Cosmological Constant - Evidence of Design in Nature Leonard Susskind Theoretical Physicist
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
Cosmological Constant - Evidence of Design in Nature Leonard Susskind Theoretical Physicist - Stanford University Definition: The cosmological constant is a constant term in field equations of general relativity, represented by the Greek symbol Lambda, which allowed for a static universe. Later evidence supported the fact that the universe was indeed expanding and the cosmological constant was believed to be zero. Evidence in the late 1990s has begun supporting the idea that the universe is not only expanding, but that the expansion rate is actually accelerating due to the presence of dark energy. Einstein's Biggest Blunder When Albert Einstein developed his theory of general relativity, he realized that they implied an unstable equilibrium position. Any slight unevenness would cause spacetime to expand or contract. He had the philosophical belief (as did most physicists of the time) in a static universe, so he added a constant term which was allowed (but not required) onto the end of his equation when he published the theory in 1916. In 1929, however, the astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered evidence that distant galaxies were receding from our own galaxy. Though Einstein's model, with the cosmological constant, other models by Alexander Friedmann and Willem de Sitter (which didn't include the cosmological constant) had predicted such expansion quite clearly. Einstein quickly accepted the new evidence and told physicist George Gamow that the cosmological constant idea was the "biggest blunder" of his life. Cosmological Constant Revisited In 1998, two different teams of researchers discovered evidence that the universe's expansion was actually speeding up. This meant that the cosmological constant wasn't just zero, as expected, but had to have a very slight positive value. The theory that has grown up around this positive cosmological constant is the theory of dark energy. Also Known As: vacuum energy vacuum pressure negative pressure dark energy Lambda Cosmological Constant - More on Relativity Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity Einstein's Theory of General Relativity Fundamental Concepts & Controversies of Relativity Cosmological Constant - Historical Information Albert Einstein - Biographical Profile Books About Einstein & Relativity Doppler Effect for Light Cosmological Constant - Related Concepts Dark Energy Spacetime The Big Bang Theory
Comments
-
Prof. is referring to the anthropic principle, not intelligent design. Religious people really do have a gift for ignoring/distorting facts to keep themselves deluded. I wouldn't care either if they didn't tend to blow up other people.
-
This video has been cut and edited to use fragments of speech fraudulently.
I have watched virtually all of Prof. Susskind's lectures. In no way, any way, is he a supporter of 'Intelligent Design'. As a physicist, he takes care to make no reference at all to such concepts, which are entirely irrelevant to his work as a theoretician.
The question of 'fine tuning' is one that interests him from a technical point of view and he often discusses it in lectures - but entirely from the point of view that there is an explanation somewhere deep in the mathematics, we just haven't found it yet. -
1. Anything constant and not jumping all over the place, can be said to be "tuned".
2. However "tuned" the cosmological constant, it is impossible for it not to occur during an endless amount of "differing law" cosmoses. This is not science fiction, "Eternal Inflation Theorem" is the best most accurate picture of nature we have in which space-time produces a never ending amount of pocket universe regions - at the core of the equations and not some crazy prediction of it.
3. Which is more complex in terms of "settings" or abilities ?
A deity or the any natural laws? I think you would agree, a deity is more complex and more capable..even more complex than the cosmological constant, but which itself does not require design ?!?!
What makes more sense ?
A. Self proficient infinitely complex deity, or
B. Self proficient near infinitely simple (over changing) laws ? -
The basic problem is not if there's a designer or not. The main problem with many is, if they are proven correct and the others proven wrong. We have a huge need to satisfy our intellectual ego, which is in sharp contrast with our insignificance in the grand scale of the universe. In the grand scheme of things we may be less important than the neutrino in our daily lives. Nevertheless we pretend to be omniscient like the gods in our religions.
If there's a god that fine tunes a universe to such an accuracy, then believe me, it is very different than what our collective human intelligent has fantasised. -
From what documentary is this ?
-
No... YOU claim there is a god. I say "You haven't actually shown valid evidence for it, now have you?". This question really be answered "You're right! The evidence ofr god is quite scant and so I too will withhold agreement until more evidence surfaces". But instead you say "I have faith, and will believe in the magic sky monkey simply because I want to". On a side note... I'd look up the definition of 'tautology' if I were you.
-
No... they don't. What they have is a database of what signals are to be expected from natural background noise, and then they filter that through 'furious transformations' (pun intended) to find what stands out. A little education goes a long way.
-
"Then what designed the intelligent designer?" For an explanation to be considered the best it does not have to have an explanation of the explanation. That is not what a tautology is. In a tautological argument you would use a statement as one of the premises AND the conclusion. E.g. 'God does not exist, therefore anybody who says that He does is wrong because God cannot exist, therefore God does not exist.' That's a tautology.
-
Cont... The SETI institute also states, "Other tell-tale characteristics include a signal that is completely polarized or the existence of coded information on the signal."
-
SETI does indeed have a method for detecting intelligence, the world can stop waiting. The following is a quote from the SETI website "Although signals sent by a civilization for its own purposes may be impossible to unravel SETI scientists are developing statistics based algorithms to determine the amount of information sent. This can tell us almost immediately, something about their level of intelligence." Cont...
-
I agree completely with your comments. There are a bunch of intellectual light weights commenting on here.
-
Evangelists AND Richard Dawkins are talking out of their ases. Humans are ignorant and do not know about this topic. BE HUMBLE.
-
Why do you have such a sttong AVERSION to the reasonable possibility and idea of DEISM or supreme deity ( God)? Is your life really that bad? I do not understand?
-
1 part to the 10 to the 120 is NOT chance, YOU FOOL. Furthermore, your hero Dawkins deliberately MISREPRESENTED Darwin's beliefs. Darwin is a self-described believer in God. It is on page 92 of his aurobiography. Look it up.SCIENCE IS NOT AT ALL AT ODDS WITH DEISM - ONLY rthe specific organized religions and their books and texts, you FOOL. Dr. Krauss said this in a lecture.
-
I am surprised to hear that most scientists disagree that the cosmological constant is an accident. People need to understand that it doesn't matter if it's 1% fine tuning or one part in a trillion trillion trillion fine tuning. It's still going to happen eventually. If the Megaverse/Multiverse is infinite then it follows that probability goes out the window. Anything that can happen does happen.
-
maybe God created all diffratial equations too, they are really reallyreally reallyreally really...paus...really reallyreally really accurate :/
-
I don't know why the uploader cut off all the important parts, and wasted so much time in making this misleading video. Despite all his effort. I think we should have all known the fact that Prof Leonard Susskind is a retard by now.
-
It doesn't bode well for our species if we are here due to a 'designer'. Imagine, being given one vote out of 10^120 possibilities! How insignificant can we be! If we were REALLY special, just about EVERY possibility would lead to our existence. If one 'designer' is "plausible" (by mere assertion), why not an infinite number? Constraining 'designer' capabilities? Why the very thought begs forgiveness of the 'designer(s)'. Confining people to so lowly a standing begs forgiveness of humanity.
-
this video is misleading.
-
Certain versions of the BIble have been getting edited, redacted, poorly translated, and outright changed going against the Bible itself, but there is a version that has not. As to your quotes, the first one does not mean that if you swear to your dad you will be put to death. Why don't you take a guess then knowing it is something else? To the next quotes: Do you love your parents? Do you fear your parents when you have been a bad kid and are on their wrong side? Those make perfect sense.
2m 50sLenght
35Rating