Honestly, if they showed these videos in public education more often, we'd be seeing so many more people going into science related courses. Phil's enthusiasm is very inspiring, and it'd be great to have that rub off on the next generation of potential scientists. Sometimes it only takes one small push to make giant leaps
+David Yee I dunno, there's a lot of pushback out there. Admitting you suck at math is almost a plus, physics is weird, scientists are old white men with weird hair. Our society puts a lot of blocks up.
+Gareth Dean Yeah, if people only stopped criticizing others for being interested or passionate about things. Being passionate about anything is, and should be universally recognized as, awesome!
David Yee We as a species have made incredible progress, faster and faster. And one of the big reasons for that acceleration is that we've knocked down the arbitrary barriers that kept passionate people out. A century ago if you were a genius and a woman, well enjoy the home life. Black, poor, of a different religion? No luck for you. Things aren't exactly perfect now but we're getting better at spotting and using our greatest resource, human ingenuity. If we can keep that up, what can limit us?
I have bad adhd, and i was able to watch the whole video through without getting distracted. It really kept me captivated. had to share because it's an awesome experience that rarely happens
I hated math and astronomy but now after watching these videos I really appreciate it and the awesomeness of the universe and where we come from. I wish I did not quit school so that I could have gone on and study astronomy.
+Broodrooster24 at the end of the episode it says the name of the next episode coming up; it isn't ending yet and the next episode is on "deep time" :D
+Epicman629 You are right there are still many question to be anwered. But there are no answers and this is an educational channel. It should answer questions instead of just asking it. Actually in my view there are not any objects and subjects which are scientically understanded that has not been a part of an episode. But at least we still got SciShow Space, the other educational channels on youtube and NASA's channel on TH-cam
If I haven't been digging astronomy already, you Phil would be that one person who would manage to get me into it. This is a wonderful show. Thank you.
You're awesome, Phil! I appreciate your enthusiasm for this and for explaining it so well, but in a common-sense method. I feel like you're making it relatable without dumbing it down too much.
this is one of the best videos i've ever seen on youtube. I'm a high school student and has only been grasping the general concepts of astronomy, but it fascinates me a lot. I'm currently reading a copy of Sun, Earth and Sky by Kenneth R. Lang that I found in my school library and it's truly mindblowing. I had my doubts, but after watching this video and tons of other astronomy-related videos, and also reading three chapters of the book, I've decided that this is what I want to be studying and doing for the rest of my life. I will definitely major in Astronomy. I have seemingly endless questions about this topic and can't picture myself being bored or tired of trying to answer them.
I AM SO DISGUSTED. I am a 16 yo teen, and just graduated high school. Got my baccalaureate with a score of 16/20 and skipped classed because I already knew how to read and count. I absolutely hated science, I hated it more than anything. Nothing interested me. We of course briefly went over planets in elementary school. But then I never heard of it in class. And now I'm here, Economic ans Social baccalaureate in my pocket, admitted in a STB in international trade with an European referential (3 years of studies), just finishing this series, with a huge urge and desire to study astronomy. I feel it in my bones, it's the birth of a passion. I am absolutely mindblown and I want to learn even more. I want to be part of this, part of the exploration. I want to understand before leaving. I want more. But I am disgusted. Because I stumbled across these videos. Not a single one of the teachers I had before I stopped studying sciences showed anything similar to this. Not a single one. If they had, I would have changed paths when I had the choice. This is why there are so little teenagers that choose to study astronomy and physics, because they're not interested. Teachers don't make them interested. I always believed in my potential, and I feel like it's wasted because I could have done something worthy. Something that will actually bring us something.
I realize this is a year ago, but in case you see it, I wanted to offer a bit of advice. If you still feel this way, then continuing along your current path because you feel you no longer have the choice would be falling prey to normal but harmful human psychology -- look up both "escalation of commitment" and "sunk cost fallacy" on wikipedia if you're not familiar with them. An entire life/career that's not as happy is a terrible price to pay to avoid the one-time hassle of starting over. It's also true that at your age, there's still a good chance you'll discover a deeper passion yet, and if that happens, you might want to be open to pursuing it as well.
