How the tiniest particles in our universe saved us from complete annihilation

Recently discovered ripples of spacetime called gravitational waves could contain evidence to prove the theory that life survived the Big Bang because of a phase transition that allowed neutrino particles to reshuffle matter and anti-matter, explains a new study by an international team of researchers.

How we were saved from a complete annihilation is not a question in science fiction or a Hollywood movie. According to the Big Bang theory of modern cosmology, matter was created with an equal amount of anti-matter. If it had stayed that way, matter and anti-matter should have eventually met and annihilated one to one, leading up to a complete annihilation.

But our existence contradicts this theory. To overcome a complete annihilation, the Universe must have turned a small amount of anti-matter into matter creating an imbalance between them. The imbalance needed is only a part in a billion. But it has remained a complete mystery when and how the imbalance was created.

“The Universe becomes opaque to light once we look back to around a million years after its birth. This makes the fundamental question of ‘why are we here?’ difficult to answer,” says paper co-author Jeff Dror, postdoctoral fellow at the University of California, Berkeley, and physics researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Since matter and anti-matter have the opposite electrical charges, they cannot turn into each other, unless they are electrical neutral. Neutrinos are the only electrical neutral matter particles we know, and they are the strongest contender to do this job. A theory many researchers support is that the Universe went through a phase transition so that neutrinos could reshuffle matter and anti-matter.

“A phase transition is like boiling water to vapor, or cooling water to ice. The behavior of matter changes at specific temperatures called critical temperature. When a certain metal is cooled to a low temperature, it loses electrical resistance completely by a phase transition, becoming a superconductor. It is the basis of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for cancer diagnosis or maglev technology that floats a train so that it can run at 300 miles an hour without causing dizziness. Just like a superconductor, the phase transition in the early Universe may have created a very thin tube of magnetic fields called cosmic strings,” explains paper co-author Hitoshi Murayama, MacAdams Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley, Principal Investigator at the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe, University of Tokyo, and senior faculty scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Dror and Murayama are part of a team of researchers from Japan, US and Canada who believe the cosmic strings then try to simplify themselves, leading up to tiny wobbling of spacetime called gravitational waves. These could be detected by future space-borne observatories such as LISA, BBO (European Space Agency) or DECIGO (Japanese Astronautical Exploration Agency) for nearly all possible critical temperatures.

Inflation stretched the initial microscopic Universe to a macroscopic size and turned the cosmic energy into matter. However, it likely created an equal amount of matter and anti-matter predicting complete annihilation of our universe. The authors discuss the possibility that a phase transition after inflation led to a tiny imbalance between the amount of matter and anti-matter, so that some matter could survive a near-complete annihilation. Such a phase transition is likely to lead to a network of “rubber-band”-like objects called cosmic strings, that would produce ripples of space-time known as gravitational waves. These propagating waves can get through the hot and dense Universe and reach us today, 13.8 billion years after the phase transition. Such gravitational waves can most likely be discovered by current and future experiments. Original credit: R. Hurt/Caltech-JPL, NASA, and ESA Credit: Kavli IPMU – Kavli IPMU modified this figure based on the image credited by R.Hurt/Caltech-JPL, NASA, and ESA

“The recent discovery of gravitational waves opens up a new opportunity to look back further to a time, as the Universe is transparent to gravity all the way back to the beginning. When the Universe might have been a trillion to a quadrillion times hotter than the hottest place in the Universe today, neutrinos are likely to have behaved in just the way we require to ensure our survival. We demonstrated that they probably also left behind a background of detectable gravitational ripples to let us know,” says paper co-author Graham White, a postdoctoral fellow at TRIUMF.

“Cosmic strings used to be popular as a way of creating small variations in mass densities that eventually became stars and galaxies, but it died because recent data excluded this idea. Now with our work, the idea comes back for a different reason. This is exciting!” says Takashi Hiramatsu, a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo, which runs Japan’s gravitational wave detector KAGRA and Hyper-Kamiokande experiments.

