All of my infinite copies are semi-resident guests at Hilbert's Grand Hotel. I recommend the place; even when they're fully booked, they can always get you into a room.👌
@@anmolmehrotra923 You should try Hilly Billy Hotel, where there are infinite rooms, infinite residents, infinite number of pantries, cooks, servicemen. Even the sewage pipes are connected to an infinitely large pipe. Pretty cool eh?
Dude your videos are amazing. It's nice to finally find someone who explains these things in a way that is both entertaining as well as factually accurate.
I have to say that that ,at least for me ,this presentation is brilliant ! I have watched many videos but I could never visualize this concept . You have a gift for taking very complex ideas and making them very easy for someone who is not skilled in math . This video along with your video on the quantization of light photons has increased my understanding of physics to avery large degree . I'm hooked Thay you for posting .
There is a numberphile video that is looking at the number googleplex that goes into how many light years across the universe would have to be before every possible permutation of atoms in your body has been duplicated. Leading to an exact copy of you. It’s fascinating
I thought about a hypothesis to try to explain a reason that the universe could have been finite at the instant before the Big Bang. I would appreciate if you could help to explain why it is wrong (or right). At the exact instant before the Big Bang everything was compressed in an infinitesimal point (singularity). So every particle in the universe was at a 0 distance apart from each other. However, at the very first moment after the explosion, the distance between each particle increased. But the thing is that it doesn't really matter what is the distance because there are infinite particles. So, for example, lets suppose that at the instant after the Big Bang each particle was 0,00000001 nanometers apart (of course it would be less, maybe infinitesimaly less, but it is only an example). Since there are infinite particles in the universe (at least that is what we expect) and each particle was 0,00000001 nanometers apart, the universe became infinite in size at this very instant! Because any number times infinite is infinite. Or, in this case: 0,00000001 * ∞ = ∞. So the "edge" of the universe would be at an infinite distance. In other words, the universe became infinite at the very moment after the Big Bang, at the exact instant after it was infinitessimal. According to this hypothesis the universe never became finite... this transition never happened! Could you point some reasons for why this is incorrect? Or it may be correct?
1) I'm not sure what you mean by "infinite particles." 2) Everything we've ever observed (short of some weird debatable quantum stuff) takes time. We don't really see /anything/ happen instantly.
I talked about this with a friend of mine and he showed me this video: th-cam.com/video/g1WU35KxLrA/w-d-xo.html It expresses the exact same point as mine! With the animation it is easier to understand what I mean (also, I'm from Brazil, so I don't know if I can express myself perfectly in english). So, this video suggests that the Big Bang was an infinitesimal point. And then, at the exact moment after the explosion, the universe became infinite. So I am a little confused because your video explains that the universe was always infinite (which makes perfect sense). But the video I linked says that the universe wasn't infinite at the moment just before the Big Bang, and then became infinite afterwards (which also made sense to me, since I'm not an astrophysicist, thus I don't have a vast knowledge about this subject). I hope that this video explains my question :)
Thesis (expanding Universe) The James Theory! (The Answer Physics can’t explain) Eternity exist and has always existed from eternity past to eternity future, eg, If I blow up a balloon representing our known observable Universe which had a beginning and is filled with material, stars, galaxies etc. it must blow or expand into something which is eternity space eventually our expansion will stop within the eternity space as energy runs out. If the Creator of the universe (God)(Omni Science, Omni Presence, Omni Potence) is eternal then our known universe is held together by the power and purpose of the Sovereign Creator who has eternally existed (and has never been created) but always has existed without a beginning and without an end in eternity space. Makes Perfect sense to me. This is my Simple explanation, my dear Atheist friends may have a harder time to come up with say a formulae, theory or example to make any further sense or non sense of it. Even the theory of multi verses are within the Balloon Concept. And further more this would make our known expanding universe appear as a shrinking speck of dust as in the view and scope of eternity. Everything that has ever existed is symbiotically connected to the past and the future by the all knowing connector. Definitions Omnipresence means minimally that there is no place to which God's knowledge and power do not extend. It is related to the concept of ubiquity, the ability to be everywhere or in many places at once. This includes unlimited temporal presence. Omniscience (/ɒmˈnɪʃəns/) is the capacity to know everything. In monotheistic religions, such as Sikhism and the Abrahamic religions, this is an attribute of God. ... The word omniscience derives from the Latin word sciens ("to know" or "conscious") and the prefix omni ("all" or "every"), but also means "all-seeing". Gods Omnipotence (examples) Revelation 19:6 Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out, “Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns. Hebrews 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, Matthew 19:26 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Luke 1:37 For nothing will be impossible with God.”
I'm curious, what are the implications of an infinite universe for the beginning of time? If the universe is and always has been infinite (though much denser) along the space dimension, could it still be finite along the time dimension?
That depends on how time behaves in the distance past (just after the "big bang"). There are two possibilities: 1) There could be a moment when the concept of "before" loses meaning. That's a finite time. 2) Before the big bang, there was a universe that started big and contracted. Then, when it got too compressed, it started to re-expand again. That's infinite time and the 13,800,000,000 years is just how long the universe has been expanding.
I prefer "lack of space(and time) as we know it" over there being "nothing". There might be a something, but it wouldn't be something our brains would be able to imagine without thinking of space the way we're used to, kinda like trying to imagine another color.
Because 'nothing' by its very nature is outside of human experience, it is hard to conceptualize what 'nothing' would be. All we know, all we've known, all we will ever know, is 'something'.
Infinity, the concept, was identified by Immanuel Kant, in "Critique of Pure Reason", as an antimony of Reason, an artifact of reason, something unprovable even though it flows out of the correct use of reasoning. That and other antimonies led Kant to suspect that reason itself is a bit crooked....has error even from where or how it begins. Kant claimed that, and wrote with the idea in mind that Reason was a function of the brain, like digestion is a function of the stomach. And just as the stomach can't digest everything, neither can the brain reason everything.
I've never been convinced by the argument that an infinite universe must contain infinite copies of everything. It's no more convincing than trying to argue that 0.133333....(recurring) contains an infinite number of '1's - it clearly doesn't. Why can't there be a finite number of copies of *some* things, and an infinite number of copies of others?
I don't understand why "copies" are considered a requirement. I would think the fact of there being an infinity would mean there's an infinite possibility of each and every thing, there doesn't seem to be room for copies in such a model.