9:40 -ish it says share your favorite space puns. Well, "How many astronomers does it take to change a lightbulb? None, astronomers aren't scared of the dark."
These videos have removed a lot of the difficulty trying to learn bout something that interests me so much. Thanks a lot for keeping the details in ppl tend to brush over, like how the information was found, just makes it easier to keep learning about it all. Bravo.
Had I encountered such an enthusiastic teacher as Phil Plait way back, I would've gone and studied one of the fields in hard science even though I'm not such a smart guy. My curiosity grows more as I'm learning something new.
The "big bang's" theory is so loosely formulated, that it contradicts actual science. You really have to be stupid to believe that the entire universe banged from a spec.
What I find incredible about the inflation theory - is that space-time expanded faster than the speed of light for however long it was (fractions of a second really). And this isn't in violation of anything physics wise because space-time itself was the thing expanding. So awesome.
It sucks so much that I work in a place where talking about this stuff will make you seem not normal. All my colleagues are interested is football, what they had for breakfast and what they got for Christmas....sigh....
I enjoy this and football, they aren't mutually exclusive,.maybe its you who needs to find some enjoyment in sports as much as your coworkers in science.
Aaaahhh, I'm late for work, but can't tear myself away from this, it's so interesting! Never seen the early universe compressed into such a well explained short video! Epic work!
'is asking what became before the universe is the the same as asking what's north of the north pole?' I love that way of thinking about the universe and time! In away it explains so much we humans are so easy to define things, when there's allways something to go against it
Hi Phil and company. I got a question that maybe can be answered here. This model of the Big Bang, is it assuming that dark energy is a constant, right? Because if it is, say, a vector, the model would have to be tweaked, right? So here are my two questions: 1) Does this model *requires* that the cosmological constant to be a constant or does it account for it to be a variable (like a tensor)? Would it have to be tweaked if dark energy wasn't constant? 2) Why didn't gravity take over at the Big Bang? I forgot it when I took an online course about it. I love this channel and thank anyone in advance for helping me with these answers.
4:20 The quote Phil stated used to be found on older maps of the world, prior to our discovering of Antarctica and realizing a boat did not simply float away into nothingness. Cartographers (map makers) would often place this Latin quote in the far off corners of the then unknown world. Many believed and misquoted it as _Here be dragons_ when it actually read _Here be lions_ instead. The idea being, unknown creatures of oddity were located in these areas because in reality, they had absolutely zero idea of what truly was found there.
You covered so much in one episode! It gets harder -- I would say impossible -- to answer, or even to ask, questions about the origin of the Big Bang. You can't really even think about BEFORE space and time.
+Gareth Dean No, we don't. Notice Phil said "as far as we know." That';s how the educated talk about physics (and science) now--this is what we know now based on the data that's been collected so far, it may change in the future based on data we don't yet have.
+CrashCourse physics would really be a great starting point for those interested in independent study in the field. When one searches through most other sources for dabbling in physics, roadblocks are encountered. For example, PBS's Space Time (a great channel in its own right) often overlooks some fundamental details that are assumed to be understood. But for those of us with little to no formal education in physics, we need a more linear approach; starting with the basics and then building upon them, just like Crash Course does.Thanks for the great content, and keep up the good work! Yours Sincerely, A Fellow Person of Science
OK, question: Are you ignoring quantum mechanics in your history of the universe? I'm referring to notion that the universe started out as pure energy which was then somehow converted into matter by a Higgs Field? I ask that I watched a documentary on the subject on Discovery Science the other day that you yourself were in. Strip the Cosmos, was it? Or do I have my documentaries mixed up?
+Malidictus Actually QM is the reason for those variations blown up by inflation. This is a very general video and skips over a LOT of what we think happened. (Matter vs antimatter anyone?)
+Ganaram Inukshuk The finance sector creates vast amounts of cash out of nothing but pure hot air. There tends to be rapid expansion followed by sudden collapse.
+Gareth Dean So we'd really need more of a big bounce model. Except, in the new universe, only some of the particles get to have all the hot dense energy. Most of the particles just sit outside the universe, watching it bounce.
