Hello, YouTubers. The World Science Festival is looking for enthusiastic translation ambassadors for its YouTube translation project. To get started, all you need is a Google account. Check out To Infinity and Beyond: The Accelerating Universe to see how the process works: http://www.youtube.com/timedtext_video?ref=share&v=pcKdA2-W0X0 To create your translation, just type along with the video and save when done. Check out the full list of programs that you can contribute to here: http://www.youtube.com/timedtext_cs_panel?c=UCShHFwKyhcDo3g7hr4f1R8A&tab=2  The World Science Festival strives to cultivate a general public that's informed and awed by science. Thanks to your contributions, we can continue to share the wonder of scientific discoveries with the world.

You ti uhf. 😅 Look😅 ugly t the t m. 😮Aqaba mmmknm K awaw😊❤

888i9io8888889ii

88o8o88ioji8ooo99888888888i9i98o9888

j98ko8988888o88k89i999o88i8

8i. 8 8@8v8@ I I I 8. 99o. Jib yes 988ihj8 I'm 8iuu 8th 8th i8@9 9 8th 88 9 8th just 9 I I. 8 I 8 8th@888jkj8o98ijbji9 8o9 I 918 OK 9 o80hk 9 i8 p 9 h. 8b 9. 8 u@up 88 89 i7 oo

Priya seems to be a very good explainer, kept everything simple, using easy to understand analogies (potholes, lumps, etc.). The others were good too, but she was especially good. Loved the interactions between Lawrence Krauss and Neil Turok at the end. Even though Krauss was supposedly the impartial moderator of the topic, you could tell he was an equal participant in the topic too, and he and Turok had very different rival theories about Inflation and the Big Bang. Like watching a couple of heavy-weight fighters taking little jabs at each other.

I wonder how different this talk would be if they had it today... So much happened this year. Great talk, I love this channel!

It is amazing how much can change in a short period of time. Based off the discussion of 'No Evidence of Gravitational Waves' @ 43:00, I wonder if there could be a follow up discussion ; not necessarily based off BICEP's observation, but LIGO's findings earlier this year.

Interesting watching the battle with the guy at end - wondering what his response is now with the confirmation of gravity waves only a short time after this interview. But I must admit, I do think like him, and agree that the simplest explanation of nature is usually the correct one, and back in 2015, I would have found his explanations most convincing.

We know galaxies are receding from each other because as we look farther away they get closer together. The scope of the Universe is unfathomable as it should be. Infinity is so damn hard to see. We will never know what is beyond what we can see no matter how far we look. It's hard to accept but it is also beautiful.

Andromeda and our milky way galaxies are coming closer to each other on road to a collision. This is what the scientists claim.

Excellent! A great panel that clearly presented many of the cutting edge ideas in Astronomy. Thanks! Only thing to add. Follow it with deep drill down presentations on each of the major ideas presented.

I would like to see more of Lawrence Krauss presentations. Love his sense of humor and insights on the latest science topics.

5027. If this is true... wouldnt all of what we see be a distortion? If light can bend once in a path, cant it bend twice?

Kind of literally light years ahead of TED talks, at least in the study of the universe. Awesome dream fuel.

hard agree! my mind has been blown a few times watching these vids lol. a few "assumptions" or theories presented on shows like How The Universe Works, etc that i could not understand the leap in logic while watching, start making sense after hearing these brilliant minds explain them a bit more in depth

When the rate of expansion becomes faster than light, then entropy will reverse itself and everything will begin happening again in reverse order. This suggests an infinitely oscillating universe. I just wonder if the oscillations are symmetrical. They would have to be if we are to believe mainstream theories. Unless Hawking was correct about information loss. Black holes are the one variable which could have broken the symmetry of an oscillating universe. In fact, I wouldn't consider this a paradox at all, rather a necessity, so long as a black hole's impact on an oscillation can be quantized through any effected world-lines. Determine this, and you may have a unifying theory. Patterns of oscillations could contain enough information to describe a system of higher order or the very system it contains.

