The Big Ring Bashes the Big Bang

the debate over the Big Bang hypothesis has continued to heat up in the first two months of 2024 the biggest Discovery that's fueling the debate among several is the discovery of what is called the big ring and in this episode we'll see whether the big ring is ringing out the Big Bang so what is the big ring well the big ring is a huge circle of galaxies in the sky this circle of galaxies is so large in the sky that if it was visible it would be 15 times the diameter of the full moon it's not visible to the naked eye because these galaxies are much too faint but a graduate student in astrophysics in the UK Alexia Lopez discovered them by looking at data sets that showed the absorption of light from background quazar quazar being these huge explosions in space and you could tell from the red shift of the absorption lines the way that gas or plasma was absorbing the lines that there were intervening galaxies in this ring and she did and her colleagues did a number of very intensive statistical tests and they showed that this uh ring was a real object and the chances of just being a random pseudo ring that just looked like a ring by chance was less than one in a few million now the important thing about this ring is that when you determine how big it is in real life in linear Dimensions you get Dimensions that are at least 1.2 billion light years across Ross now why is 1.2 billion light years across so important because objects could not form of that size in the time since the Big Bang it would have taken much longer to form these objects now before we get deeper into that people who have been watching this series or have been paying attention to cosmology might recognize the name Alexia Lopez because this same graduate student who really has earned several phds by now back in 2021 just three years ago had discovered another extremely large object by the same method in almost the same part of the sky she discovered the giant Ark which caused bit of a stir back in 2021 this was an even bigger object but not a full circle just an arc of a circle so the reason why these discoveries are putting extreme pressure on the Big Bang hypothesis is because it would have taken too long to form the these objects there just wasn't enough time in only 14 billion years and to understand why this is true you don't need to think in 10 Dimensions or be able to solve the equations of general relativity even though you won't be hearing this from too many other people it's easy to see why this is actually true we can tell how long an object takes to form from the velocity at which particles within this object are moving divided into its physical dimensions so we can tell from Red shifts from the spread of red shifts that objects in our present day Universe galaxies in our present day Universe are not moving a lot faster than about 1500th the speed of light now that's still pretty Swift because we're talking about something of the order of uh 500 kilm per second but it means that it takes 500 years to cover one light year so if we hypoth ize with the big bang hypothesis that the Universe has only existed for 14 billion years or 14 billion divided by 500 is about 30 million years so in essence we're looking at objects that should not be more than 30 million light years across now of of course in the Big Bang hypothesis the universe is expanding so farther back in time by this hypothesis objects would have to travel lesser distances but they have less time to do that so the mathematics ends up pretty simple basically high school algebra that you can put another factor of 10 if you stretch at another factor of 20 into that equation so you can form objects that are as big as 600 million light years across but not a billion light years by any mathematics objects a billion light years across would take 30 or 60 billion years to form far more time than the time hypothesize since the Big Bang so simple conclusion the Big Bang hypothesis predicts that no objects in the universe should be larger than about 600 million light years well the giant ring is the lightest of a number of objects that have been discovered such as the giant Ark that are much bigger than 600 million light years years across so this is a total contradiction of a basic prediction of the Big Bang hypothesis and as we've been explaining in all of our videos the key test of the validity of a scientific hypothesis is whether it makes correct predictions about observations that are to be made in the future and this is a completely wrong prediction but you actually won't be hearing that from other people except us in the mean right now because there is the emperor's new cloth effect that if you say well the Big Bang didn't happen you must be stupid or unfit for your job so there's a little hesitancy to say that on the other hand people are very concerned about the big ring now why is this well the big ring contradicts another basic feature of the Big Bang hypothesis which is one of the assumptions on which the Big Bang hypothesis is based and that's what's called the cosmological principle and you will hear and you might have already already heard from many other sources that the big ring seems to violate the cosmological principle now what is the cosmological principle of that great title the cosmological principle is a very simple hyp assumption it's the assumption that the Universe at a large enough scale is completely homogeneous and isotropic in other words it has no structure Ure at a large enough scale it's smooth like a well-made pudding this hypothesis is fundamental to the theoretical basis of the Big Bang hypothesis you may have