Thank you for making this video, and I have some questions. 1) What created the space that the big bang was able to explode into? 2) You said that everything started as a big bang, does anyone know if all the mass that was produced by this went out in space in equal dimensions? Such as when you drop a stone into a pool of water. 3) Does anyone have any idea what area of the universe this so called big bang started? 4) Why doesn't our moon look like earth? It is basically the same distance from the sun that we are.
+From Hyrule In general the Big Bang is the go-to, nothing else comes close to explaining things. The question is the details. The BB could have happened in an existing universe or from ;nothing' The universe might be cyclical or undergo 'eternal inflation' . There are a lot of BB varieties.
But the Big Bang Theory is creationist, which is why most atheistic scientist resisted it for so long. The opposite of creationism is eternalism, not inanimate creationism. Only if the Universe has existed forever and will exist forever could you escape some form of creationism. I'm sorry you had to find this out in a TH-cam comment, but you're a creationist. Phil is a creationist as well. Everything was created in some mystical magical genesis event. Whether you call the thing that made it God or Big Bang makes no difference at all.
Before the Universe started all those years ago, what created the space for it to be in ? If you understand what I mean. The Universe is just the contents of space, what created the actual _space_ ?
Ethan Boyd If the universe is the receptacle, the container for space, then outside the universe may be another object. I think you need 2 objects in existence to have space because then the distance can theoretically be measured between them. If there's no object no space, idk though.
Since the universe is space and time, then there was no “before” the universe, because there is no time for there to be a before. So technically, you could say that the universe was always there.
How incredibly amazing is it that we can determine with some amount of certainty what happened in the first few hours of the universe at specific times
But bananas are perfectly designed to go in the mouth, perfectly curved so it reaches down the back of the throat, nice and smooth, how can you explain that? 😂
Evolution, only the ones that were better suited to be eaten got spread across longer distances, dropped, eaten, shat. Don't forget real bananas have seeds.
+Macconator2010 The thing I always love about that argument is that wild bananas have gigantic inedible seeds as hard as a rock and can range in flavor from dry, mealy, tasteless and starchy, to sickening, rotten, sweetness. We bred them to be convenient and tasty.
Are there any theories regarding how long the first few seconds of the universe actually took to pass. It seems to me that if all of spacetime was coming into existance and the laws of physics didn't exist as we understand them... then what was happening at the moment that time was coming into existance, and if time didn't fully exist then how long did it take. Did time expand to fill the new universe and if so, how, and what was it expanding into. Or was time created before space and if-so, what was it created from? If both space and time were created together then was prototime as unimaginable as the first gazallionth of a second of space, and if it is so unimaginable, then surely it could have lasted indefinantly, or not at all. There seems to be a lot of information regarding the creation of space & matter but nothing regarding the creation of time which seems to be intimatly related to the former. Is this because we cannot see time in the same way that we can see space?
+Graham Bell It's because we have no inertial point of reference when it comes to time. We have no way of knowing whether the "frame rate" (frames being the time equivalent of atoms, the distance in time between frames being the smallest possible subdivsion of time in which the fastest possible object can only move the absolute minimum distance) was faster or slower or even have anything to compare it to. For this reason, 90% percent of age estimates are likely inaccurate due to the fact that it has been proven that time- as far as humans can perceive it- is, in fact, distorted by objects occupying space, and that the rate of time is at least partially dependent on the amount of matter in the general area
+NotAGoodUsername360 thanks for that, I had a feeling that time would be the clockwork-elephant-in-the-room when it comes to the origins of the universe. Possibly once we have an understanding of how time is constructed then our understanding of the universe will undergo an inflation of its own.
Graham Bell The question is really a matter of perception- is what we perceive as "time" really referring to speed at which atoms are capable of moving, and if that rate is slowed universally, does "time" slow down, or is that merely a matter of functionality? We measure time based on the Earth's rotation and orbit, but outside of any system of bodies, how exactly would one measure "time"?