One question that I've never had answered since my Cosmo studies...If we can detect accelerating expansion, why is a point of origin undetectable? It seems strangely similar to geo-centric thinking. Anyone with information would be appreciated.

every point in the universe is simultaneously the point of origin. Every observer is at the center of their observable universe

Aren't gravitational waves just all the ripple waves from collisions eventually creating steady troughs that essentially work like space fabric "canyons" so to speak? I was explained to that basically "stuff" smashes in to other stuff and over long long time periods the stuff that doesn't fuse together either gets caught in an orbit or catches other stuff in it's orbit to in a sense shield it from more intense collisions.... in that mental image if seemed like there aren't really gravitational waves so to speak but rather gravity can only exist as a byproduct of impact ripple waves interacting/interfering with each other and relating these elastic resonant cavities that have a very small range but a range nonetheless of objects that could potentially intersect and become stuck in. Anyone? I am clueless I thought we knew gravity wasn't an actual thing....

Lawrence Kraus is a gem

The obvious question is how can galaxies be reliable measurement points for mapping dark matter when they can’t be used to reliably measure acceleration

It's interesting watching this after they've discovered gravitational waves.

Also the taking of the picture of the black hole which creates gravitational waves.Its a good time for exciting science.

the problem mentioned at 27 minutes has a solution. i found the answer. time is negative. Riess suspected a negative sign problem. the negative sign is missing in his calculation. he speeks of the most distance galaxies moving in real time or current time, evenafter he tells us that these most distance galaxies are next to the most ancient parts of the universe. the high red shift of these most distance galaxies, the high expansion rate of this part of the universe has absolutely nothing to do with what the universe is doing today. the acceleration is not increasing but just the opposite. the early universe expanded faster but slowed as the universe ages and the chart shows the redshift tending to the blue edge of the spectrum as time progresses. hence, no dark energy from this perspective.

The panel starts at 20:05 in case you know the basics of dark matter/energy.

To me Dark Matter (by the influence it seems to have on galactic clusters) reminds me of surface tension on water. If you picture space as a sort of fluid ...it makes sense to me ...just a thought...

dark energy*

I like the multiverse theory personally, throw in a little "As above so below" & voila! Blackholes become the gateways to new big bangs where the information is reassembled in a different dimension of spacetime making the cosmos somewhat infinitely large like a fractal where scale & time becomes beyond comprehension of even the most insanely existentialist mathematician.

@deep blue Relativity & perspective I suppose.. If we think of the universe as alive perhaps a rudimentary form of dimensional Mitosis or Meiosis becomes an option. It would seem procreation is a fundamental quality of existence. Paradoxically, Complexity seems to be the result of entropy from the interaction & reiteration of a primal binary set of opposing principles, with space/time representing the oscillation of the wave form function. To view a human at the atomic level one could have great difficulty seeing how several atoms were part of a much greater whole. I suspect our vantage of the universe is an incomplete picture due to our perspective & the limits of our sensory input & how we interpret the data.

How can remainings of a star can create a universe with many many stars? Wouldn’t it be a violation of conservation principle?

Muskoka Man : I have a friend (normal) that she was abducted and portal into a tunnel like structure onto another team or planet. returned 3 days later. She was given information that here grandmother was gonna die, before she had died. March 28th. the experience of abductee. Then returned to see another side of a world. Unable to get too. Because we are still so primitively developed. Wow!

it's a little convenient though from an empirical perspective.. if I wanted a PhD it'd be pretty gangster to pick a thesis that inherently meant I had to prove nothing.. I am not saying I disagree I am so down to let NASA send my dumbass through a blackhole... fuckin sign me up Matt McCoughnehe style... spaghetti is my favorite so hey if it doesn't lead to a new dimension at least I get all the spaghetti I can dream of. but still, I am glad science is considering more comprehensible methods with which to explain how the he'll we are and why the he'll we are necessary... or at least if we are necessary. lol.

@crimsonsamuraiftw ...except that the chamber(s) are all interconnected in an infinite loop. What you describe is something like "The Incredible Shrinking Man" by Richard Matheson. Great book by the way. Don't be misled by the movie. The movie is not the book and it stops short of the really interesting stuff that's in the book. 

Krauss finally touched on the essence of the discussion, at about 1 hour he starts to compare today's rate of expansion to that of the early universe and then passes off to Reiss who quickly muddles through without any real numbers. after being interrupted the discussion degrades to predictions of planets in the solar system. i wanted to hear the actual current acceleration and recorded red shift as seen between some close local galaxy and the milkyway. Hubble was a lawyer, so i can understand why he missed the point that the farther out you look the more ancient the data. but Krauss should have understood that the early universe expanded rapidly and as it gained age, time coming forward the galaxies movement away slowed. the farther away the higher the red shift. you view time in the negative, when looking into the past.

