Eternal Universe: The New Theory that Might Change the Way we Think About the Universe

Discover how a 1946 horror movie inspired three Cambridge lecturers to challenge the Big Bang Theory, leading to the development of the Steady-State Theory of the Universe. Let’s explore this cosmic debate!

[LeonMRr]

Hey guys, PhD candidate in theoretical physics here, now cosmology is not exactly my area but I have somethings to add here. First even though Wilenchik doesn't like it, the doppler effect is indeed confirmed experimentally, even now as I'm using the internet and gps, the satellites need to consider the relativistic doppler effect in order to function, and what we observe in the universe is that the more distant the galaxy, the redder it looks (we compare the light from its stars to the expected spectrum of main sequence stars and whatnot). Second, the Doppler effect is not the only thing that we have to confirm the expansion of the universe, as Simon says we have this time anisotropy of the universe and other things like baryonic acoustic oscillations and polarization of cmb light by primordial gravitational waves, not counting the cmb itself of course.

[Walter-wosz]

I'm going with the giant turtle theory.

[danielm.]

The origin of _cosmological_ redshift is NOT the Doppler effect. It's not relative movement between galaxies (especially at large distances where this becomes negligible). It's due the space itself expanding & stretching the wavelengths of any light transiting through it.

The process is fundamentally different, even if the observables are similar.

[Fwr]

"...all galaxies are red shifting." (OH, except Andromeda...and many others). exactly ALL.

[allanlees]

No, papers have not "cast doubt on the big bang." There is a discrepancy between current models and new data from the JWST but these discrepancies don't invalidate the so-called big bang. Steady-state has so many problems (failing to make predictions that map to empirical observations, for example) that it's not a credible alternative. Nor is Penrose's idea of a conformal cyclic universe (it makes several assumptions we know to be invalid). Today, the only viable theory remains the big bang, though we can expect this to be improved over time as most theories are including the cornerstones of modern physics: general relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which are known to be incomplete. But incomplete is not the same as being invalidated.

[nikolaki]

Fell for the clickbait, the word NEW.

[Sadlander]

Interesting! A long time ago, because I have no one I can talk to about these things, I went on Reddit's Astronomy subreddit and asked something like _"What if the Big Bang was not the beginning of everything but just a part of a cycle? What if the universe expanded and somewhere, something like a black hole attracted everything around, leaving nothing except what is now too far away to be observed due to the expansion and at some point, this black hole (or singularity) suddenly "exploded", creating a new big bang and because everything else is now too far away to be observed, we think that what we can see is all there is...?"_
I explained that I dropped out of high school, that all I know about astronomy is what I learned online and that I was there, not to claim anything but to learn from people who actually know about astronomy.
I was ridiculed, people said that questions starting with "what if" are pointless and basically, everyone made me feel like I was just an uneducated fool with idiotic ideas who got lost and ended up in "their" subreddit and that this wasn't a place for people like me.
Finally, my post was removed with the mention that I had posted "pseudoscience".
I might not have used the correct words and maybe it had nothing to do with a black hole but it looks like my initial hypothesis wasn't that wrong after all...

[KonradTheWizzard]

The research on this video was not exactly stellar (pun intended). Yes, you got Lemaitre right and the important facts were okay (not great, but okay). But to even consider "Popular Mechanics" and some complete unknowns for cosmology topics is way off the mark when there is plenty of published literature by professionals. Pop.Mech. is great for Engineering, but not Astrophysics. Considering even the idea that light is particles and particles only is non-scientific at best and immediately disqualifies anything else the author says. The Steady State Theory is history and should be presented as such - there is no longer a debate. If you want to spice things up by challenging Big Bang - go for stuff like Cyclic Conformal Cosmology - at least there is a credible scientist behind that one.

[caracoidwren]

I really thought they would be covering the latest James Webb observations. The fact that it's heating up scientific debate right now on this very subject further confuses me.

[saiynoq]

I 100% believe arguments like this can be healthy for science and scientists .

[vultureTX]

Even I wrote a paper on using the Doppler Effect in the RF spectrum, that speeding ticket you got based on a "Lidar Gun" is real factual evidence that it works.

[GoldBearanimationsYT]

It’s one of many but can’t be finite by nature. If you have a box there’s still the area outside the box and by definition that is infinite regardless of its ability to be traversed

[stuartupton]

Yeah those 3 guys were smoking that Perfect Cosmological Principle

[beskararmor]

The more I learn about the universe, the more I realize we really don't know that much, and everything about the creation to end is just assumptions and theories. It's humbling that we still can't figure out gravity.

[ascorvinus]

I dub it the Finnegan’s Wake theory of the universe. Not because it’s cyclical, because it’s impossible to follow.

[granadosvm]

I didn't know the proponent of the "tired light" hypothesis was a lawyer, but it makes sense. Stating that light is not a wave might sound like an argument that could convince a jury, but not one to pass a scientific test.

[joeanderson]

My hypothesis is that our universe is too large and too old for us to determine its age or how it was created. I call it the We Don't Know theory.

[GoDodgers]

I'm a steady state believer. I have good reasons for that belief. It's good to hear some of them here, but it's only half the theory, there is another part. How and when did the universe begin. There was a primordial atom, but alas, it was just a lonely atom, but not for long. Considering everything, the universe is next to infinitely old.

[CanuckMonkey]

When I saw the title of this video I was not expecting such an excellent discussion of the subject matter. I love that you frequently acknowledge the limits of your own understanding, while still conveying a lot of very technical information in a very clear way. My compliments to the scriptwriter for this one. I regularly watch PBS Space Time and consider myself to be reasonably knowledgeable about these subjects, and even so, I came away from this video feeling like I had learned some valuable things!

[marciusnhasty]

Big Bang doesn't say all matter was in a specific point of space-time. It states that space was the point that expanded into space-time. Big Bang started everywhere, in every single point of space-time.