Graham Bell It also causes problems with relativity... nothing can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum, but speed is measured in meters per _second_... well, what exactly IS a second from an absolute inertial viewpoint? The period of time it takes a certain amount to traverse a certain distance? In that case, if all matter moved at a different rate when the universe was in an extreme rate, a second could be significantly longer or shorter than it is now, allowing for undefined speeds. Yet at the same time the very term m/s stresses the absolute necessity for time to have a set value... if the value of a second is 0, you get a divide by zero error and all speeds become conceivable. In other words, you can't simply dismiss the existence of time in relation to movement. Thus actually meaning that massive distances between stars might actually not have taken nearly as long as current models estimate. While perhaps it may be true that it'd take light from other stars billions of years to reach us, that may not have been the case in a high-energy universe. What we currently perceive as a century may have been a nanosecond in such a condensed environment where matter could not possibly form
I enjoyed this episode very very much. You've explained in such a professional manner things that I knew them before but the recapitulation is always important.
+Vito Corleone the question is hard to answer, but it is assumed that there was no before since time itself was created as well as space itself during the big bang so about your question. . . there was neither a "there" nor a "before", at least that's what the evidence and observations show.. Hard concept to grasp
Behemothokun Ya I know, but I was saying that in the context of religious apologetics that put God as the answer to "something from nothing" in a short and sweet way. Here's my true opinion on the subject, it ain't that long if ya wanna read it but its based on a decent amount of research I did: here are three reasons why the answer “idk” doesn’t matter when asked about something from nothing (for more concise and orderly future reference): 1. To take the lack of an answer as an argument that it’s impossible without a god is an argument from ignorance; just because the explanation is not known does not mean there is no possible explanation. This particular fallacy has been coming up a LOT. 2. We don’t know that we did start with nothing, either in the way Laurence Krauss means in his book “A Universe From Nothing” or in the way apologetics mean. Even if it’s completely impossible for something to come from nothing, this doesn’t necessitate an extra entity like a god until we establish that there ever was actually nothing. The simpler explanation, working solely from the ordinary law of conservation of matter and energy, is that there was always something. 3. God isn’t nothing. To posit that God started the universe and then immediately say God didn’t have to come from anywhere or anything is to make two assertions where one will do: that the universe didn’t have to either. Divine creation is not a simpler explanation, it’s just the one that meets the religious criterion that a god be necessary to the process at some point. I often say that any restriction you place on the universe to necessitate a god must immediately be broken to allow for a god.
Vito Corleone in short, I agree with all your points. About the god argument, in my view is a bit of a lazy cop out to fit the science (which is unrelated to belief in general) with one's personal belief. The god of the gaps, if you will. The problem with that kind of thinking is, that the realm where this god (under whichever name/religion) resides gets smaller with every piece of new evidence is found, to explain part of the universe. Someone of belief, that uses this kind of explaination also renders the scripture of their religion as wrong anyway, and all that remains is a god that doesn't fit in any shape or form in any religion besides being the "thing" that started the universe but at the same time, doesn't influences it in any way beyond this point, which renders the worshipping of said god useless, since it makes no difference. This is basically a paradox. I'm not affected, since I don't believe in the existence of all things "super natural"; meaning things that can break the laws of physics, unrelated to if we actually know the extend of physics in this universe.
Behemothokun Very well put. you seem like a smart guy, have you ever read anything by Krauss or Dawkins? If not I'm sure you would enjoy them, krauss for a more scientific view and dawkins for a more historical/biological view on the concept of religion
Behemothokun The universe was created out of nothing either by god or an explosion. In the early stages of the universe nothing made sense, reality was warped and forces didn't exist. "In the first 3 minutes of the universe..." "in the first 17 minutes of the universe..." Similar to, on the 7th day.
hyperbolic fuckboi the problem with the god theory is, that it is a bit of a cop out and it's called the "god of the gaps". If we apply the logic that everything we can't explain yet, was therefore the doing of god, just puts god in an ever receding realm. Which means. . . what role has this god then anyway, if it just becomes a filler for the lack of knowledge. Either god started the universe but doesn't affect it any further, because of what we know, doesn't allow any manipulation outside of physics; or god itself, the concept or the one out of scripture doesn't exist. . . or said god has no influence at all on anything that goes on since the inception of time. Let's go back to the point of god being the thing that kickstarted the "big bang", what happens when the source of it is found? where does that put god? For the time being I think it's the safest to just let the one's that want to believe in a god, believe; but at the same time, leave this believe out of the process of science. Science is neither against nor in favour of a god, it's in the end a procedure and a set of rules on how to observe evidence and based on said observation, predict and test hypothesis.