+Mootez Elhosni as i stated: in the video conducted by Krauss et al he stated the need to compare current and ancient rates of expansion of the universe. so tell Krauss of "no need for CURRENT acceleration and recorded red shift." the expansion is not exponential. it is as stated by space.com "expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years)" this is a mere 0.007% per million years. very slow acceleration. but this is irrelevant because i believe there is a mistake in the calculations.

Neil Turak is the most intelligent individual person on this panel.

@EconAtheist ​@UCR16LkunxjHR_Oxk7wWH1JA Arkani Hamed and Witten were not on this panel

@S. Sagan 2 Gravitational waves in the Cosmic Microwave Background have been detected? When did that happen?? I think you are confusing the detection of GW's from blackhole & neutron star mergers by LIGO with GW's potentially produced at the Big Bang as predicted in many inflationary models in the CMB. The later was discussed by the panel when they were talking about the BISON experiment confusing polarization of light in the CMB with polarization of light from dust. Neil was talking about GW's from the Big Bang.

The 2 most respected physicists in the world today are Edward Witten and Nima Arkani Hamed but I agree Neil is certainly up there.

I loved the barely concealed rivalry between him and Krauss. Taking little shots at each other. :)

Galaxia ... Ed Witten would beg to differ, but Turok is definitely a top-5 brain.

If there was a little astronomer. a trillion times smaller that an atomic nucleus, gazing out from the core of an apple would he see billions of spherical objects, separated by vast regions of empty space, but which did not appear to behave consistently with their observable mass, as if some dark force were holding them all together?

Dan Marron absolutely correct we are arrogant in the belief that what we observe is what exists. We only possess 5 senses and a very limited spectrum of observation even with our instruments.

@Dhyan Jay thats based on measurements of the visible light spectrum... There are other "light" wavelengths that have other properties- gamma, X, infrared, etc... And these are just the frequencies we can measure with technology, otherwise we wouldn't even know it existed. We already know physics behaves different in macrocosms(celestial bodies, black holes, galaxies) than the physics at our scale, just as physics behaves differently at the quantum scale... Who's to say physics doesn't begin to behave differently, once again, beyond the quantum scale? We don't even fully understand all of physics- gravity, black holes, magnetism, quantum entanglement, etc, etc... As far as i can tell there is no definitive proof that size isn't relative. Our vision and senses are very limited in our current conscious state. Large scale maps of galaxies show similarities between galactic systems and our own nervous systems. We could seriously be just living on a speck inside someone's massive brain- which to them would be "normal" size. Ever see "horton hears a who"? Very similar concept. We cant be so naive to believe that there is nothing beyond our understanding or grasp. This universe is much larger and much smaller than we realize...

@Dhyan Jay no, i meant that what if size is all relative and inside every atom here is an entire galaxy or universe of smaller particles that make that universe and inside every atom in THAT universe is another universe of smaller particles... And so on and so on... So that in the end there is no "smallest particle". Kinda like when you see one of the Zoom videos for Mandelbrot's set. There are many on youtube.

Exactly! What if there are no irreducible small particles? And if you need smaller particles to hold the already small particles together... And so on and so on..

Rather than calling it dark matter or dark energy would it not be more accurate to call it dark knowledge.

The videos of the World Science Festival are among the most insightful and entertaining science material I found over the internet so far, but I'd like to make you a question. If you cannot subtitle the videos by some reason, why just aren't allowed the automatic subtitles? If it could help people like me who just did not born in a country where people speak your language around me, can you imagine how could help people who are just by instance, deaf? Science has to be done by far more people. In a time when skepticism is becoming less and less popular, if we scientists don't step down from this pedestals, we are accepting the risk of having us all the destiny of Hypatia. And no one is gonna stand up for us.

it is good that this show had a pretty long but interesting introduction; most of the other conferences should start also with a nice introduction, as simple as possible to understand; else, if topic is hard to grab, the talk following will only be followed by the specialists in that particular field

Question: These 2D oval background radiation maps are (Aitoff?) projections of the 3D night sky right? 38:38 Why is this projection chosen over an equal area method? Is it because gravitational lensing messes up the proportions anyway? Second question: Is saying that the geometry of the universe is flat, the same as to say that 4D space-time has itself 0 curvature?

really great introduction!!

has anyone else ever thought that maybe each galaxy has its own set of laws

Yes, the scientist have confirmed that the laws of physics are the same throughout the observable universe.

How about particles that have spacetime bending effects different from their actual standard mass. Stuff life EM black hole/neutron star analogues, relativistic particles, condensed matter. Gravity waves and lensing on a spectrum of scales can emerge as an "antigravity" effect! Observation!