“Gravitational wave from cosmic strings has a spectrum very different from astrophysical sources such as merger of black holes. It is quite plausible that we will be completely convinced the source is indeed cosmic strings,” says Kazunori Kohri, Associate Professor at the High Energy Accelerator Research Organization Theory Center in Japan.

“It would be really exciting to learn why we exist at all,” says Murayama. “This is the ultimate question in science.”

###

The paper was published as an Editor’s Suggestion in Physical Review Letters online on 28 January, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.041804

Advertisements

82 thoughts on “How the tiniest particles in our universe saved us from complete annihilation

  1. “Strings explain…”
    The fundamental problem with the string theory is that it can explain everything.

    • “Strings explain…”
      The fundamental problem with the string theory is that it can explain.

      Er no, the whole point of string theory is to utilise enough dimensions so that it can explain everything.
      That’s not its problem, it’s its strength…

      • Kinda like climate models. If you have enough dials to twiddle you can predict and explain everything any way you want to.

      • Strings are a bunch of baloney!
        Made up out of nowhere in the vivid imaginations of some people who needed a nice ad hoc solution to a problem they dreamed up.
        Anyone who has thought about it carefully, and I mean really carefully this time, not the fleeting random moment of reflection that gave rise to string theory, knows that strings are nowhere near robust enough to hold the Universe together.
        It has to be chains.
        Made of wires.
        But Chains Made Of Wire Theory did not have the right ring to it, so they settled for “strings”.
        Lame.

      • Leo Smith “…the whole point of string theory…”

        There are no points in string theory. None. Nada. All gone, replaced by “strings”, each and every one.

    • Sabine Hossenfelder takes a dim view of string theory, in part, for that very reason. link

      String theory explains everything because, every time conflicting evidence is found, the string theorists just tack another room onto the string theory mansion. Its like climate science where CO2 enhanced global warming explains everything, including global cooling.

    • So, there are seven or nine models for blackholes because none of them fit in the observable universe. They have been looking for gravity waves for a long time and now they are pretending that what they do detect is some kind of message from cosmic strings to let us know of their prior existence. They just invented a whole new event for the Big Bang (BB), a phase transition to form cosmic strings that then, in a biased manner, become matter as we know it. How convenient. Are we doing a little anthropomorphizing here, maybe? Einstein, Oppenheimer, and even NASA ddi/do not think blackholes are real.

      The adoption (almost on religious grounds) of the BB theory (BBT) creates the need to explain a matter/antimatter imbalance, with matter being the residue. An electric-based, as all matter is composed of charges particles, steady-state universe does not have this problem. BB theorists assume that the Universe has to have an origin. Just like the Big Bang, in which we really have no idea what came before, it is likely that we will never know where our Universe came from or when or what it is developing into.

      Remember, there has a been an elaborate model, called (Super) String Theory, to explain the Big Bang Universe. Few understand that this elaborate model has never been properly tested. Up to 22 dimensions? Why stop there? Little circular loops inside elementary particles? They have they “jumped the shark” and hypothesized a Multiverse of Universes and more. Occam’s Razor says they need to prove the Steady-State Electric Universe wrong before racing off in flights of fancy, as if they were actually describing something that has been tested, which it has not. An electric Steady-State Universe (SSU) has never been proven wrong and, in fact, it explains the Universe much better and extensively than does the BBT and it does this without the invention of a whole new physics such as Dark matter, force, and energy, what we see out thee than does the BBT. The electric SSU uses known science to understand what we see and does not send us off looking for Dark stuff and effects that likely do not exist.

      Practitioners of the BBT have suffered the egregious self-inflicted injustice of using pure mathematics first and then making the interpretation of observations of the Universe fit their mathematics. Pure mathematics allows you to take calculations to the limits of any factor, to zero or to infinity, but real observations should be used to constrain the ranges of the various factors.

