holes at all, but there are some black hole videos out there, too, if you're curious.

By using non Euclidean geometry - in Minkowski space, solving general relativity equations using the mass-energy density of the sun, gives you the answer

john landis Big Bang Causality the maternal universe was very old and dilated. At very low energy levels only photons exist, that's why CERN consumes so much energy. All particle fields might exist, but a particle is an excessive folding of that particular field, thus requires specific energy levels. According to Special Relativity [read wiki], there is a light-speed equilibrium. The fastest the external speed of a particle, the slowest it's spin decay and vice versa [read the GPS conundrum on wiki] A normal photon, travels at the speed of light. Ultra old universes are consisted only by photons, because all objects evaporate though time [read Hawking radiation on wiki] and only photons can exist at ultra low energy levels as particles [not fields]. When the universal dilation is humongous due to universal senescence [old age], photons are not able to move at all relativisically to each other, thus the light-speed equilibrium also known as Special Relativity, tends to break apart. In physics when a law is about to break apart, a system simply gets entropic [read entropy on wiki]. An entropic explosion has the same overall energy levels as the initial value, but it simply complexes and fragments the previous system. The overall thermal energy remains constant, but the "Big Bang universal era" is the only way that the laws of physics are maintained.

john landis Supernova inflational motif The "supernova inflational motif" is a Big-Bang inflational pattern of explosion-implosion-explosion. The Big-Bang occured according to the supernova inflatinal motif inside an ultra old and dilated maternal universe as Alan Guth suggested. The intermediate implosion occured due to recoil of the first explosion on the previous universe's brickall field, and provides solution to the Andrei Linde's initial conditioning problem also to the cosmic microwave background homogeneity(CMB homogeneity).

Umm, nobody knows the topographical shape of the universe, or whether it’s finite or infinite, so the question of calculating the center of the universe doesn’t come into place. The cosmological equivalence principle basically states that no particular region of space is special and can be treated as the “center” of its observable universe (which for us is around 49 billion light years in radius), since the energy density of the universe is almost completely uniform

Einstein did most of his work on top of his head - though experiements...and niels bohr worked them out... and yes, despite his ridiculous genius, everything had to be confirmed... But isn't it staggering what he did?