The cosmological models circle and revolve around the unheard-of as the cat around the bush. But what  you can observe, if you like, is their dusty approach to a much older cosmological model. These are the descriptions of the origins, the descriptions of the growth and the descriptions of the transitions of the cosmos, as it is written in the Vedas. A very startling development of modern cosmology. As if...

This is an invitation to see a theory on the nature of time! In this theory we have an emergent uncertain future continuously coming into existence relative to the spontaneous absorption and emission of photon energy. Within such a process the wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with forming the possible into the actual! The future is unfolding with each photon electron coupling or dipole moment relative to the atoms of the periodic table and the wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum. As part of a universal process of energy exchange that forms the ever changing world of our everyday life the ‘past’ has gone forever. At the smallest scale of this process the ‘past’ is represented by anti-matter annihilation with the symmetry between matter and anti-matter representing the symmetry between the future and the past as the future unfolds photon by photon. In such a theory the mathematics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of ‘time’ with the classical physics of Newton representing processes over a period of time, as in Newton’s differential equations. In my videos I explain how this process is relative to temperature and the phase changes of matter.

I think you need to do some more research and then reformulate your thesis. Start with the Basics of Quantum mechanics, some quantum field theory and look into the holographic principle. Oh and lets not forget at the very least the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Nice try though.

What's interesting if how you talk about the fastest form of space-time travel as in light as it's the fastest narrow band ever found. How would you know if you've never been on the outside of a dimension to confirm it? So you can travel on wave bands at different frequencies. What else is there other than wave bands, frequencies & vibrations? How would you know your measuring equipment is even made strangely to measure something strange? Sounds like your just confirming theories to understand fragments of dimensional mechanics. It's like drawing an inverted physics puzzle from a 4-dimensional perspective with the theories confirmed getting ever closer to that realization of maybe we did make ourselves. I think you or anyone should definitely try to understand scale in my opinion as above so below. You spend so much time zooming in on things while not realizing how big you actually are. What is big what is small what is size how do you measure size how do you measure scale if it's all a collective formation of the same things?

Infinite accelerating universe, dark matter, dark energy, and the rest of science conundrums can only be explained correctly once we have a complete understanding of the real true nature of gravity. I will publish online soon, in Singapore, my 30-year long fundamental research on the true nature of gravity. It solve all of the above mentioned problems.

So. You've "discovered" dark matter. Then you "discovered" dark energy. Doesn't it make a lot of sense that there are many other "dark" elements of the universe waiting out there? Job security, perhaps.

I also wonder what Neil Turok has to say now that gravitational waves have indeed been detected. And - instead of interpreting his statements, I say let them stand on their own. NT didn't say "gravitational waves produced by the big bang or inflation haven't been observed," he said "gravitational waves haven't been observed." NT also implies that because super-symmetric particles and more massive Higgs bosons haven't been discovered in the LHC, they must not exist. But that REALLY only means that they (apparently) don't exist at the energy levels (distances) probed by LHC - NOT that they "don't exist.". "Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence..." as one of the panelists said early on. Look - I truly appreciate informed scientific skeptics and rule breakers. Eratosthenes. Copernicus. Kepler. Galileo. Newton. Maxwell. Planck. Bohr. Einstein. Heisenberg. Dirac. Schrodinger. Hubble. (And MANY more...) They ALL abandoned the current scientific dogma of their times and led us to amazing new truths about our universe. And I get that Neil Turok has a "brain the size of a planet!" But he makes many seemingly unfounded assumptions in his explanation of his personal views... If history is truly our guide, the next scientific revolution will likely be far stranger than anything imagined to date - and THAT'S why I love science!

Funny listening to parts of this now after proving gravitational waves exist..cant imagine what we'll know 10, 20, 50 years from now and think how funny it'll be listening to the things we think we know now

In this multiverse are some universes much older than the next , if so does the older universe influence the newer one through quantum physics

the speed of light is constant within the space time of the present,.. at any "time" in history,.. light, when measured, will always be its constant,... but,.. if you could place our present stretch of space time, with its present rate of acceleration, and were able to place it over an earlier stretch, the light speeds would then differ, .. ours being more stretched, would be slower,.. the math would always agree within the current space time but not if you could compare the light you received from distant stars a hundred years ago with light from the same star a hundred years later,.. you can never see the light received a hundred years ago as it has already reached us a hundred years ago and within the space time OF a hundred years ago at the rate of accelerated expansion the earth, hence us, was at that time,..you can't measure light speed of earlier space time,.. even though you can receive light just arriving that was emitted a hundred years ago, it still is received within the present space time, making it subject to our current rate of accelerated space time . ??