In an infinite universe, there must be an infinite amount of copies of you (and me). By definition. That is why I do not believe in infitite universe theories. Although…. it seems to be infinite (because flat).
an infinite universe presents just as many problem as the old eternal, unchanging universe people that assumed it was before we knew it was expanding. But yes, Ronald is right, by definition, an infinite amount of space with an infinite amount of molecules by definition will contain an infinite amount of copies of you because the only thing that's finite in this scenario is the possible states of particles. On average, these copies will be around 10^120 apart from each other. But there are also an infinite amount of copies that are RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER!! It's insane to be honest. Infinity is crazy because literally anything that CAN happen WILL happen, no matter how small the chance
I must say i watched thousands of videos from you and i thought i had a good understanding of the big bang... but this one totally blew my mind forever! The big bang happend everywhere.. :o
Speaking of a multiverse what is your opinion of the simulation hypothesis as I call it. I am surprised at the number of scientists who consider it a real possibility.
If you just consider the chances statistically, then this is far more likely to be a simulation than anything else. But, the thing is, we tend to only resort to statistics to simplify a problem that is otherwise too complicated to solve (because stats can /always/ give us an answer). The issue is that, in simplifying the problem, it ignores A BUNCH OF STUFF... so, while stats always gives us an answer, it isn't always correct. I tend to reject the "simulation hypothesis" for two reasons: 1) Any simulation would have a resolution. The real universe looks perfectly continuous down to 1E-18 meters, so any pixels would have to be much smaller. THAT'S SO SMALL!! 2) What would the motivation be to create a simulation so thorough? If it were entertainment, it would be more interesting here. Scientists wouldn't need this kind of precision/resolution unless they were doing psychological or sociological experiments... at which point, it wouldn't be worth the cost of running. There are must cheaper ways to do that.
I don't see a problem in resolution (why not 1e-18? why not 1e-1000? that is only about the memory). I don't see a problem in the reason either - Ancestor Simulation, we are already trying to simulate the universe from the Big Bang and we will make better and better simulations. But I have different reasons to reject it: 1. If the simulation is too good to allow any kind of exploit, than it is no different from reality. It simply makes no difference, thus we can discard the idea as redundant. (Until you can find the exploit.) 2. Is simulation "alive"? If not, we are not a simulation. If yes, then should we do such simulations? Will we? That changes the "statiscics" completely.
An evolving probabilistic simulation that continues to provide novelty and learning experience to the players. The game never gets old due to its design. Novelty is provided even to its designer. Not that hard to imagine we could do the same thing in a few thousand years with The help of A.I.
The question you have to ask is: What *reason* is there to believe that? That is, what reason is there to believe that we actually live in a simulation? What unexplained phenomenon does the theory shed light on? Answer: None. And thus, there's no reason to entertain the idea. This applies to all theories. When someone long ago first postulated that the earth could be round, someone else must've asked: Are you crazy? Why? -- Because it explains the phenomenon of boats disappearing below the horizon. So I repeat: There is no odd phenomenon where, "We live in a simulation" sheds light on the issue.
Maybe Beckenstein ? Said "Think about intergalactic space where there are just a few particles per cubic meter. In between those particles are spaces. That is where we are expanding into." I really like that one!
is it possible that only the observable universe looks flat but space is denser elsewhere? Or it just looks flat because the actual universe is too vast as for angles in a tringle would end up adding to very close to 180? you know just like how humans thought earth was flat just because they didn't know much and could not look further from what they can observe with their own eyes.
Well, our observable universe is _very_ evenly distributed with no evidence of drop-off near the edge, which suggests that trend continues out into the stuff we can't see. Like I said in the first video ( th-cam.com/video/fApKpDGGDYk/w-d-xo.html ), there's still a 0.4% error margin. If the _whole_ universe is at least 20x larger than the _observable_ universe, then it's possible it could be slightly curved. That is a possibility cosmologists understand.
Minute Physics said the same thing two years ago and I didn't get it. Now it seems little comprehensible topic. Also , whenever I watch such videos I feel like I don't know anything about science. Any way thank you Science Asylum for making us crazy.
I doubt the universe is infinite. if it were, I'd be able to simply conger up anything I wanted and it would suddenly appear. I want a large Ice cream cone (vanilla of course). If the universe were infinite, It would pop up in front of me just by chance. Why, because an infinite universe offers infinite possibilities, but since I don't get infinite possibilities, I must assume the universe is not infinite. Unless I have to wait forever, then that's a different story.
You may not get an ice cream however you might have unexpected different things occurring to you as they do to everybody at different points of their lives.
It doesn’t work because amongst those infinite possibilities, there are only a few where you get an ice cream and an almost infinite number of possibilities where you don’t. It would involve vast numbers of molecules of ice cream and cone jumping all at the same time, either a whole ice cream cone from an ice cream truck or the constituent chemical elements or compounds, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen etc, jumping out of the atmosphere to form the cone, from somewhere else into your hands. And there is a vast universe and an incredible period of time for such an incredible event to occur, somewhere else, apart from where you are.
Derek Whittom An ice cream cone jumping into your hands from somewhere else is possible, just very, very, very improbable. Getting two scoops of your favourite flavours makes it even less likely.
It will not happen because an ice-cream in itself is a very complex system . The more complex the system is the harder it will be to appear by chance instead of some specific chain of events with specific rules. To put it in perspective. AN Ice-cream is more complex than the Sun, otherwise the space would have been full of ice-creams.
Es impresionante como podés hacer tan entretenido un video acerca de un tema tan complicado. Tendrías que hacer presentaciones en vivo en algún teatro, yo pagaría por ir con mis hijos a verte.
Actually Universe is brilliant by it's simplicity and complexity at the same time, when you understand the answer to everything you can finally see that.
@@jaydienparks5658 Depends what you mean by infinite I guess, but it definitely is without a doubt. there is nothing else but the universe for us to observe and the universe has no edge. That is infinity in my definition ∞. This world is very young, so obviously you can't find the answer yet in the mainstream media. But it is out there. The universal theory is easy, trust me
@@SoulWhite it may be finite but with no edge most likely how would an infinite universe even form also an infinite universe has a lot of parodoxes we have never seen an infinity in reality
Could it be that the big bang was just an immensely, unimaginably large explosion in the infinite space instead of the entire universe being compressed ?
Etaash Katiyar My thoughts exactly. If it's only our observable universe which we can determine to originate from a singular point, then could it be that there were/are multiple points like that within the same infinite spacetime? That all these point are so far away as to not be observable from anyone residing within anothers expansion parameter? Could the points then be thought as the center of some super black holes that met some critical point in this infinite spacetime leading to their eruptions? Would these different regions in the same infinite spacetime have their own pseudospacetime in much the same way we have time zones? Am I thinking, or do I just think I'm thinking?
exactly, and in an infinite universe, one is bound to one across a black hole/ explosion of arbitrary sizes which might very well be larger than the size of our observable universe
1) The big bang wasn't really an explosion. It was just a moment where the universe went from "not expanding" to "expanding everywhere." 2) It also isn't like an explosion that gave matter the momentum to move apart. Based on what we can see, it MUST be the space itself that expands rather than the matter.