      For that matter, gravity, being the weakest of all forces, might just be the residual effects of bodies of matter on each other in terms of London Dispersion forces (LDFs). Electrically-neutral molecules do not need to be in direct electron-cloud contact to experience LDFs. As all matter is composed of charged particles, gravity might very well not exist and simply be long distance LDFs, albeit suitably weak, between two bodies of matter, being one part in 10^38 of the electromagnetic force, LDFs at a distance. This explains why it is difficult to detect gravity waves, as they probably do not exist, and they are rationalizing (with bias) that they might have detected such waves.

      This LDF effect would also explain the red-shifting of light from distant objects being greater than closer objects as the light from those stars pass through many tangential and not tangential gravitational fields on their way to Earth. As a magnetic field can also weakly affect light, gravity might be doing the same thing with the magnetic component of its LD field. Discussions that gravity bends space-time and is augmented by a magnetic field, because it adds to the bending, explains little, as they have no idea what the actual medium the light is traveling through is.

      • I should add that they have to show that gravity is not an electromagnetic effect before they create and look for this fourth force for the Universe. Perhaps there are only three?

      • “Electricity in the Universe has been identified from beneath our feet, in animals and plants, our biosphere, and out to the furthest reaches of the Universe. In general, electricity is present wherever we find plasma, and since 99.999% of the visible universe is in the plasma state, magnetic field and electric currents are nearly everywhere.

        This page summarises where electricity and electric currents have been considered to be important. Each item is supported by peer reviewed papers from scientists in a number of different disciplines.”
        https://www.electricuniverse.info/electricity-throughout-the-universe/

          • John Tillman,
            “In the theoretical sciences, it is commonly assumed that the role of gravity is settled. But as Richard Feynman observed, “There is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other than the mathematical form.” The problem is that mathematics will not account for the essential force in question. And yet, when theorists speculate about the big bang one conjecture is followed by another all building on the supposed supremacy of gravity as the driving force of cosmic evolution. In this talk at the EU2015 conference, Wal Thornhill takes us on a forty-year personal journey to understand the role of gravity in the electric universe.”

          • Here’s what Feynman had to say about gravity. He would have considered Thornhill a stark raving loon or shameless charlatan, profiting from selling snake oil to gullible yokels. He peddles nothing but unadulterated BS.

            https://youtu.be/7JhJ1_LUymM

            The final, 6th part addresses gravity and electricity.

            That we don’t fully understand gravitation doesn’t mean that it is electrical. Centuries of experimentation show that it’s not.

    • I put this in the same bag as inflation. I am NOT deeply versed in quantum mechanics but I know enough to understand at a fundamental level what was done to make the theory of inflation work, and it seems arbitrary and capricious to me. I really like Neil Turok’s view on this, video link below.

      • Human beings have an absolutely horrendous record when it comes to dreaming up the proper explanation for things we do not know enough about to have any idea of what the truth is.
        Four elements, phlogiston, epicycles and geocentric universe, the milky way being the whole universe, miasma theory of disease, liver being the circulatory organ of the body, aether wind, geosynclines, young earth…you name it, people got it wrong when they just came up with something that popped into someone’s head one day.
        The odds of inflation or string theory being correct are the odds of picking the right lottery number when the choice of numbers is infinite.

  2. “It would be really exciting to learn why we exist at all,” says Murayama. “This is the ultimate question in science.”

    Does the “we” in the question refer to humans ? I would say if it does then it is not the ultimate question imho. I would say the ultimate question is “why does the universe exist at all?”. Maybe it is better if we ask “Why would the universe not exist?”

  3. Either there is dumb-luck nothing behind all this, or a Being of immense mind and power. It’s an odd dichotomy.

    • Dumb luck has no explanation for where the info in our DNA, for example, comes from.
      Random events cannot be shown to create information from a state of no information.
      I never doubted that evolution of something like it must occur, and has occurred.
      I also know God exists.
      What else explains the fossil record?
      Then I saw a TED talk where a guy explains about different kinds of information.
      And it added a large new addition to my wall of uncertainty.

