Brian Cox - Is The Big Bang Theory Wrong?

Brian Cox - Is The Big Bang Theory Wrong?

Physicist and professor of particle physics Brian Cox explains whether the big bang theory is wrong.
Despite major scientific discoveries that provide strong support for the Big Bang theory, there´s been a viral paper spreading over the Internet lately which says that the James Webb Space Telescope has refuted the theory. This has led many to think that our understanding of the Big Bang may be wrong. Could this really be the case? Is the James Webb telescope rewriting fundamental theories of the cosmos?

According to Brian Cox the such a claim is ridiculous. Regardless of what you may have read or heard, the big bang is supported by a preponderance of evidence and has become the most successful theory ever put forth for the origin and evolution of the universe.

Brian Cox mentions that we can actually see the afterglow of the big bang.

Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see. Because we see an infinite universe expanding into itself. One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.

#bigbang #ProfBrianCox #science

[richardmcbroom]

In an idiocracy something is considered "explained" when that explanation becomes so convoluted as to become sufficiently opaque to all logical inquiry.

[mitchellanderson]

Even in the early days of our universe, inflation was running rampant.

[si-mtpl]

I like listening to Brian Cox. Especially when he says, “we don’t really know” “we don’t have the knowledge” and “science does not disprove the existence of God”. Theories, theories, and more ever changing theories. All interesting!

[KoNqueeFtador]

James webb is what happens when society gets nice things

[steveparker]

For those of you who say, "Well, what happened before the big bang?" I have your answer. It was the big foreplay.😉

[Ambienfinity]

This is why science works - it constantly questions itself, examines, re-evaluates, tests and re-formulates working theories and laws, without anger or prejudice, constantly evolving and refining itself.

[sgrdpdrsn]

What Brian Cox is not mentioning, is the full developed galaxies several billion years away. In accordance to earlier theories, these should be in a "new-born" status since the light was sent from them a "short" time after the Big Bang. This have made many astronomers think of the possibility that the Universe is INFINITE and has been so eternally.

[The_SCPFoundation]

Gravity is attractive, but I like it for it's personality.

[andysmith]

If it's expanding more quickly than it did in the past, then as you back in time it's expanding ever more slowly. The problem is that as you go back in time you get the point where it's not expanding at all but it's not at a singularity. Is distance an illusion?

[Jimfundercover]

The question that has bothered me is: What did the Big Bang expand INTO? And could there be other big bangs occurring somewhere else?

[chrisdaykin]

Maybe there have been multiple big bangs, we don't even know where the matter/energy goes when it is goes into a black hole, or what dark matter or dark energy is - there's much to learn

[jayco]

I am so glad that these things are being questioned/re-considered. I like how Brian said, today the expansion is accelerating but maybe at some tipping point in the future, it may change. That's what I want to hear, the uncertainty of our understanding of how dark energy/matter will behave or interact once the expansion overtakes some other unknown limit? Who knows, maybe dark energy has one last trick up its sleeve as the expansion gets to a certain point. Maybe it has happened elsewhere, another universe/bubble/black-hole, another time/iteration? Universe pretty much recycles everything, would be a shame not to eventually recycle itself.

[barryisaacs]

Science Time is *infinitely* BETTER than all the rest in the multiverse, friends. The narrator is excellent and easy to listen to…length of vid. is purrrfect…& Dr. Cox is a long-time fave of mine. Ya can’t find a nicer guy…always friendly and humble…& truly BRILLIANT, as well! TY for sharing this AWESOME new video…luv it, and appreciate a LOT…& ALL your others, too!!!😌

[thewalkingjuju]

The problem is that this isn't the whole question. The universe is a constant repetition of "Bangs" or a continual repurposing of matter from uncountable events. We had to have a model to explain the origin of the universe although we never quite considered the origin of elements which allowed such an event to happen in the first place. Then this whole Big Bang Theory turns into a rabbit hole because the origin needs an origin too doesn't it?!

[richardmcbroom]

The total mass M needed to reconcile gravitational and electrostatic states is M = Mo /(2Pi – 1) (alpha2), where Mo is the observed mass of the universe, (2Pi – 1) is the Bell inequality (ever an inequality in the macroscopic world), and (alpha2) is the square of the fine-structure constant (a optical magnification factor, twice applied for virtual and real expression). In the quantum realm, the equation is undefined, because the radius is equal to the circumference, meaning that Pi = 1/2. The number of unit circles (or squares) in the universe is M/m, where m is the present-day rest mass of the electron. For a unit circle to become a unit square, Buffon's needle problem becomes applicable, where one side is electrostatic and the other is gravitational. In order for the PROBABILITY to equal 1/2 (regarding Bell's inequality AND Buffon's problem), Pi = 4, meaning that Pi = 1/2 AND Pi = 4, implying that 1 = 8; hence, the qubit (used in quantum computing) is emergent. (My observations and derivations-- no citation needed.)

[ArmandDragonetti]

I can't help but imagine that TIME itself is not a constant, but we are so accustomed to the rate at which we perceive the passage of time that it's hard to account for a possible change in its properties. Could we be attempting to measure the size/age of the universe with an ever changing ruler?

[hillcresthiker]

I think mankind as a species likes to think of beginnings and endings but there should be no reason not to postulate that the universe always existed and always will- possibly in different forms

[phillipcoiner]

I find the most interesting that there can be incomplete and conflicting theories whilst discussing cosmology whilst the data are sorted out but jump over to a discussion on the origins and the treatment of a virus and there is only one allowed opinion/explanation. If there is any deviation from the government's approved notions then you will be banned from any forum or discussion.

[SmartAss]

The problem with the theory is that scientists refuse to consider that they're not seeing the full picture based on only our oberservable capabilities. It's entirely possible what we see is due to a much larger landscape of space than our telescopes can see

[tochezpab]

They didn't mention any detail from the refuting paper, what was the reason for doubt?