I always thought about that, if our universe is infinite, there could be "Big Bangs" occurring in corners of our universe at the same time other corners of our universe are already either having the "Big Freeze" or the "Big Rip" but it's *so* huge we'll never see them.
I remembered an article or a video that "space" itself is not really empty. Just like the balloon showed in this video, it has space but not really empty because of the air inside. So the question is, what if the entire universe is expanding not because of the big bang theory or an impact somewhere but because of the "space molecules" that is actually expanding. Maybe a blackhole is also responsible for the expansion since theoretically it gives off energy somewhere in the space. Or probably, the observable universe we know is only a part of the periphery of the entire universe. So there still must be a center of the universe that creates galaxies or space that we still do not know. That is why the universe is still keep on expanding.
You hit me with the reverse click bait lmao Once you started doing the balloon demo I clicked off only to come back later and realize you roasted it with the best explanation I found haha
I think “The expanding raisinbread” model is much better than the “Balloon” model. It also explains why galaxies far away moves faster away from is than those closer to us.
You should do a "best of..." Compilation video showcasing the wide variety of scientific topics that are covered by your channel. I'd love to have a broad spectrum video to share in social media in order to introduce Science Asylum to my friends and family. I could always just pick a couple of my favorites to share, but that would be like trying to draw objective conclusions from a small sample size... A compilation video, however, would show those connected to my social media the variety of topics as well as showcasing how you've grown as a host AND how your productions have matured... Though I use that term loosely lol Thanks for all the fun videos!
Infinite, and nothing this are very mind-warping to try to understand. Some people act like it's easy to understand, but I don't think it is. We really don't know what is out there there could be multi universes, multi-dimensions, simulations, we have no clue.
That Thumbnail.....You were dead right. The Star of Chaos! The univserse is of course expanding into the Immaterium! Beware the Ruinous Powers that resider within! Blasphemy aside, though: great video, as always! ;-)
So this clearly shows that the universe is expanding, not the space. Because if the space is a dimension, and if it was expanding along with the universe, we couldn't see the it, becouse our rulles of measure would also expand. Do you agree with this? Please comment.
Yes, the expanding balloon might have its limitations as a visual aid but even so your video clip say at 0:41 illustrates what seems to be an issue in that as the surface of the balloon expands so do the grid lines (if you had drawn them on the balloon) but that nice grid pattern in on the blue background does not expand and it is that which shows the balloon is indeed expanding. For there seem to be two rulers, the intrinsic one on the balloon surface that expands with the balloon (and hence one can't use that to measure the expansion of the balloon since it too is expanding) vs the extrinsic coordinate system as depicted by that blue background with the white grid lines that does show the balloon is expanding as the balloon fills more of that. So whether there is any grid outside the balloon there does seem to at least be two rulers here, and intrinsic one that expands with the balloon and an extrinsic ones that rather than stretches expands by adding new grid lines vs stretching the exiting ones. For if everything scales there is no way to know that the balloon is any larger given there is no fixed ruler to measure that expansion. Thus it seems the intrinsic ruler stretches but has the same number of ticks on it (albeit the distance between the tics increases) while the distance between the tics on the extrinsic ruler remains fixed but the ruler grows in size with that expansion (if not as your blue background is already hat large) by adding new tics as the balloon expands. So there seems to be three rulers here, the sensed distances ala relativity based on the observers point of view, the grid on the balloon that is stretched as the balloon expands,, and the fixed grid that shows that the balloon indeed is getting larger. Or is there some other way the balloon would know that it is getting larger without that third, fixed ruler in which to measure that expansion? And BTW, I think I might have asked this same question on a comment or two on some of your other videos, so I don't mean to keep repeating the same question but that visual at 0:41 illustrates this question quite well so maybe this question is thus worth repeating again here in that this video raises that question and at the same time shows that fixed grid a well that helps illustrate the issue. For I am not seeing how this all works without having some sort of fixed ruler whose ticks do not move. So am I missing something?
I always imagine expansion of universe as if it is an infinite chessboard and for every "step" of expansion, we divide every single square into 4 smaller ones. If we assume, that every square on any step has equal size inside this chessboard, than we get universe, which expand into itself.
Yes, except time changes the size of some squares in the presence of mass thereby creating a curvature. Also, squares have an orientation at their vertices whereas the universe is isotropic and therefore it is really circles (spheres in 3D) not squares. But, when you subdivide a circle you find that the sides do not touch at every point (unlike a square); they only intersect at 4 points (actually 6 points for sphere). This is probably where the additional dimensions are required ... to "connect" the quantum spheres of space at all surface points beyond the 6 discrete contact points in the 3 macrospatial dimensions. My guess is that all the "weirdness" of quantum mechanics and even gravity are related to these higher dimensional connecting structures, and that they are in fact based in a mathematics that string theory has merely tickled not solved.
1:25 just use three rubber sheets perpendicular to each other rubber sheet instead of a balloon , then join a number near point objects each using 3 strings each perpendicular to the sheet it touches from all frames of references . now expand each rubber sheet and it represents expansion of 3d space .
One thing you said feels to me like a statement for a finite universe. The Big Bang 'was the universe', and its occurence started expansion. "The Big Bang happened everywhere." I took that to mean 'space' as we know it was very small, and the Big Bang occured in the Universe, instead of the Big Bang happening in what was already a vast space.
It's not that's there's "nothing, not even empty space" outside the universe, it's that there's no "outside the universe" for anything to exist in. Kind of like there's no region farther north than the north pole.
If the universe is infinite, then yes, there are infinite copies of all of us somewhere out there, and every possible variation thereof. Crazy to think about.
I realize I'm years late to this but since I was a teenager my rationale has always been that the universe is finite, because if it was infinite then that means that everything possible is always happening somewhere, which means that somebody (or something) has destroyed the universe. Since I exist, the universe has to be finite. I realize this is a philosophical argument and not a scientific one, but there you go.
It is refreshing to finally find someone with some credibility to talk about an infinite universe! I would like to point out that even though the universe might be infinite, it doesn't necessarily need to have an infinite amount of matter, hence it is possible to have an infinite universe without a bunch of clones floating around in it. It could be possible, although unlikely, that our observable universe contains the only collection of matter in an infinite space.
Nick, what do you think about the possibility of multiverses? When I watched "Particle Fever", the result for the Higgs boson mass indicated a sort of halfway between SUSY (Supersymmetry) and Multiverse. I am not a theoretical physicist nor have any other kind of background to be able to understand such subjects, but I really like to learn this stuff.
The best analogy I heard (or the one that works best for me) reduces the universe to 1 dimension, but otherwise makes it easily visible. Imagine an infinitely long string of white marbles. That’s the universe at the moment of the Big Bang. Now, insert a back marble between every white marble. Do this all along the infinitely long chain at once. Those black marbles represent empty space. Now double the number of black marvels. Now triple them. The line is still infinitely long, but the white marbles are getting farther and further apart from one another. Furthermore, from each white marvels point of view, it is standing still and all the white marbles are getting further and further away from it. With the further ones moving faster and faster as they go.
to me, infinity seems like a natural concept while nothingness seems weird, but both require assumptions about the unknowable. despite seeming like two opposite theories, they probably describe the same situation and it's an illusion of choice.