      Any one who tells you science has explained the origin of the Universe, or of life, or of consciousness, is either not very well educated, stupid, misinformed, or lying.
      The more one knows about how even the simplest cell functions, the more obvious it is that no one has come close to beginning to explain how it might have self organized.
      The notion that anything could create itself from nothing, one random day for no particular reason, is as unscientific as it gets.

      • Here is one of the many you tube videos that logically disprove an entire branch of so-called “accepted scientific wisdom”.
        The whole video is very interesting, at least to me, and I would think to many others who know how to think.
        The part about the five levels of information is the part that was something I had never considered or heard about in this context.

      • Someone might wonder why I think the question of the origin of life is relevant to a discussion about the origins of the Universe?
        Well it is very simply, really.
        We know that life exists, and so it must have some point of origin.
        We can see in the fossil record that new forms of life, entire new body plans requiring vast amounts of new information be created from a state of no information, in a short amount of time…far to little time for any rational person to explain using some random process of selection.
        That can explain how people get smaller when there is not enough food, possibly, although it certainly appears likely that the recipe for smaller people is already part of our gene pool and such things can also be stored as part of our epigenetic information contained in our DNA.
        But new body plans?
        The Cambrian explosion?
        Life is though to have appeared quickly on Earth once it had formed and cooled sufficiently.

        One possibility is we do not know nearly enough to be able to understand how the Universe works.
        Another is that there was nothing random about it.
        All of these questions in cosmology presuppose that we are on the right track regarding the nature, age, and sequence and timing of various events, and that there actually were such events, in just the way we think we understand them.
        Optical illusions are a dime a dozen, and completely fool our brains even when we are aware of them.
        Our reality can be understood as one big hallucination.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo&t=31s

        To suppose we are not being fooled by some illusion in the cosmic scheme, and that we are not hallucinating what we believe we are looking at…these are leaps of faith.

        Do people really hallucinate events that they believe are occurring in the world around us?

        I think we all know the answer to that question, every time we hear people calling for ending the way we all live and prosper because of “the climate crisis” they claim is ongoing, or when supposedly intelligent human beings claim that if we do what they say we will “tackle climate change”, is if it is a know fact that humans can control not just the weather, but the climate of an entire planet.
        All it takes to convince some people that all of Australia is on fire is someone constructing a fake image and other people deciding and reporting that it is a satellite picture taken by astronauts on the space station:

        https://youtu.be/jW2yZsLHF_w?t=277

        A study of distant and long ago supernovae convinced an entire planet full of scientist that most of the Universe is something called Dark Energy, because they are sure they understand everything about what the were looking at.
        Similarly, a belief that we know exactly how gravity works and how much mass a galaxy has, has convinced many people that most of the matter making up galaxies and hence the Universe is completely invisible and impossible to detect in any way except by looking at how things that are very far away are moving…even though they are not actually measuring movement, in, for example, the same way we would measure something right here on Earth while we watch it move.

        For centuries, alchemists who had no reason to doubt they understood the materials that exist on Earth and how they behave, spent entire lifetimes searching for The Philosophers Stone, or in other such vain attempts to make gold from other common materials.
        How likely is it these cosmologists know everything some of them believe they know?

      • Driver ants use dirt to soak up the muscus of snails in order to eat them. Since the workers that perform this action do not breed, their learned behavior is not passed down.

        How was it passed down?

  4. Passage of time metric is not a constant at the current state of universe and it was even less so at the early stages of universe; it is one variable within the space-time entity, therefore claims that something or another happen within n*seconds from the BB is at the best misleading.

  5. “It would be really exciting to learn why we exist at all,” says Murayama. “This is the ultimate question in science.”