We didn't know what we were doing? We specifically were trying to measure q0, and we had been studying supernovae since 1986 to measure distances. We determined how to use Type Ia SNe to measure distances between 1989-96. The value of q0 was surprising, but to say we didn't know what we were doing is not what happened Lawrence.

your team is awsome if i could help i would.

If the relative velocity of very remote ( ie long ago ) regions of the universe is higher than linearly proportional to the distance ( in space and time ) , then these very old regions are moving *faster* than the younger / closer ones , so expansion isn't speeding up but down , or am i dumb ?

Furthermore : at that stage of the Universe's Life Cycle , its Mass was way more concentrated , resulting in larger Red Shift of emitted Light . If these two would cancel eachother out , the Universe would still be flat . I guess i'm dumb .

I just have this question in my mind. what if everyone exist just in your mind? I mean it is possible that every person you see is just another format of yourself. I mean it just shows the possibility of how would you do if you could know the end result of every choice that you didn't make. maybe it's why everyone sees the same thing but understands it differently. may be you are just a version of me (different choices, different surrounding, different understanding, different perception). I don't know you because I didn't make that certain choice, hence I have no clue what happened after that choice. ever wondered that we KNOW someone is mentally retarded but what do they "KNOW" about us? it is possible that they are actually not retarded at all but people who knew the universe and hence behaving in a manner that is "dark energy or mass" does to the visible universe (makes no sense at all)

And how do you acquired the knowledge this "other you" have? How do you acquire the knowledge you know you have? When we have a "great idea" the second thing we should do is try to destroy it. After many days trying to destroy, if it still there, maybe, just maybe it is a good idea. I guarantee to you we are not the same.

If you had a typical cloud of ordinary matter and dark matter, which would be denser?

Since we currently don't know what dark matter is, that question probably can't be answered.

1:08:03 is when it starts. You're welcome.

What goes up must come down hasn't been true since we achieved 'escape velocity'. We left a lot of stuff on the moon, which proves that it went up, but it did not come back down.

Quantum mechanics or entanglement could exist between 2 or more universes as well, no?

There are several logistical errors... Extrapolation is an effective investigative tool. What we see is what there is. Looking at a projection gives impeccably useful information about the source material. Until people review these false assumptions there will continue to be problems. This reminds me of the factory workers who admonished me to not work hard because they want to milk it.

If the Universe is expanding and that expansion is accelerating what happens when we run the Universe backwards? Does everything keep slowing down until it stops at the Big Bang?

it hasn't necessarily been accelerating non-stop since the big bang, but basically yes, just as any explosion would.

I think one of possible candidates of dark energy might be negative "gravitational charge" that may be carried by unknown positive mass objects. Negative gravitational charges attract each other but repel positive gravitational charges. Normal objects carry positive gravitational charges. if negative gravitational charge existed, it predicts the jerk and even higher order derivative universe. If this was the case, second order derivative gravitational theories, such as Newton and Einstein theories, might need to extend to third and even hight order derivative theories.

...Let me get this straight....lamda....the cosmological constant, Einstein added to account for the static nature of the Milky Way....and experimentation so far has been unable to disprove that it accounts for the rapidly expanding outer edges of the universe.........unable to disprove that dark matter is "pushing" at the exact same rate.......that is uncanny.....

And as to the non-detection of gravity waves created by either the big bang or inflation being "proof" that inflation didn't happen, inflation occurred AFTER the big bang, so any gravity waves produced BY the BB itself would have been 'stretched out' by a fantastic amount (didn't Lawrence say 10^90!?) - along with space itself. LIGO detected the 2 mergers (both black hole and neutron star mergers) GW phenomena because the frequency of the gravity waves they produced was in a range that could be detected - the audible bbbwwwiiiippppp! Doesn't that mean that Inflation theory has the innate property of effectively erasing any GWs produced by the big bang?

nobody said the non-detection of GW from BB was proof the inflation didn't happen [although it could be a hint-it is theoretically still possible to detect them in the CMB]. But GW from any other source isn't proof of inflation either

Neil's part was so damn interesting, why did they stop him -.-

Wonder how he took the LIGO success :)

Thankyou for this!!!! Wondeful !!!!!!!!