That's why I always distinguished between the cosmological universe and the whole being, in the sense of the summary of everything. This universe we're part of, doesn't necessarily has to be this infinite whole being. This cosmological universe rather has the size of a speck of dust, compared to the infinity of everything. No matter if its diameter would be 90bn, 900bn or 900 trillion light years.
Something I've thought about is the possibility of the 3D universe being the surface of a hypersphere, while the universe as a whole being a 4D ball. In this model, the Big Bang does have a definitely location and the center does exist, and they're the same point. This model is taking the balloon analogy pretty literally, but there could be merit if instead of a spherical surface, it could be something like a hyperbolic surface. The basic gist is that spatial coordinates and angular dimensions and time is the radius. The light cone wouldn't really be a cone and would be more of a curved path tangent to the surface at your current position and passing through the origin (center/beginning of the universe), so it would basically be like an ellipse or something. The future side would probably be more like a parabola or hyperbola. Of course this theory depends on the universe having curvature, and with the accelerating expansion of the universe: negative curvature specifically.
It makes sense that the universe is not expanding into something like void. That is because outside space it can't be some other kind of space like the euclidean void space surrounding the real space. The space itself is not euclidean, it is different. An euclidean void space where you can place things is a product of our imagination, but there seem to be no such a thing. The expanding space I suppose can be thought like scaling a mass. Mass doesn't expand into something. The odd thing is at the moment of the BigBang the universe could have also been infinite.
"If it is infinite, then why does it all look the same?" Really good point! But I think you also answered your own question in the video. Infinity is unimaginably "big" and weird. Perhaps even seeing at the scale of superclusters its still not enough to see the true gradient of infinite possibilities the universe holds. And yes of course theyre would be an infinite number of you. But they might also each be infinitely far away! 😆
I think that the universe is expanding into itself it exists as a singularity inside itself at its Center as it expands it makes that singularity more dense until the mass at the center of the singularity is so great and the lack of space so weak it pops like a balloon in a vacuum allowing all of that space to expand back into itself as another big bang
Well, if the universe is infinite... then there MUST be another version of ourselves. And there MUST even be an infinite amount of versions of ourselves. But it does not matter since they would be so far away. That's exactly how I see the Fermi paradox. If the universe is infinite, then there is no other choice : life and alien civilizations MUST exist somewhere else. It's just so far away that we will most likely never find or interact with it.
Nice Explanation/Animation of the Observable Universe + Expanding SpaceTime! The fact that the *Universe has always been Infinite* + the *BigBang happened Everywhere* (no Center of the Universe) is really counter-intuitive, but makes sense when you think about it! Would a SpaceTime embedded in the Singularity of a BlackHole have the same properties?
well, I think the universe is finite. and it began somewhere. but... where did it begin? where did the big bang occurs? where is the center of the universe? is the rate of expansion the same everywhere? is that uniform rate of expansion even possible? is there any effect of such expansion on our daily life?
Empty space is nothing. People say not but why not? Empty space is said to be something as it contains matter / energy and thus dimensions but without matter / energy empty space is..... nothing!!! Perhaps this is just another conceptualisation issue.... This then leads to the question that if empty space is infinite does vacuum energy exist infinitely? Amazing channel by the way. Just found it and I'm totally hooked. Thanks for all the great info.
I love to make longer videos, so I do it whenever I can. I can't every time though. You got spoiled with one in late December and then another in early March. I will make more. Promise.
What if it's the gravity shrinking the galaxies and stuff idk but it would look the same as zooming out at the same speed to the expansion. I guess the redshift and everything wouldn't make sense but what if that's just like how bass is carried further at a concert than high notes?
All of my infinite copies are semi-resident guests at Hilbert's Grand Hotel. I recommend the place; even when they're fully booked, they can always get you into a room.👌
You know I love a good paradox.
@@hashtagnoname3931 yeah, but the room service is terrible.
@@daddymuggle
Agreed
@@anmolmehrotra923 You should try Hilly Billy Hotel, where there are infinite rooms, infinite residents, infinite number of pantries, cooks, servicemen. Even the sewage pipes are connected to an infinitely large pipe. Pretty cool eh?
Dude your videos are amazing. It's nice to finally find someone who explains these things in a way that is both entertaining as well as factually accurate.
Accuracy is very important to me. Too many people sacrifice it for clarity.
I'm just glad to be alive in this time and space to watch your videos. Think about the odds, they are really really small
you videos are awesome, i love your channel!
Thanks!
"Horton Hears A Who" was the perfect analogy you could have used for this video! :)
Keep up the great work!
I have to say that that ,at least for me ,this presentation is brilliant !
I have watched many videos but I could never visualize this concept .
You have a gift for taking very complex ideas and making them very easy for someone who is not skilled in math .
This video along with your video on the quantization of light photons has increased my understanding of physics to avery large degree .
I'm hooked Thay you for posting .
Your videos really deserve much much much more views!!! Let`s broadcast it!!
There is a numberphile video that is looking at the number googleplex that goes into how many light years across the universe would have to be before every possible permutation of atoms in your body has been duplicated. Leading to an exact copy of you. It’s fascinating
Seen it. Good video 👍
This is, without doubt, the BEST science series I've seen since "Watch Mister Wizard" (Don Herbert, NBC-TV, 1950s)! Thank you, Nick Lucid.
I don't know how you do it but you pull it all in with what looks like ease! Keep up the videos and I'll keep watching them. Your clones crack me up.
Yeah, I hope there is another Earth, where my comments are noticed by someone.
Hi!
You got noticed by Senpai.
2:21
Couldn't be supertasks the way around this problem ?
:D
Hi, I'm from another Earth!
I thought about a hypothesis to try to explain a reason that the universe could have been finite at the instant before the Big Bang. I would appreciate if you could help to explain why it is wrong (or right).
At the exact instant before the Big Bang everything was compressed in an infinitesimal point (singularity). So every particle in the universe was at a 0 distance apart from each other. However, at the very first moment after the explosion, the distance between each particle increased. But the thing is that it doesn't really matter what is the distance because there are infinite particles. So, for example, lets suppose that at the instant after the Big Bang each particle was 0,00000001 nanometers apart (of course it would be less, maybe infinitesimaly less, but it is only an example). Since there are infinite particles in the universe (at least that is what we expect) and each particle was 0,00000001 nanometers apart, the universe became infinite in size at this very instant! Because any number times infinite is infinite. Or, in this case: 0,00000001 * ∞ = ∞. So the "edge" of the universe would be at an infinite distance. In other words, the universe became infinite at the very moment after the Big Bang, at the exact instant after it was infinitessimal. According to this hypothesis the universe never became finite... this transition never happened!