Behemothokun Cool story bro, i am not religious.. Science is not intrinsically against anything but current scientific theory conflicts with creationism, so it is against it. Anyways it was just funny how similar to the two theories of creation are.
i love watching these videos........they are packed with information....phil helped me a lot with biology at the time of my exams....thanks a lot!!!!!! P.S :- DON'T STOP MAKING THESE VIDEOS PLEASE...
It always boggles my mind why people would be religious when mathematics and the scientific method is clearly the superior devices for finding factual quantifiable knowledge. That being said someone is bound to answer with "An comforting explanation for life and death". I cannot conceive how some people can find emotional self deception to be comforting if they know and understand an emotional appeal explanation is likely not a good measure of finding real factual truth.
+Jackboy019 I'm of the opinion that God started the Big Bang, and that the Six Days of Creation were Six Billion Years (roughly the age of our solar system) so it all works out.
+Dan Menard except 1. you haven't provided evidence you just asserted it 2. nothing is "6 billion years" it's actually about 13. and 3. it doesn't say that you're just making shit up
+Jackboy019 Because being human is being unscientific. Justice, truth, love, these things do not exist. We made them up. WE are made up. There is no atom of consciousness, no soul particle. Even the most scientific need some way of speaking about these concepts and dealing with them. We are not a logical species, not by far.
+Jackboy019 I am a creationist but however that doesn't mean I don't think science is real. I love science and I study it as well. However, mathematics and physics can only explain so much. There's no true way to determine how the earth, sun, stars and other planets were formed. Also most people don't "choose" to be religious. We live this way because of our experiences that are beyond any form of explanation or any relativity to science.
+tmason995 hmm, that's one way to see it... but nah, it's hard to grasp, but there was a point zero with nothing before it. There is literally no need for anything to be prior to that time zero when the Big Bang happened...
tmason995 Ehhm, nope. Okay, this one is strange, try to hear me out. I assume you've watched the video, well alright, we run the clock backwards to that fraction of a second where our math and laws of physics collapse. What we have is a point of almost infinite density. I hope we can agree on that. Why do our maths + laws collapse? Well, gravity and time are bound together as Einstein's theorie on relativity concludes. If we have something moving at the speed of light, for expample you in an imaginary space ship, you don't perseve time as continuing. As you get infinitly small to that speed, your time flows infinitly slow... yea hard stuff. Back to density: take a black hole. beyond it's event horizon even light can't escape. in a way the gravitational pull is stronger/ faster than the speed of light. Time stops advancing. Same thing with the infinitly dense new born universe... Time does not exist at point zero. There is no time for an action to cause this process. Next thing: in quantum physics particles are allowed to appear out of nowhere.and go back out of existance. In a similar way (and that's quite mind bending) the whole matter at time zero is allowed to, according to all laws of physics we know of today, pop into existence as it pleases, just being there without any cause. So... no there is no need for a creator. It's hard to accept, but in a way, it's really rational and logical. Little PS: this thought process wasn't done by me. It's more the work and idea of Stephen Hawking regarding his ideas if there's a god or not. Point is: there may be, but according to physics, there's no need for him to exist, and the whole model works perfectly fine without him.
Get your religious ideology out of science. Nah, just kidding. That is how people reacted to the big bang theory though just because it was proposed by a Catholic priest and accepted by the Catholic Church.
not really. they actually rejected much of science like evolution and the earth not being the center of the universe. religions are nothing but cultural and restricted by psychology. reality Is not
+Mario Pendic um that is pathetically incorrect if you're implying Catholics reject evolution and earth not being the center of the universe. Do some research on the topic and you'll be surprised by how accepting the Catholic Church is of science, and for good reason too.