heard incorrectly from some people that general relativity predicts that the Big Bang must have happened that the Universe must be expanding or Contracting well that's not true what is true is that the equations of general relativity predict an expanding or Contracting Universe if you also assume the cosmological principle that the Universe at a large enough scale is completely homogenous the same density at every point and I the Tropic the same density in every direction if there is structure at the scales that are larger than that predicted by The Big Bang larger than the scales at which objects could form in the time since the Big Bang larger than the scale of about about half a billion light years then the cosmological principle is wrong if there's structure at these huge scales then that completely undermines the basic hypothesis that underlies the big bang and the expansion of the universe if the universe isn't homogenous then the equations of General relative don't predict whether the UN that the universe is either expanding or Contracting in fact those equations in the general case can't even be solved uh to give one single prediction so that contradiction of the cosmological principle is what people like sabean Hassen Felder and others are saying is of great con concern it's of great concern because this is not the first object that contradicts the cosmological principle again there was the giant Arc discovered just three years ago but Alexia Lopez and 20 of her colleagues wrote a paper last year that listed all of the more than dozen observations over the past several years by many groups of of researchers that have shown that quazars and galaxies and gamma ray bursters very bright explosions all of these objects are clustered on scales that are much larger than those predicted by The Big Bang hypothesis billions of light years across and they conclude that the cosmological principle is not supported by observations and to get back to the importance of the cosmological principle the cosmological principle was assumed by the founder of the uh big bang hypothesis George lra as a basic way of solving the equations of general relativity now the equations of general relativity are quite complicated matter of fact Einstein himself in developing them found that it was a big headache to deal with these uh four-dimensional equations to solve these equations analytically you had to make simplifying assumptions well a majra and Einstein himself made the assumption that the Universe was homogenous and why did they make that assumption they made that assumption because it was the only way to get Simple Solutions analytical Solutions Solutions you could write down of general relativity now that's not a good reason to make a scientific hypothesis the equations that we can use to describe uh the universe are often easy to write down if they're useful it pretty much better be easy to write down Maxwell's equations can fit on a uh t-shirt and have fit on many millions of t-shirts but Maxwell's equations that describe electromagnetism are not in most cases easy to solve even with giant computers well who said they should be nature doesn't have to make things easy for hardworking scientists so simplifications approximations almost always have to be made to get these equations to give useful predictions but the correct way to make the simplifying assumptions is to look at nature and try try and say oh what approximately fits what we observe in nature what approximations can we use to say well you know in the famous joke the cow is almost like a sphere if you make the assumptions instead to make your her job easier to make the equations easier to solve you may be solving equations that have nothing to do with what nature is like and the funny thing is at no point in the last 2 200 years of observing the sky have objects in the universe looked homogeneous at every Point as our telescopes have penetrated out further and further in space we always see a clumpy Universe we see stars isolated from each other we see clusters of stars we see galaxies isolated from each other we see galaxies clumped into big uh giant clusters of galaxies and those clusters are strung out like beads along the string of filaments which are distant from each other and those filaments those supercluster filaments are lumped into even greater structures such as the big ring and the big Ark there is structure at every scale and we've seen those structures every decade we look out further and further there was never a time in the whole history of astronomy in the last centuries that we saw a homogenous smooth universe so this was an unjustified assumption but it did make the equations easy to solve and that led to the prediction that the Universe must be expanding or Contracting now I and other people like to say that uh there's a sort of the lampost effect as an ancient joke all of you probably have heard about the inebriated person who is looking around under the light of the lamp post and uh a sober person comes along and says can I help you what are you looking for and the drunk says oh I've dropped my keys I can't find my keys and person asked where did you drop them he says oh way over there on uh Epson street abson street oh why are you looking for them here under the lamp the drunks says wow the light's much better here that's like solving an equation with an assumption that makes the equation easier to solve the light's much better but it's not where nature dropped her keys so what these new discoveries are is sort of pointing out that the keys are not there now in preparing for this episode I actually looked up when this ancient joke