Could you point some reasons for why this is incorrect? Or it may be correct?
1) I'm not sure what you mean by "infinite particles."
2) Everything we've ever observed (short of some weird debatable quantum stuff) takes time. We don't really see /anything/ happen instantly.
I talked about this with a friend of mine and he showed me this video: th-cam.com/video/g1WU35KxLrA/w-d-xo.html
It expresses the exact same point as mine! With the animation it is easier to understand what I mean (also, I'm from Brazil, so I don't know if I can express myself perfectly in english).
So, this video suggests that the Big Bang was an infinitesimal point. And then, at the exact moment after the explosion, the universe became infinite. So I am a little confused because your video explains that the universe was always infinite (which makes perfect sense). But the video I linked says that the universe wasn't infinite at the moment just before the Big Bang, and then became infinite afterwards (which also made sense to me, since I'm not an astrophysicist, thus I don't have a vast knowledge about this subject).
I hope that this video explains my question :)
Thesis
(expanding Universe)
The James Theory! (The Answer Physics can’t explain)
Eternity exist and has always existed from eternity past to eternity future,
eg, If I blow up a balloon representing our known observable Universe
which had a beginning and is filled with material, stars, galaxies
etc. it must blow or expand into something which is eternity space
eventually our expansion will stop within the eternity space as
energy runs out. If the Creator of the universe (God)(Omni Science,
Omni Presence, Omni Potence) is eternal then our known universe is
held together by the power and purpose of the Sovereign Creator who
has eternally existed (and has never been created) but always has
existed without a beginning and without an end in eternity space.
Makes Perfect sense to me. This is my Simple explanation, my dear
Atheist friends may have a harder time to come up with say a
formulae, theory or example to make any further sense or non sense of
it. Even the theory of multi verses are within the Balloon Concept.
And further more this would make our known expanding universe appear
as a shrinking speck of dust as in the view and scope of eternity.
Everything that has ever existed is symbiotically connected to the past and the
future by the all knowing connector.
Definitions
Omnipresence
means minimally that there is no place to which God's knowledge and
power do not extend. It is related to the concept of ubiquity, the
ability to be everywhere or in many places at once. This includes
unlimited temporal presence.
Omniscience
(/ɒmˈnɪʃəns/) is the capacity to know everything. In
monotheistic religions, such as Sikhism and the Abrahamic religions,
this is an attribute of God. ... The word omniscience derives from
the Latin word sciens ("to know" or "conscious")
and the prefix omni ("all" or "every"), but also
means "all-seeing".
Gods Omnipotence (examples)
Revelation
19:6 Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude,
like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of
thunder, crying out, “Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty
reigns.
Hebrews 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his
nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After
making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the
Majesty on high,
Matthew 19:26 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but
with God all things are possible.”
Luke 1:37 For nothing will be impossible with God.”
Sounds good to me.
@@jamest4670 oh. God. STFU. Jeez!
" I didn't realize I was gonna get to be on camera!" - Hahahahahaha
that got a snort out of me
Nick, knocking it out again. Thanks for the great content.
You are a great teacher ¡¡
This is my favorite science channel! Keep on, you weird weird lovable man.
Glad you found me!
haha infintity is so weird...
better said is "relative"
relatively weird
by the way, metalhead: \m/
Fuck yeah, bro \m/
Not for Thanos.
Your humour is infinite! Love the show!
Subscribed immediately! Congrats for explaining difficult things in a simple and entertaining way.
Welcome to the Science Asylum 🤓
I'm curious, what are the implications of an infinite universe for the beginning of time? If the universe is and always has been infinite (though much denser) along the space dimension, could it still be finite along the time dimension?
That depends on how time behaves in the distance past (just after the "big bang"). There are two possibilities:
1) There could be a moment when the concept of "before" loses meaning. That's a finite time.
2) Before the big bang, there was a universe that started big and contracted. Then, when it got too compressed, it started to re-expand again. That's infinite time and the 13,800,000,000 years is just how long the universe has been expanding.
There are a lot of videos dealing with this question, but this one does it best from a layman's perspective. Thanks!
I prefer "lack of space(and time) as we know it" over there being "nothing". There might be a something, but it wouldn't be something our brains would be able to imagine without thinking of space the way we're used to, kinda like trying to imagine another color.
That's fair. It's just that any concept we have of "something" requires space and time.
Because 'nothing' by its very nature is outside of human experience, it is hard to conceptualize what 'nothing' would be. All we know, all we've known, all we will ever know, is 'something'.
@@derekwhittom1639 it wouldn't be anything it's the absence of anything
Infinity, the concept, was identified by Immanuel Kant, in "Critique of Pure Reason", as an antimony of Reason, an artifact of reason, something unprovable even though it flows out of the correct use of reasoning. That and other antimonies led Kant to suspect that reason itself is a bit crooked....has error even from where or how it begins. Kant claimed that, and wrote with the idea in mind that Reason was a function of the brain, like digestion is a function of the stomach. And just as the stomach can't digest everything, neither can the brain reason everything.
I've never been convinced by the argument that an infinite universe must contain infinite copies of everything. It's no more convincing than trying to argue that 0.133333....(recurring) contains an infinite number of '1's - it clearly doesn't. Why can't there be a finite number of copies of *some* things, and an infinite number of copies of others?
You make a good point. One of these days I'll make a video about Hilbert's hotel.
I look forward to that one! Will it be infinitely long? ;)
I don't understand why "copies" are considered a requirement. I would think the fact of there being an infinity would mean there's an infinite possibility of each and every thing, there doesn't seem to be room for copies in such a model.
In an infinite universe, there must be an infinite amount of copies of you (and me). By definition. That is why I do not believe in infitite universe theories. Although…. it seems to be infinite (because flat).
an infinite universe presents just as many problem as the old eternal, unchanging universe people that assumed it was before we knew it was expanding. But yes, Ronald is right, by definition, an infinite amount of space with an infinite amount of molecules by definition will contain an infinite amount of copies of you because the only thing that's finite in this scenario is the possible states of particles. On average, these copies will be around 10^120 apart from each other. But there are also an infinite amount of copies that are RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER!! It's insane to be honest. Infinity is crazy because literally anything that CAN happen WILL happen, no matter how small the chance
Excellent job, all of your videos, many thanks!
Nick Lucid: The Universe is expanding.
Someone: What is it expanding in to?
Nick Lucid: It’s not expanding into anything.
Well, I'm not going to lie to anyone 🤷♂️
I must say i watched thousands of videos from you and i thought i had a good understanding of the big bang... but this one totally blew my mind forever! The big bang happend everywhere.. :o
Speaking of a multiverse what is your opinion of the simulation hypothesis as I call it. I am surprised at the number of scientists who consider it a real possibility.