Everybody understands that the margins of error in experimental Astronomy and Cosmology are much larger those in HEP.

If our universe is inside a black hole in another universe....what happens when the black hole in the original universe evaporates from Hawking radiation ? Just as the hypothesis by others that the universe is a simulation runs into an impossible infinite regress that no 'original' simulator could possibly cope with, so too the 'universe is a black hole' hypothesis runs into the impossibility of an infinite regress because the 'original' black hole should have long since evaporated and absolutely every subsequent iteration vanishes.

they've finally posted the whole discussion on here

@yugang08 Yeah, what's with the 5min soundbites? They don't make sense when you're editing a panel discussion...

13:55 Empty space is not truly empty. I know this holds true perhaps in the deep vacuum of space. But I do know for sure that there are a handful of people I know who have truly empty space where a brain should be.

🙂

Now that we've detected gravitational waves could you bring back these guests for an update?

@Enter the Bragn’ Agreed, a 'logical fallacy' describes some fundamental fault in a line of reasoning, as opposed to just a complete lack of any reason whatsoever.

Not the same waves

@Enter the Bragn’ logical fallacy by you, try again

@Draw Down Dave gravitational waves from the Big Bang as seen as light polarization in the CMB may help to confirm Guth's inflationary cosmology and the Multiverse Hypothesis that comes from inflationary cosmology. as put forward by Andre Linde. Hope that clears it up for you,

You cannot understand smart people in the first instance...there are many layers to their understanding. Same with what Neil was talking about the gravitational waves from the Big bang.

have gravity waves been proven to exist - yes or no?

Yes. Google LIGO.

Is there a followup to this presentation now that gravitational waves have been detected?

not from the CMB though.. his comment was misleading implying that gravitational waves would confirm inflation. they do not. only gravitational waves from the early universe/ ie. CMB would suggest that theory of inflation is correct

Turok’s insistence that gravitational waves don’t exist must be making him feel a little foolish these days, along with most of his theories falling flat as well.

If light (photons) cannot escape a black hole, then electromagnetic force (carried by photons) oughtn't be able to effect across the event horizon as well.

@tomcmlee ???

Since this video was made gravity waves have been proven to exist and they have been measured

Yes

Some of the answers we are looking for as a species would probably come easier if there wasn't so much pride & ego invested in the investigation

I can't imagine greater arrogance than to call a finite area of space "the universe." Who first decided that? Does anyone have any evidence that nothing is beyond it?

Its just the way physicists speak. When they say universe its shorthand for " the observable universe" Its widely accepted that there is plenty going on beyond what we can see.

what if we are just in an early stage of expansion of the universe and things aren't exponentially expanding bt just havent strat to slow down yet

to be precise it haven't even hit its max speed for its expansion yet

isn't true that propibiltyility stand to say that in the universe we aren't the only lifeform existing. Based on a mathematical theory.

Um - the last time I checked infinity never ends and for that reason I find it difficult to get beyond it - duh

a physicist told me when i was 10, science doesn't "suck" lol

so we look at the light coming from the Big Bang and see the universe as it was a relatively short period after it started. Earth originated from the Big Bang and science 'looks back' and see light approaching from an earlier time . Does this not mean our planet traveled faster than light?

@oaks nice Excellent explanation. Got it exactly right. Well done

One thing is for sure there was no big bang, all you have to do is take the Hubble constant, it assumes that a certain redshift is a certain distance and a twice the redshift gives a twice the distance and the so-called Big Bang remnants with 97.5% redshift are 13.4 billion light-years away. That radiation from the remnants takes 13.4 billion years to reach us and it just goes with the speed of light, as if there is no expanding universe, but that wine emits radiation, after a billion years that is at a distance of 1 billion light years away and after 13.4 billion years that is at 13.4 billion light years away, if those remnants now move away from us at 97.5% of the speed of light, according to the big bang theory, that radiation will arrive there, but the remnants a little further up, that is just like the radiation from the big bang remnants when that radiation starts emitting at the speed of light and after 13.4 billion years that radiation is 13.4 billion light years further, only we are compared to the big bang remnants 13.4 billion years with 97.5% of the speed of light disappeared from this place. And if those so-called big bang remnants are just the dust cloud that our universe is built with, we look into the past and see that there is first a large dust cloud and when we look closer we see stars and milky way, then you ask of course what about that redshift, which can also occur when our atoms shrink, then the electron shells in which the electrons revolve around the nucleus of atoms become smaller and if we take a galaxy with 50% redshift, we look at a galaxy twice that size diameter and the electrons have to travel a twice as big orbit to make a circle around the nucleus and our atom is with respect to that atom with 50% redshift, halved in diameter and if we take the Hubble Constant you see that it is than is about 7 billion light years away and you can conclude that in 7 billion years we have halved in diameter, then you get a different insight into the universe, in the first place our measuring ribbon is shrinking and our clock is also going faster walking, which runs twice as fast as 7 billion years ago, we also see the Moon moving 2 cm from the Earth, that is entirely according to the Hubble constant, that was already known but the tides were held responsible for it , the Sun, we are moving away from that 10 meters a year, which is 10 million kilometers in 1 billion years and we are now at 150 million kilometers, so you might just think that's where the ice ages come from. The big bang theory supporters think that we are still accelerating, but the shrinkage is accelerating, because our clock is going faster and the shrinkage is also faster, the redshift bands can just indicate that structures in our atoms are evolving and so on. influence shrinkage.