Quorstra Qq actually many catholics DONT accept it and the church is still not accepting of evolution officially and the big bang. Claiming "god did it" and " Adam and even were there" is not accepting science. refusing to accept facts for thousands of years and even torturing those who opposed them( Galileo) is not accepting and nor is finally accepting these facts thousands of years later only due to secular influence and fear of being irrelevant in any way demonstrates they have some great care for science. You don't get to claim absurd ideas and claim to accept science when everyone around you has no choice only for a PR image. So don't be a fucking idiot. And this doesn't even touch on ethical problems. So spare me the regressive bullshit. they are an organization with a dogma and popularity to uphold no matter what. not a scientific organization and nor are they any representative of Christianity as a whole as there are thousands of denominations and catholics who don't agree which is why so many don't accept evolution and big bang cosmology etc. And even if they do they don't accept it for any good reason rather make excuses.
+Mario Pendic Evolution has been accepted into official Catholic dogma. Do your research kid. Also, the big bang theory was accepted by Catholics BEFORE everyone else. It was originally viewed as a religious theory. Georges Lemaitre had a doctorate in mathematics and studied astronomy at Harvard and MIT. He also happened to be a Catholic priest. It was because of this and the fact that the big bang happened to coincide well with creationism that people viewed it as a crazy religious theory. Even Einstein was dismissive of his views stating, "Your calculations are correct, but your physical insight is abominable." books.google.com/books?id=e_DXqvK6SVUC&pg=PA39&dq=&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
+The Creeper They support theistic evolution. Meaning they think god causes evolution rather than nature. Oh, and they also think the human soul is somehow special. It's even more insidious. No matter what science discovers, lazy religion can co-opt it.
this inspire me to live longer so i can hopefully know the truth of the universe before i die. Hopefully we are making good progress this following century!!
Is the universe infinite? If so, what does density mean? Does this definition assume a geometry of the universe? I loved this series! Massive thanks to everyone involved!
+James Craver It is infinite on earth. The most intelligent creatures that we know of, Us, can't contemplate how vastly big and dawning with shimmers of awe, we can't even imagine, even though we know so many things, many things for animals, can't, and won't, help at all to understand it. So simply put, Yes! the universe is infinite.
I like the "north pole" analogy because its the perfect example of why we need to keep looking. If your talking about the magnetic north pole, then to find whats north of the north pole you have to start your study of magnetism and geology. If your talking about the axial north pole then you have to start your study of gravity and astrophysics. Either way, reaching the pole is just scratching the surface.
So what about a retrospective over the history of human space exploration? An episode dedicated to outlining the events in mankind's mission to explore outer space?
These are all great videos, as always. When it comes to inflationary cosmology it might help to clarify that the inflationary period (which is usually only bounded from below in terms of its duration) diluted any particle content that might have existed initially - so that at the end of inflation we have an essentially empty universe which is then filled once again with particles during reheating when inflation comes to an end.
Love this series. Watched some other CC but this one is the best. Thanks to CC for getting Phil Plait to do the presentations. I'll be sad to see it end, but OTOH, the astronomy portion of the course is very nearly being left behind as the last few episodes have trended toward a decidedly cosmological direction. Don't get me wrong, cosmology is a great field and it is related to astronomy but they are not the same. From reading the comments I know that there are two episodes remaining. After that who knows? Maybe it is time for some courses in other sciences. I've seen some good suggestions including cosmology, physics and meteorology...others could include math, chemistry, biology. More science courses please.
Honestly, if they showed these videos in public education more often, we'd be seeing so many more people going into science related courses. Phil's enthusiasm is very inspiring, and it'd be great to have that rub off on the next generation of potential scientists. Sometimes it only takes one small push to make giant leaps
+David Yee I dunno, there's a lot of pushback out there. Admitting you suck at math is almost a plus, physics is weird, scientists are old white men with weird hair. Our society puts a lot of blocks up.
+Gareth Dean Yeah, if people only stopped criticizing others for being interested or passionate about things. Being passionate about anything is, and should be universally recognized as, awesome!
David Yee
We as a species have made incredible progress, faster and faster. And one of the big reasons for that acceleration is that we've knocked down the arbitrary barriers that kept passionate people out. A century ago if you were a genius and a woman, well enjoy the home life. Black, poor, of a different religion? No luck for you. Things aren't exactly perfect now but we're getting better at spotting and using our greatest resource, human ingenuity. If we can keep that up, what can limit us?