If you just consider the chances statistically, then this is far more likely to be a simulation than anything else. But, the thing is, we tend to only resort to statistics to simplify a problem that is otherwise too complicated to solve (because stats can /always/ give us an answer). The issue is that, in simplifying the problem, it ignores A BUNCH OF STUFF... so, while stats always gives us an answer, it isn't always correct.
I tend to reject the "simulation hypothesis" for two reasons:
1) Any simulation would have a resolution. The real universe looks perfectly continuous down to 1E-18 meters, so any pixels would have to be much smaller. THAT'S SO SMALL!!
2) What would the motivation be to create a simulation so thorough? If it were entertainment, it would be more interesting here. Scientists wouldn't need this kind of precision/resolution unless they were doing psychological or sociological experiments... at which point, it wouldn't be worth the cost of running. There are must cheaper ways to do that.
The Science Asylum Great response. My thoughts as well, especially the purpose of the simulation. I couldn't think of a good purpose for it myself.
I don't see a problem in resolution (why not 1e-18? why not 1e-1000? that is only about the memory). I don't see a problem in the reason either - Ancestor Simulation, we are already trying to simulate the universe from the Big Bang and we will make better and better simulations. But I have different reasons to reject it:
1. If the simulation is too good to allow any kind of exploit, than it is no different from reality. It simply makes no difference, thus we can discard the idea as redundant. (Until you can find the exploit.)
2. Is simulation "alive"? If not, we are not a simulation. If yes, then should we do such simulations? Will we? That changes the "statiscics" completely.
An evolving probabilistic simulation that continues to provide novelty and learning experience to the players. The game never gets old due to its design. Novelty is provided even to its designer. Not that hard to imagine we could do the same thing in a few thousand years with The help of A.I.
The question you have to ask is: What *reason* is there to believe that? That is, what reason is there to believe that we actually live in a simulation? What unexplained phenomenon does the theory shed light on? Answer: None. And thus, there's no reason to entertain the idea. This applies to all theories. When someone long ago first postulated that the earth could be round, someone else must've asked: Are you crazy? Why? -- Because it explains the phenomenon of boats disappearing below the horizon. So I repeat: There is no odd phenomenon where, "We live in a simulation" sheds light on the issue.
Maybe Beckenstein ?
Said "Think about intergalactic space where there are just a few particles per cubic meter.
In between those particles are spaces. That is where we are expanding into."
I really like that one!
Always on par. Thank you. Have to ice my feeble brain again
You're welcome. I think we need to mentally stretch every once in a while.
Had this question since forever
is it possible that only the observable universe looks flat but space is denser elsewhere? Or it just looks flat because the actual universe is too vast as for angles in a tringle would end up adding to very close to 180? you know just like how humans thought earth was flat just because they didn't know much and could not look further from what they can observe with their own eyes.
Well, our observable universe is _very_ evenly distributed with no evidence of drop-off near the edge, which suggests that trend continues out into the stuff we can't see. Like I said in the first video ( th-cam.com/video/fApKpDGGDYk/w-d-xo.html ), there's still a 0.4% error margin. If the _whole_ universe is at least 20x larger than the _observable_ universe, then it's possible it could be slightly curved. That is a possibility cosmologists understand.
I don’t see how something can expand in to nothing. It keeps me up at night!
It's likely impossible we're the only life in the actual mulitverse
In one of the multiverses, we are...maybe 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 one.
I like this guys enthusiasm.
Minute Physics said the same thing two years ago and I didn't get it. Now it seems little comprehensible topic.
Also , whenever I watch such videos I feel like I don't know anything about science.
Any way thank you Science Asylum for making us crazy.
Let me commiserate with the infinite copies of myself suffering all over the universe
This guys characters are funny
I LOVE THIS CHANNEL
I doubt the universe is infinite. if it were, I'd be able to simply conger up anything I wanted and it would suddenly appear. I want a large Ice cream cone (vanilla of course). If the universe were infinite, It would pop up in front of me just by chance. Why, because an infinite universe offers infinite possibilities, but since I don't get infinite possibilities, I must assume the universe is not infinite. Unless I have to wait forever, then that's a different story.
An infinite universe doesn't offer 'infinite possibilities', it offers an infinite number of possible possibilities.
You may not get an ice cream however you might have unexpected different things occurring to you as they do to everybody at different points of their lives.
It doesn’t work because amongst those infinite possibilities, there are only a few where you get an ice cream and an almost infinite number of possibilities where you don’t. It would involve vast numbers of molecules of ice cream and cone jumping all at the same time, either a whole ice cream cone from an ice cream truck or the constituent chemical elements or compounds, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen etc, jumping out of the atmosphere to form the cone, from somewhere else into your hands. And there is a vast universe and an incredible period of time for such an incredible event to occur, somewhere else, apart from where you are.
Derek Whittom An ice cream cone jumping into your hands from somewhere else is possible, just very, very, very improbable. Getting two scoops of your favourite flavours makes it even less likely.
It will not happen because an ice-cream in itself is a very complex system . The more complex the system is the harder it will be to appear by chance instead of some specific chain of events with specific rules. To put it in perspective. AN Ice-cream is more complex than the Sun, otherwise the space would have been full of ice-creams.
Good videos Bro, really gets u thinking, thanks!
i guess there is a multiverse
Es impresionante como podés hacer tan entretenido un video acerca de un tema tan complicado. Tendrías que hacer presentaciones en vivo en algún teatro, yo pagaría por ir con mis hijos a verte.
Muchas gracias por el like y el corazón. Did you understand why I wrote?
The universe is dumb. It expands even though it's infinitely huge 😂
Yeah, and it looks stupid too...
Actually Universe is brilliant by it's simplicity and complexity at the same time, when you understand the answer to everything you can finally see that.
@@SoulWhite we don't know it's infinite though and it probably isnt
@@jaydienparks5658 Depends what you mean by infinite I guess, but it definitely is without a doubt. there is nothing else but the universe for us to observe and the universe has no edge. That is infinity in my definition ∞. This world is very young, so obviously you can't find the answer yet in the mainstream media. But it is out there. The universal theory is easy, trust me
@@SoulWhite it may be finite but with no edge most likely how would an infinite universe even form also an infinite universe has a lot of parodoxes we have never seen an infinity in reality
This video helped me understand the huge contradictions with finite and infinity universe concepts. I cant stop watching lol.
Could it be that the big bang was just an immensely, unimaginably large explosion in the infinite space instead of the entire universe being compressed ?