    He really means “how we (actually, the universe) came to exist.” Why is a philosophical or metaphysical question about causation, not a scientific one.

  6. “It would be really exciting to learn why we exist at all,” says Murayama. “This is the ultimate question in science.”

    No, it’s not a question for science because questions that concern the past are not really science. There is NO actual proof, just ideas that with better fit, and NEVER can there be proof. This is where science lies to everyone about what science can know and they do it with pride and puffing up. REALITY states you can never know the past with certainty, nor the future, only the present and even that is questionable to some. This is where science declared itself omniscient, one supposes to pretend to be a god. Or just an ego trip….

    As Gary said, “why” is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.

    • “No, it’s not a question for science because questions that concern the past are not really science.”

      Is geology then not a science?

      • Len, geology is a science. Science is observation to gain knowledge. The problems lie with interpretation of the data collected by observation. Sometimes, the data collection is different from recorded human history; sometimes it tries to interpret pre-history; sometimes it gets pre-history right (we can assume), sometimes it gets it wrong (we must assume). We can never truly know pre-history, but only make an educated guess. In regards to prehistoric geology, there are many arguments amongst secular geologists as to the interpretation of data, thus we have theories which are only theories and can never be proven. It is my opinion that the danger begins when a scientist ignores observable systems, data, and historical records, etc… in order to fit his/her own pre-conceptions (which are not bad in and of themselves).

    • Exactly, science is a philosophy and practice that functions within a limited frame of reference, or logical domain, where accuracy is inversely proportional to spread (e.g. time and/or space). From our perspective, and within the limits of our causal capacity, “time” is a monotonic or progressive function, where “past” events are either assumed or accepted as myth (e.g. circumstantial physical and historical evidence, uniformity, one-to-one functions), and “future” events are forecast or projected (“evolution”) assuming a semistable (e.g. climate, human life) system and processes.

  7. The “Big Bang” theory is becoming clearer and clearer. It starts from a “microscopic Universe” and transitions to macroscopic through “inflation”, a period where laws of physics don’t always apply. Later, then, we have the “phase change”, like melting ice , where anti matter becomes matter.

    It certainly could be argued that it takes a lot of faith to believe in this. I’d like to know, where in this process does the Second Law of Thermodynamics start to apply?

    • Unfortunately, “Big Bang Theory” ended production of new shows last spring. But:

      “HBO Max has prevailed in the auction for streaming rights to “The Big Bang Theory,” one of the last major comedy franchises that has yet to be licensed for the binge-watching era. WarnerMedia’s nascent streaming platform will have exclusive rights to 12 seasons of the show from Warner Bros. Television and co-creators/executive producers Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady. All 279 episodes of “Big Bang” will be available on HBO Max when it launches next spring.
      https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/the-big-bang-theory-hbo-max-stream-1203338587/

      • I appreciate the humour in Walter’s reply. Personal taste, but I find the show unwatchable. I tried a few times to watch a full episode but just couldn’t. Like the pseudo scientific theory it gets it’s name from, I just can’t find a way to get from where we are back to a ‘big bang’ event. I’ve tried and I can’t. It’s another one of these “97% of all scientists agree” deals. Just because it’s the best idea scientists can come up with doesn’t mean it’s right.

  8. The concept of speed is linked with time.
    A faster than light spaceship must have a way to modify the time portion of the equation.
    Then you could explore the universe.

    Most science fiction stories postulate worm hole travel or faster than light drives.

    But it would be a long time waiting for news for those that were staying on Earth…

  9. The /sarc is missing after the article. Gravitational waves do not exist, simple and proven despite the rubbish published by certain people.

  10. “It would be really exciting to learn why we exist at all,” says Murayama. “This is the ultimate question in science.” I suppose learning why we weren’t obliterated could be a start. Meantime, the key word in the report is “may” meaning also “may not.”