Well that final panel member at the end was proven wrong with the 2017 observation and discovery of gravitational waves just as Einstein's equations have predicted so Stephen Hawking ended up winning that bet :)

No, you misunderstood him. He wasn't talking about the (or more properly Lawrence wasn't talking about) Gravitational Waves caused by the collision of black holes (or Neutron Stars) but rather that created by the original Big Bang. There has been no evidence of gravitational waves from that. The bet is still open.

good stuff :)

what if the end of the universe bounces off another universe. sometime in the future. and reverses

rea

Finally! I was waiting for this video since may!!! Knowledge!!!

Knowledge ❗

what about the energy its used more energy loss weaker hold?

A flat universe would go against everything else we observe. Virtually everything that's formed (not a piece of something else) in the universe is in the form of a sphere. Why should the universe be any different? The universe is mostly likely an immense curved sphere that's so big we could never observe or measure the curve itself.

We used to think the world was flat, Pythagoras came along and showed it was round. We used to think the universe is a sphere. Now we know it's flat.

He says (minute 8:03) "We now now - to an accuracy of better than 1% - that the universe is flat". So that leaves 99% of change that the universe is not flat.

I understand that, that's what he means to say. But you can also say the Earth is flat with an error of 0,78% and still it's round. (every 100km Earth curves 0,78km 'downward'). So what does an accuracy of 99% mean? It doesn't prove space is flat. There's still to much 'space' for error.

Dimitri Edgar Metz No. It means that there's only a 1% chance it isn't flat.

if the universe is expanding, perhaps the balance of anti-matter is on the very outter "fringe" of the expansion, and cannot annihilate anything...yet.

its just a feedback loop , like in solar and planetary dynamo's , but , inflation is linked to gravitational sling shot effects of matter and the lagrangian points they make .. along with central massive black holes being replaced by galaxian lagrangian points that recycle matter and shoot matter and energy out what we use to call quasars ... ...yea its 2018

Vortex: expanding to a point until it folds back to the center.

Nothing is infinite. Inability to count is termed as infinity.

So they measured supernova objects and figured out, black holes closer to us are expanding ever faster. Becouse space should expand in all directions, this mean those objects further away from us are also older and they don't fly away fast as near ones. DIfference is speed of expansion trough time mean space is now expanding faster. But here is another idea, what if only black holes are expanding faster, for other objects we don't know, nobody performed measurements. It can be due to black hole weird properties, not general rule. So dark energy is maybe isolated phenomena, who knows what black holes really radiate,if they exist at all. They could be just a quark phenomena, atomic forces might exist on large scale. Another thing is curvature of space, there can be no perfectly straight lines incurved universe, becouse flat plathform simply doesn't exist, also nothing can be perfetly round and most important of all, there can be no infinitly small dots, yet we see this mirage all around us. It's becouse we are bounded to study of light, but what is light, where does it exist when is not radiated from visible objects, those are the real questions for me. Universe might be more time than space, what make me think we're an effect, not couse, real universe must exist beyond ilusive present momement of now and here. We need better phylosophy of science, those guys just measure, don't know what or whay this is important for us, nobody think anymore.

pro tip from Kansas: the earth looks very round, more so without mountains blocking the horizon.