Etaash Katiyar My thoughts exactly. If it's only our observable universe which we can determine to originate from a singular point, then could it be that there were/are multiple points like that within the same infinite spacetime? That all these point are so far away as to not be observable from anyone residing within anothers expansion parameter? Could the points then be thought as the center of some super black holes that met some critical point in this infinite spacetime leading to their eruptions? Would these different regions in the same infinite spacetime have their own pseudospacetime in much the same way we have time zones? Am I thinking, or do I just think I'm thinking?
exactly, and in an infinite universe, one is bound to one across a black hole/ explosion of arbitrary sizes which might very well be larger than the size of our observable universe
Indeed
1) The big bang wasn't really an explosion. It was just a moment where the universe went from "not expanding" to "expanding everywhere."
2) It also isn't like an explosion that gave matter the momentum to move apart. Based on what we can see, it MUST be the space itself that expands rather than the matter.
So I'm not thinking? :(
Thanks for this well explained video.
I always thought about that, if our universe is infinite, there could be "Big Bangs" occurring in corners of our universe at the same time other corners of our universe are already either having the "Big Freeze" or the "Big Rip" but it's *so* huge we'll never see them.
I love this video 😁
I remembered an article or a video that "space" itself is not really empty. Just like the balloon showed in this video, it has space but not really empty because of the air inside. So the question is, what if the entire universe is expanding not because of the big bang theory or an impact somewhere but because of the "space molecules" that is actually expanding.
Maybe a blackhole is also responsible for the expansion since theoretically it gives off energy somewhere in the space.
Or probably, the observable universe we know is only a part of the periphery of the entire universe. So there still must be a center of the universe that creates galaxies or space that we still do not know. That is why the universe is still keep on expanding.
0:12. The universe is expanding into yo mama.
Thanks man for giving my Que's Solution by this vid
You hit me with the reverse click bait lmao
Once you started doing the balloon demo I clicked off only to come back later and realize you roasted it with the best explanation I found haha
You've got to start at people's expectations before you can debunk them 🤷♂️
I think “The expanding raisinbread” model is much better than the “Balloon” model. It also explains why galaxies far away moves faster away from is than those closer to us.
You should do a "best of..." Compilation video showcasing the wide variety of scientific topics that are covered by your channel. I'd love to have a broad spectrum video to share in social media in order to introduce Science Asylum to my friends and family. I could always just pick a couple of my favorites to share, but that would be like trying to draw objective conclusions from a small sample size...
A compilation video, however, would show those connected to my social media the variety of topics as well as showcasing how you've grown as a host AND how your productions have matured... Though I use that term loosely lol
Thanks for all the fun videos!
I've been considering making a playlist of my favorite videos.
Infinite, and nothing this are very mind-warping to try to understand. Some people act like it's easy to understand, but I don't think it is. We really don't know what is out there there could be multi universes, multi-dimensions, simulations, we have no clue.
That Thumbnail.....You were dead right. The Star of Chaos! The univserse is of course expanding into the Immaterium! Beware the Ruinous Powers that resider within!
Blasphemy aside, though: great video, as always! ;-)
good honest opinion
Nick. Just fantastic
Thank you very much.
So this clearly shows that the universe is expanding, not the space.
Because if the space is a dimension, and if it was expanding along with the universe, we couldn't see the it, becouse our rulles of measure would also expand.
Do you agree with this? Please comment.
Please see my most recent video: th-cam.com/video/t0nGy2rsXYY/w-d-xo.html
Awesome video👌👌
I love your channel...
You crack me up. Most fun physics ever
So many people make me LOL! Thanks for being one of them.
And thank-you for explaining the infinite vs. observable universe at the big bang @2:18 (ish) - I hate explanations that gloss over this.
Yes, the expanding balloon might have its limitations as a visual aid but even so your video clip say at 0:41 illustrates what seems to be an issue in that as the surface of the balloon expands so do the grid lines (if you had drawn them on the balloon) but that nice grid pattern in on the blue background does not expand and it is that which shows the balloon is indeed expanding. For there seem to be two rulers, the intrinsic one on the balloon surface that expands with the balloon (and hence one can't use that to measure the expansion of the balloon since it too is expanding) vs the extrinsic coordinate system as depicted by that blue background with the white grid lines that does show the balloon is expanding as the balloon fills more of that.
So whether there is any grid outside the balloon there does seem to at least be two rulers here, and intrinsic one that expands with the balloon and an extrinsic ones that rather than stretches expands by adding new grid lines vs stretching the exiting ones. For if everything scales there is no way to know that the balloon is any larger given there is no fixed ruler to measure that expansion.
Thus it seems the intrinsic ruler stretches but has the same number of ticks on it (albeit the distance between the tics increases) while the distance between the tics on the extrinsic ruler remains fixed but the ruler grows in size with that expansion (if not as your blue background is already hat large) by adding new tics as the balloon expands.
So there seems to be three rulers here, the sensed distances ala relativity based on the observers point of view, the grid on the balloon that is stretched as the balloon expands,, and the fixed grid that shows that the balloon indeed is getting larger.
Or is there some other way the balloon would know that it is getting larger without that third, fixed ruler in which to measure that expansion?
And BTW, I think I might have asked this same question on a comment or two on some of your other videos, so I don't mean to keep repeating the same question but that visual at 0:41 illustrates this question quite well so maybe this question is thus worth repeating again here in that this video raises that question and at the same time shows that fixed grid a well that helps illustrate the issue. For I am not seeing how this all works without having some sort of fixed ruler whose ticks do not move. So am I missing something?
The grid might stretch, but the rulers we use to measure that grid do not: th-cam.com/video/t0nGy2rsXYY/w-d-xo.html
I always imagine expansion of universe as if it is an infinite chessboard and for every "step" of expansion, we divide every single square into 4 smaller ones. If we assume, that every square on any step has equal size inside this chessboard, than we get universe, which expand into itself.
Yes, except time changes the size of some squares in the presence of mass thereby creating a curvature. Also, squares have an orientation at their vertices whereas the universe is isotropic and therefore it is really circles (spheres in 3D) not squares. But, when you subdivide a circle you find that the sides do not touch at every point (unlike a square); they only intersect at 4 points (actually 6 points for sphere). This is probably where the additional dimensions are required ... to "connect" the quantum spheres of space at all surface points beyond the 6 discrete contact points in the 3 macrospatial dimensions. My guess is that all the "weirdness" of quantum mechanics and even gravity are related to these higher dimensional connecting structures, and that they are in fact based in a mathematics that string theory has merely tickled not solved.
1:25 just use three rubber sheets perpendicular to each other rubber sheet instead of a balloon , then join a number near point objects each using 3 strings each perpendicular to the sheet it touches from all frames of references . now expand each rubber sheet and it represents expansion of 3d space .
One thing you said feels to me like a statement for a finite universe. The Big Bang 'was the universe', and its occurence started expansion. "The Big Bang happened everywhere." I took that to mean 'space' as we know it was very small, and the Big Bang occured in the Universe, instead of the Big Bang happening in what was already a vast space.