  11. Life didn’t survive the Big Bang. Better to say that the matter-antimatter imbalance meant that there would be matter in the universe, thus enabling the emergence of elements and life composed of them.

    • Nah. If the imbalance went the other way, we’d just have a universe of anti-matter forming anti-elements which would eventually allow for anti-life. The question of origin would remain.

      /moderate flippancy. We’re only looking at it all from our side of the fence. Until you actually climb the fence, you don’t know what it really looks like on the other side.

      • There might well be universes with reversed charge atoms, in which anti-H is fused in anti-stars under gravity, which doesn’t distinguish between positive or negative electrical force.

  12. Has anyone caught a neutrino to ask? Also, why not just say magnetic field lines? And why not ditch the singularity to just say extreme space-time warpage which was then released to foment gravitational waves? And is there a signature from a previous mass entity in the Big Bang from before or is the pure energy of the space warpage the same at all points in the multiverse for each Big Bang?

  13. http://www.holoscience.com and the Electric Universe: No big bang, no black holes, no red shift speed meter, explains why all galaxies, in synchronicity, turn at the same rate despite size and mass (which gravity cannot explain)
    https://phys.org/news/2018-03-astronomers-galaxies-clockwork.html
    The whole singularity BS is an admission that they (the gravity gurus) have no science to explain it, they depend on some God moment.
    Now I am not saying everything they claim is true. But I know for a fact that the Big Bang is Bull”

  14. We ask physicists and engineers to create a device that receives gravitational waves
    Gravitational waves are the vibrations of those super strings in the primitive universe
    Please communicate this suggestion to the European ESA agency

  15. Why do they keep insisting that humans were around before the big bang and then were able to survive it?

    • Who made such a claim?

      As far as I can tell the claim is that conditions were such just after the big bang that matter was slightly more abundant than anti-matter…giving rise to a “matter” universe. And neutrinos were the culprit. As for life……that’s another matter.

      The situation in an anti-matter universe would be the same with anti-matter beings [who wouldn’t consider themselves to be anti-matter but matter] discussing why there was a preponderance of [anti] matter in their universe and if things had been different would there have been anti – anti-matter universe etc etc

      The point being that theory predicts that there should have been a big annhilation shortly after the big bang assuming equal amounts of matter and anti matter were produced. The existence of anything demonstrates rather nicely that the theory is wrong…but why ?

  16. A hypothesis: based on observations, space (the universe) is like a flowing river. Man’s observations are from a point in that river; we know not where in that river. We see not the head of that river, nor the end. we know not where the bottom of that river is, nor the surface. But we can observe the flow of that “river” all around us.

    Today’s cosmologists seem obsessed with knowing how the universe started, but I would suggest that is a fruitless endeavor, misleading and leading to erroneous conclusions which blind us to what we can know:

    How the universe within our observation functions and what are the animating forces at work. We can understand the “currents” of that river.

    The universe is not a series of isolated islands but a coherent system of relationships.

    Let us focus on what we can know and not on what we can never know.

    • I think the real problem is that the only tool that cosmologists have is differential calculus. Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity is based on Tensor Calculus and Riemannian Manifolds. That depends on the underlying space being differentiable and hence singularities like black holes appear and big bangs. Maybe they are just manifestations of the differentiability assumptions. An anology is Fluid Mechanics where singularities are predicted, indeed one gets whirlpools but ultimately they are not singularities because what is rotating is a finite number of molecules.

  17. Golly…if everything was not the way it was, it might have been some other way, and we would never have been here to realize how lucky we were and how close we came to never existing!
    Shew!
    That was a close one…lemme wipe the sweat off my brow!

  18. Alternative Theory:
    The matter and antimatter was formed in equal quantities. But no-one bothered to tidily structure it uniformly.
    So more was on one side of the new universe than the other. Just by chance.
    The middle of the universe annihilated. And the matter and anti-matter halves split apart.
    Each half assumes the other no longer exists.

