Fundamental Speculations: Think About the 'Big Bang'

Dedicato alla festa di Chiara & Fri :-)

Do we believe in God-given numbers? Why 1836.15...? Why 137.036? Are these numbers related to the evolution of the universe? Nobody knows. Yet, it is a problem!

Mind also my backup channel:

[douglasstrother]

In any discussion of Unified Theories, Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces are taken as the four fundamental forces of nature; the first two are part of our everyday, macroscopic experiences. It's curious that Electromagnetism has been uniquely excluded from Cosmology.
It makes sense to use all of the tools in the toolbox.

"Magnetohydrodynamics & Plasma Physics" is discussed in Chapter 10 of Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" (2nd edition). Revisiting the concepts in "Cosmical Electrodynamics" by Alfvén & Fälthammar, and "Physics of the Plasma Universe" by Peratt deserves attention, especially in light of contemporary observations from JWST and other observatories, for example.

Postulating the existence of Dark Matter & Dark Energy but ignoring Electromagnetism reminds me of the Sydney Harris "... then a miracle occurs." cartoon.

[janhemmer]

Red shift of galaxies lead to the conclusion: they must be flying apart, thus space must be expanding, , meaning: increasing in size.
However - increasing in size compared to what?
The only answer is: compared to the matter it contains.
So why not suppose that it is not space increasing in size, but matter decreasing in size?
The result would be the same.
So the big bang concept is no more than "Boys like things that go bang!"

[niekiejooste]

Laws of nature and constants of nature are what we call things we cannot explain. They are admissions of ignorance as much as claims of knowledge.

[mmotsenbocker]

as the electron orbit changes from 3 dimension into one dimension (particle in a box analysis of increasingly longer e orbitals, also e in antenna demonstrates this) the fine structure constant slowly changes from 1/137 into 1. This indicates a basic quality of 3d vs 1d as the reason for the fine structure constant.

[andrewrivera]

The Big Bang is not keeping me up at night.

[pentagrammaton]

The universe thinks in terms of ratios and proportions, fractions of one. The numbers we use are our abstraction, much like our false concept of particles.

[WhiteGandalfs]

I'm curious about when the first physicist will come up with a "law" that deserves that designation (describing something not only arbitrarily existing for arbitrarily chosen time slots at the wish of some crazy guys, but instead permanently in action, being able to repeat its cause-reaction effects) that describes how that "expansion of the universe" that allegedly should have taken place in a few nanoseconds or so from zero up to 15*10^9 light years will be established as some testable, repeatable, thus deserving the attribut "scientific", thing.

As long as some people calling themselfs physicists draw such completely rest-free bullshit out of their hats, i will continue to call those people charlatans.

[ChrisLehtoF]

Amazing video! Thank you 🙏
Could matter be a circular light wave? Such as a standing wave or trapped/frozen light? I believe you mention this as a possible speculation. Love your videos

[physics-review]

Big bang is against most fundamental thing in thermodynamics Entropy - if particles or whatever it was during inflation were expanding in all directions then they cannot spontaneously come together, also why positively charged protons come so close to form an element

[salparadise]

The Big Bang was concocted when we knew about 1% of what we know now and as a nod to the church which still held great sway at the time. It went on to underpin the universe that contradicts this notion, which science ignores, a cosmological model which cannot find 90% of the matter it insists must exist, which science also ignores, offers an age to the universe widely published as fact, despite our own galaxy containing objects at least a billion years older than that and science ignores this too, and which claims to be able to foresee the end of the universe despite that too contradicting itself.
The real universe is electric, endlessly cycling, needs no dark matter or weird objects that no one can see, has no beginning or end in any useful sense of the words, is conscious, language based and possessed of humour.
It’s not a test, an exam, an assault course or a winnowing floor. 95% of all the conscious beings who ever lived will not be thrown into a lake of fire as failures. This is all nonsense projected onto reality by ignorant people trying to make sense of the incomprehensible, or, more likely, trying to control men.
If we don’t understand how a thing works and cannot conceive of how it might work then it’s obviously- god/the devil/aliens/magic. Around which ideas we have constructed vast edifices of thought and reaction, which have all taken on lives of their own, giving the impression of value and meaning where there is little if any.

[walterbrownstone]

Probably the most important basic understanding is that space is nothin. Space doesn't see an object rotating. Only other objects see rotation. Assigning properties to things that do not exist has always been the biggest problem of the philosophy of physics.

[SciD]

An attempt from a Catholic priest to reconcile religion with science.

[Nathaniel-rl]

I speculate that scientists tend to propose theories of cosmology that are metaphors for the most impressive cultural thing at the time. Thus the Great Chain of Being during the monarchistic Middle Ages, and the Clockwork Universe when mechanization occurred. The Big Bang theory was invented by the same generation of physicists, and some of the same individuals, that invented the atomic bomb. Later that theory was modified by Inflation Theory, during a time of economic inflation.

The cosmos looks like the coolest thing at the time. I call this the Principle of Kozmick Kewlniss. From it I predict that after the next paradigm shift, the universe will be a quantum computation that recycles.

[alexandrekassiantchouk]

Better approach: separate optical effects of time dilation (which are half a dozen of them) from the "mechanical" observations like space expansion, length contraction - then no room for Big Bang at all. Check 2nd chapter in Classical Physics Beyond Einstein's.

[thereligionofrationality]

The universe came into existence when I became old enough to have memories. It will cease to exist when I die. This is the same for everyone.

[axeman]

I have a mantra for you Alex.
Do you know what that is? A simple phrase to repeat and meditate upon the meaning of.

The model is not the thing itself
The model is not the thing itself
The model is not the thing itself
The model is not the thing itself
The model is not the thing itself
The model is not the thing itself

Get the idea?

[walterbrownstone]

The current estimate for alpha is 0.007 297 352 5693 but the calculated value 0.007 284 741 4093, a difference of 0.2% This is mathematically derived by the most common sense model of the universe I have no doubt at all this is fully derived from basic mathematics because I just did it in 5 minutes. I can also give you the rest mass of the neutrino if you like.

[thenextpoetician]

Why hallucinate? Because some people get payed to do just that.

[surendranmk]

Dear Unzicker, how can a neutron or hydrogen atom turn in to one electron- positron pair? There is an exact number of them and they have an exact amount of energy with them too.The structure of proton and neutron is very simple. Nobody didn't even thought about it, I feel.

[axle.student]

BigBang. I had an epiphany the other night that left me gob smacked. The entire current concept of a bigbang, inflation and expansion crumbled in front of my mind :(
It relates mostly to the viewable universe, the theorized "Time" of the bigbang, expansion and the viewable light cone (past light sphere in m/s). Depending up the expansion rate of the viewable universe (Speed of light ?), the boundary condition of the proposed big bang, and the expansion rate of the universe I would expect to see objects (stars/galaxies) moving into or more likely out of of viewable past light cone (sphere) over time. This should be quite stark for something the size of a galaxy as it could potentially be half in view and half not in view. I don't see any observations of this and it doesn't appear to be talked about in cosmology.
The problem/question has always been there in the back of my mind, but the jigsaw puzzle pieces fell into place while I was attempting to map the pseudo 3D histogram of the CMB event horizon or the spherical past light shell in m/s. Does the viewable boundary of the sphere expand outwards over time, or collapse inward? ( I would expect outwards in line with the expanding past event horizon).
>
I can't quite get my finger on it in the sense of explaining this to myself conceptually yet, but there is something very strange going on in how we humans are viewing/describing the boundary/size of the viewable/past universe and how it behaves. (viewing/describing relates to the concept of human paradigm, or our human perspective of reality)