What about Michico Kaku's bubble of universe and the multiverse theory? Try explaining that!
It's not that's there's "nothing, not even empty space" outside the universe, it's that there's no "outside the universe" for anything to exist in. Kind of like there's no region farther north than the north pole.
If the universe is infinite, then yes, there are infinite copies of all of us somewhere out there, and every possible variation thereof. Crazy to think about.
Nice video. Is inflation quantised or continuous?
I realize I'm years late to this but since I was a teenager my rationale has always been that the universe is finite, because if it was infinite then that means that everything possible is always happening somewhere, which means that somebody (or something) has destroyed the universe. Since I exist, the universe has to be finite. I realize this is a philosophical argument and not a scientific one, but there you go.
No. If something destroys the universe, then you will remain unaffected due to the speed of causality.
It is refreshing to finally find someone with some credibility to talk about an infinite universe! I would like to point out that even though the universe might be infinite, it doesn't necessarily need to have an infinite amount of matter, hence it is possible to have an infinite universe without a bunch of clones floating around in it. It could be possible, although unlikely, that our observable universe contains the only collection of matter in an infinite space.
Correct. Finite matter in an infinite universe is possible, but highly unlikely.
Nick, what do you think about the possibility of multiverses? When I watched "Particle Fever", the result for the Higgs boson mass indicated a sort of halfway between SUSY (Supersymmetry) and Multiverse. I am not a theoretical physicist nor have any other kind of background to be able to understand such subjects, but I really like to learn this stuff.
The best analogy I heard (or the one that works best for me) reduces the universe to 1 dimension, but otherwise makes it easily visible. Imagine an infinitely long string of white marbles. That’s the universe at the moment of the Big Bang. Now, insert a back marble between every white marble. Do this all along the infinitely long chain at once. Those black marbles represent empty space. Now double the number of black marvels. Now triple them. The line is still infinitely long, but the white marbles are getting farther and further apart from one another. Furthermore, from each white marvels point of view, it is standing still and all the white marbles are getting further and further away from it. With the further ones moving faster and faster as they go.
you read my mind ! unbelievable I'm just gonna watch all your videos and like all of them ! Awesome and Crazy just like me :P
to me, infinity seems like a natural concept while nothingness seems weird, but both require assumptions about the unknowable. despite seeming like two opposite theories, they probably describe the same situation and it's an illusion of choice.
Dude i am german and i Love science, i Love sience asylum too.... so lucid you are a freak like me.. i found your channel and you got me:)
That's why I always distinguished between the cosmological universe and the whole being, in the sense of the summary of everything. This universe we're part of, doesn't necessarily has to be this infinite whole being. This cosmological universe rather has the size of a speck of dust, compared to the infinity of everything. No matter if its diameter would be 90bn, 900bn or 900 trillion light years.
Something I've thought about is the possibility of the 3D universe being the surface of a hypersphere, while the universe as a whole being a 4D ball. In this model, the Big Bang does have a definitely location and the center does exist, and they're the same point. This model is taking the balloon analogy pretty literally, but there could be merit if instead of a spherical surface, it could be something like a hyperbolic surface.
The basic gist is that spatial coordinates and angular dimensions and time is the radius. The light cone wouldn't really be a cone and would be more of a curved path tangent to the surface at your current position and passing through the origin (center/beginning of the universe), so it would basically be like an ellipse or something. The future side would probably be more like a parabola or hyperbola.
Of course this theory depends on the universe having curvature, and with the accelerating expansion of the universe: negative curvature specifically.
It makes sense that the universe is not expanding into something like void. That is because outside space it can't be some other kind of space like the euclidean void space surrounding the real space. The space itself is not euclidean, it is different. An euclidean void space where you can place things is a product of our imagination, but there seem to be no such a thing.
The expanding space I suppose can be thought like scaling a mass. Mass doesn't expand into something.
The odd thing is at the moment of the BigBang the universe could have also been infinite.
Well said.
You're one crazy genius
"If it is infinite, then why does it all look the same?" Really good point! But I think you also answered your own question in the video. Infinity is unimaginably "big" and weird. Perhaps even seeing at the scale of superclusters its still not enough to see the true gradient of infinite possibilities the universe holds. And yes of course theyre would be an infinite number of you. But they might also each be infinitely far away! 😆
Great topic..it kind of blasts the big bang theory.
I think that the universe is expanding into itself it exists as a singularity inside itself at its Center as it expands it makes that singularity more dense until the mass at the center of the singularity is so great and the lack of space so weak it pops like a balloon in a vacuum allowing all of that space to expand back into itself as another big bang
Hey Nick. How do electrons emit photons when they jump up a level ? And why ?
One science asylum is enough for an entire infinitely expanding universe. We can't afford to have crazies wandering by themselves, do we?
have you considered doing a video on E8? It's pretty fascinating even if it may have no real bearance on physics.
Well, if the universe is infinite... then there MUST be another version of ourselves. And there MUST even be an infinite amount of versions of ourselves. But it does not matter since they would be so far away. That's exactly how I see the Fermi paradox. If the universe is infinite, then there is no other choice : life and alien civilizations MUST exist somewhere else. It's just so far away that we will most likely never find or interact with it.
You're not alone in that point of view. I'm just a little more optimistic.
Nice Explanation/Animation of the Observable Universe + Expanding SpaceTime!
The fact that the *Universe has always been Infinite* + the *BigBang happened Everywhere* (no Center of the Universe) is really counter-intuitive, but makes sense when you think about it!
Would a SpaceTime embedded in the Singularity of a BlackHole have the same properties?
well, I think the universe is finite. and it began somewhere.
but...
where did it begin? where did the big bang occurs? where is the center of the universe? is the rate of expansion the same everywhere? is that uniform rate of expansion even possible? is there any effect of such expansion on our daily life?
The idea that the universe is expanding into "nothing", not even empty space, is driving me crazy.
It's not expanding into nothing. It's expanding into itself. There is no nothing in science.
Empty space is nothing. People say not but why not? Empty space is said to be something as it contains matter / energy and thus dimensions but without matter / energy empty space is..... nothing!!! Perhaps this is just another conceptualisation issue.... This then leads to the question that if empty space is infinite does vacuum energy exist infinitely?
Amazing channel by the way. Just found it and I'm totally hooked. Thanks for all the great info.
4 minutes. Make longer videos pleeease, they are so great!
I love to make longer videos, so I do it whenever I can. I can't every time though. You got spoiled with one in late December and then another in early March. I will make more. Promise.
I watched so many videos/tv shows on this topic but nobody explained the things the dude here explained. Why???
Awesome video btw
What if it's the gravity shrinking the galaxies and stuff idk but it would look the same as zooming out at the same speed to the expansion. I guess the redshift and everything wouldn't make sense but what if that's just like how bass is carried further at a concert than high notes?