    Refined Theory:
    All the potential arrangements of matter an anti-matter existed as super-imposed wave functions prior to creation beginning. When the Big Bang happened the most probable wave function was most likely to define the arrangement of matter and antimatter. That provided a structuring with minimal high energy annihilations.
    In other words, everything came in to existence with only the thinnest of matter / anti-matter contacts.

    • Imagine spending ones whole life, the only one that one will ever get, describing things that are just made up out of thin air.
      If one is writing novels…so be it.
      But to purport to be doing physics?
      To be intuiting creation itself?
      Some of these guys have a very high opinion of their own musings.

    • Or,
      The the expansion known as the Big Bang has happened an infinite number of times with equal amounts of matter and antimatter that prevented the creation of a universe we see today, until, just out of sheer chance, this one time the there was more matter than antimatter.

  19. With the “phase change” is there not usually a change in volume? Or, in a flat universe, a change in area?

  20. Hilarious gobbledeygook generated at the point where science fails and degenerates into religion.

  21. “When the Universe might have been a trillion to a quadrillion times hotter than the hottest place in the Universe today, neutrinos are likely to have behaved in just the way we require to ensure our survival”

    neutrinos are likely to have behaved in just the way we require to ensure our survival. You have got to be kidding me. This is what passes as science.

  22. Why do we exist, at all?

    Colossians 1:16 English Standard Version (ESV)

    (16) For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

    We were created for him. This is why we exist, at all.

    John 1

    (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

    Now, on how He did it…

    • He ?
      The assumption that an omniscient creator is male shows the inability of humans to think beyond their own experience.
      Why would a creator be male ? In human terms a creator would more likely be female.

      But in creator-verse there might only be one “gender” which would be the same as none or perhaps even 42 genders. We’re not likely to find out.

  23. I have been watching the contortions of the universe theorists for about fifty years.
    The conclusion is they just make it up as they go, there seems to be more unicorns and gremlins in their stuff than in junk made up climate science.

  24. This doesn’t explain the “why”, just the “what” and maybe the “how”. Why a low entropy, extremely hot body devoid of time ever existed in the first place? Then it explodes infinitely outward to die a permanent death of absolute zero, post time (no time) stateless configuration? Really? Why? How? WTH?

    Confirm an infinitely oscillating, pulsating cycle of eternal recurrence and maybe we’re getting somewhere. Otherwise, what, where, when and why is the meta universe in which this universe exists… and how do we describe its lack of boundaries containing our boundless, infinitely expanding space-time?

    We really don’t know that much, other than we are probably very insignificant but maybe ultimately significant.

  25. Very interesting.

    May I recommend genius journalist Jim Marrs’ (RIP) books? Our Occulted History Do The Global Elite Conceal Ancient Aliens?
    From NASA scientists to ancient Sumerian clay tablets, way more fascinating than strings & Big Bangs. His Alien Agenda is great also. Both books are thoroughly well researched, referenced & indexed.
    JD.

  26. The Universe gets dark to light once we think back to around a million years after its introduction to the world. This makes the essential inquiry of ‘what are we doing here?’ hard to reply,” says paper co-creator Jeff Dror, postdoctoral individual at the University of California, Berkeley, and material science specialist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

    Since issue and against issue have the inverse electrical charges, they can’t transform into one another, except if they are electrical unbiased. Neutrinos are the main electrical impartial issue particles we know, and they are the most grounded contender to carry out this responsibility. A hypothesis numerous specialists support is that the Universe experienced a stage progress with the goal that neutrinos could reshuffle matter and hostile to issue.

  27. In this post above jmorpuss February 6, 2020 at 12:55 pm The video I posted to John Tillman got changed. I’ll try again, here is the right video,Enjoy . Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity | EU2015

    • As you can see the video does not match the reference for some reason????
      Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity | EU2015, for those interested you may have to go to youtube and load it manually. As you can see this video above is EU2016 not EU2015 .

Comments are closed.