Kinda shocked they had such a bluntly biased "mediator " to guide this session

Can anyone tell me please what Doctor Krauss meant by saying at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcKdA2-W0X0#t=31m30s that it would be frustrating for science/cosmology, if Dark Energy indeed is Einstein's cosmological constant and that they would get 'stuck'? Because they never got back to this in the whole talk, unfortunately. Another thing also is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcKdA2-W0X0#t=29m15s him mentioning super-novae issues for being the only data, they also never spoke about that anymore in the whole talk.

The observable universe will be ours to master. The unobservable universe is where the fun is. The problem is we have alot of trouble making the math work with what we observe in many cases. So we hold some things constant that are dynamic at the right extremes and the universe is nothing if not full of extremes.

In regards to dark energy * In the video " reality since einstein hosted by Brian Greene @ 36:05 he states that pressure yields gravity. I beleive the extra gravity we are measuring is due to pressure of empty space-time its self, the energy of a vacuum. When space time is warped, the curve is filled with space, the energy of the space should have pressure added with greater depth. This is why we cannot see the gravitional sources, this would also explain why we measure it to be evenly dispersed. This would also explain the expansion of the universe. Like bubbles growing in size and accelerating in speed when rising under the pressure of water, so does matter, when under the affects of the pressure of a vacuum. The reason our predictions of calculation the mass caused by the energy of a vacuum is too high is because we're basing our predictions on what we see in matter. The mass caused by the energy of a vacuum in a confined particle under all four fundimental forces will be much higher than in a vacuum outside of matter.

Negative mass is possible if we are talking about relativistic mass. If the gravitational force caused by pressure of energy in a vacuum exceeds the gravitational attractions of matter, then we would have a negative number. That negative number would imply a rapidly accelerating universe, too rapid to hold matter together.

"It also means I win a bet with Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute in Canada, for cyclic universe theory predicts no gravitational waves from the early universe." Yes, Neil Gravitational waves have been detected!! Perhaps Neil should not appear in any more science program, even the dumb Lawrence Krause's program

omg.. my mind has just been blown.. flat universe? bombshell. I dont understand the difference between the observable universe, the visible universe. I believe that the observable universe currently is equivalent to the cosmic microwave background and we one day will be able to observe beyond the cosmic background. What I struggle with u s how the visible iniverse can be different to the observable?

+PhamNet the visible universe = the observable universe

The introduction was amazing it told a lot that were missing in all other ones I have seen to date on this subject but was too fast too loaded with import for me requiring listening multiple times several sections

I'm confused (not surprised) but if the theory of universes inside a black hole, which was what the last guy was talking about, is correct then surely the information of the universe would be constant? And if so doesn't that go against entropy? Don't think I really understood what he was getting at. Can anyone give a better explanation please?

@mbk3986 Maybe the entropy in our universe has nothing to do with another universe. The laws about thermodynamics are about our universe. But I am even much more confused (maybe I am missing something): Turok is strongly against the multiverse, but he advocates universes trough a black hole. Since we think there are many many black holes, that makes a multverse.....

What a revolting title! What waves of curiosity and wonder it produces and one feels swept along.

Interesting discussions. So many theories & ideas but sad to say, no final & definite conclusion. Not in my many lifetimes. Question is, why the Big Bang? Not how, but why it start; began,? Assuming to be true.

Neil Turok is spot on. Refreshing to hear a little sense among a see of silliness.

What would Turok say now that gravitational waves have been detected?

@Lew Sheen even if that's true, the detection of GW from any other source than the BB do not in any way confirm OR suggest inflation

not from the CMB though.. his comment was misleading implying that gravitational waves would confirm inflation. they do not. only gravitational waves from the early universe/ ie. CMB would suggest that theory of inflation is correct

But inflation occurred AFTER the big bang, so any gravity waves produced BY the BB itself would have been 'stretched out' by a fantastic amount (didn't Lawrence say 10^90!?) - along with space itself. LIGO detected the 2 mergers (both black hole and neutron star mergers) GW phenomena because the *frequency* of the gravity waves they produced was in a range that could be detected - the audible bbbwwwiiiippppp! Doesn't that mean that Inflation theory has the innate property of effectively erasing any GWs produced by the big bang?

The ones from the big bang *probably* have been the result of inflation, which Turok is highly skeptic of. The ones from the two black holes just confirms the existence of these gravitational waves that came out Einstein's equations.

@Luis Alberto Ake what's the difference between gravitational waves from the big bang as opposed to two black holes?

We live in a cooking universe! A constant electro-chemical state of quantum field in a counter balance DUALVERSE.

Just after 2 months of this video , The Gravitational waves wee detected. Insanity * 1*10^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000