was first reported it seems that somebody made it up around 1924 just exactly 100 years ago it was in 1927 that George Matra wrote the paper that started what is now called The Big Bang hypothesis just three years after the joke so maybe that was part of Dr lra's inspiration was to look under the lamp poost nature isn't cooperating with the big bang hypothesis that the universe is not smooth and homogenous and therefore there's no reason to expect that there was or is an expansion or contraction of the universe and that that is the explanation for the well-known Hubble relationship which correlates a red shift with distance and the existence of these objects is not something that is really a recent concern even back in 1988 36 years ago no less an authority than Joseph silk a leading proponent of the Big Bang said that if objects this large were discovered you would have to question the Big Bang hypothesis is so the big ring completely contradicts the predictions of the Big Bang expanding Universe hypothesis well what if the universe is not expanding then can we compare the big ring with predictions that were made on the basis that there was no big bang well again as we've explained in earlier videos if the universe is not expanding then measurements made at high red shift imply linear Dimensions that are larger than that that are implied if you assume the universe was expanding at the red shift that the big ring is which is a red shift of point8 objects if the universe is not EXP expanding if space is as space is in this room everywhere then objects are about twice as big as if you assume the same objects in a universe that was expanding so if we assume that the universe is not expanding then we get these values the radius of the big ring is about 1.1 billion light years opposed to its its uh diameter being 1.2 billion light years and the radius of the circle that the giant Ark is part of is about 5 billion light years well did anyone make predictions of such objects on the basis of a non big bang universe well as a matter of fact I did in papers that I published back in 1986 38 years ago I used the simple assumptions that electromagnetism plasma physics and gravity operated on all scales in a universe that did not originate in a big bag on that basis I showed that primordial filaments giant vortexes of plasma should form and start Contracting when they were 4.9 billion like years in radius really close to the five billion light years of the giant Arc they would compressed down to 1.2 billion light years in radius again B really close to the 1.1 billion light here in radius of the big ring but these predictions go beyond the size because these predictions were that these vortices were formed by the magnetic fields of giant currents by the pinch effect which we observe here in the laborat and it all scales throughout the Universe which draws currents together and this draws currents into characteristic forms which are called force-free vortices which have Tighter and Tighter helixes around the outside and straighter and straighter filaments towards the inside sort of like the veil nebula and what do we observe for what did Alexia Lopez and her colleagues observed the big ring is actually a tightly wound Helix so not only is the dimensions of the ring in the arc accurately predicted by this 36y old paper but so is the form of the Ring the fact that it's helico and this comes not from any arbitrary assumptions but simply from the idea that the electromagnetism and gravity that we observe on the earth in the solar system function in the same way at least up to scales of billions of light years and that the Universe had trillions of years for these objects to develop and therefore that of course there was no know Big Bang 14 billion years ago so the summary is the big ring is important because the big ring contradicts both the predictions that come from The Big Bang and the basic assumptions that underly the Big Bang theoretically but they the big Rings observation are totally supportive of predictions that were made on the assumption that there was no big bang that's why a lot of people are really concerned about this big ring observation and what you see in the commentary is that supporters of the Big Bang are sort of fragmented because there are some hardcore supporters like Ethan sigle who are just poo pooing these many observations and saying oh they did the statistics wrong all of these people are just wrong it couldn't be and there are other people like saan Hassen Felder and quite a few others who are saying well this is a real problem this this could undermine the cosmological principle and that fragmentation is going to shape the next phase of the Big Bang debate but before that I have a request your support lpp fusions researchers are not backed by billionaires our work both in fusion and in astrophysics are supported by thousands of individual investors unfortunately that's just not enough to hire the people we need to achieve maximum speed in our research we need another million dollars a year you can provide that not by yourself to be sure but we have 12,000 subscribers to lpp fusions YouTube channel if just each of you donated $10 a month to lpp Fusion that's only three dimes a day or you invested in lpp Fusion $100 a year we would get another 1.2 million doll per year our work can provide energy that is 90% cheaper than any available today safe clean Unlimited No greenhouse gases no pollution decentralized energy a better future for all of us so thanks for your support

Channel: LPPFusion

Views: 15,620

Keywords:

Id: PTNkZjqRwPw

Length: 29min 1sec (1741 seconds)

Published: Thu Mar 07 2024