+David Yee I've said it before and I'll say it again:
If I had a Phil Plait in my life when I was a teenager, my life would be completely different.
although If I could have 1 person teach me science, definitely XKCD
I have bad adhd, and i was able to watch the whole video through without getting distracted. It really kept me captivated. had to share because it's an awesome experience that rarely happens
I hated math and astronomy but now after watching these videos I really appreciate it and the awesomeness of the universe and where we come from.
I wish I did not quit school so that I could have gone on and study astronomy.
No no no, you are not ending this series you hear me?
I don't even think it's possible to end this series due to the amount of questions it has.
+Broodrooster24 at the end of the episode it says the name of the next episode coming up; it isn't ending yet and the next episode is on "deep time" :D
WAS JUST ABOUT TO COMMENT THIS! DONT THEY FUCKING DARE!!! This series is like meth and heroin combined, except my mind get even more blown.
+Broodrooster24 CC Astronomy the only reason I'm still subscribed to Crashcourse, sadly.
+Epicman629 You are right there are still many question to be anwered. But there are no answers and this is an educational channel. It should answer questions instead of just asking it.
Actually in my view there are not any objects and subjects which are scientically understanded that has not been a part of an episode.
But at least we still got SciShow Space, the other educational channels on youtube and NASA's channel on TH-cam
God this was possibly the most informative 12.5 minutes of my life
Anyone scared this series will end soon?
+Cryp Tic YEs:(
Sssshhhhhhhhhhh! Before he hears you!
Yes :(
no, you can go on for ever with astronomy
zjapp was that a pun
If I haven't been digging astronomy already, you Phil would be that one person who would manage to get me into it. This is a wonderful show. Thank you.
You're awesome, Phil! I appreciate your enthusiasm for this and for explaining it so well, but in a common-sense method. I feel like you're making it relatable without dumbing it down too much.
Again, in order to be a good teacher, one of the most important things to have is enthusiasm and belief in what you're teaching!
Please say that when this series is over that Phil will host another.
Thursdays are the best days because it means another Crash Course Astronomy video!
ikr :)
"There be dragons" ... I love that.
Phil, your enthusiasm is infectious!
"Without form, and void..." I can't help feeling that this describes the early universe perfectly.
This was one of the best episodes I've seen......
You guys did Phil dirty and don't show him anymore...... he's what made me start watching this channel.
Who's this one dislike? One person is just like "hey screw the history of the universe wah!"
There are more detailed videos out there... I kind of found this to be a let-down, myself.
+natnew32 yeah, this one was almost like... a crash course. No way!
+natnew32 Meh I think it's the same format they've been following for the past 43 episodes. Whatever to each their own.
+natnew32 u know that is was mentioned right at the start that this was a brief history...
Strike down the Dislikers!! Smite the unbelievers!!
this is one of the best videos i've ever seen on youtube.
I'm a high school student and has only been grasping the general concepts of astronomy, but it fascinates me a lot. I'm currently reading a copy of Sun, Earth and Sky by Kenneth R. Lang that I found in my school library and it's truly mindblowing. I had my doubts, but after watching this video and tons of other astronomy-related videos, and also reading three chapters of the book, I've decided that this is what I want to be studying and doing for the rest of my life.
I will definitely major in Astronomy. I have seemingly endless questions about this topic and can't picture myself being bored or tired of trying to answer them.
I AM SO DISGUSTED. I am a 16 yo teen, and just graduated high school. Got my baccalaureate with a score of 16/20 and skipped classed because I already knew how to read and count.
I absolutely hated science, I hated it more than anything. Nothing interested me. We of course briefly went over planets in elementary school. But then I never heard of it in class.
And now I'm here, Economic ans Social baccalaureate in my pocket, admitted in a STB in international trade with an European referential (3 years of studies), just finishing this series, with a huge urge and desire to study astronomy.
I feel it in my bones, it's the birth of a passion. I am absolutely mindblown and I want to learn even more. I want to be part of this, part of the exploration. I want to understand before leaving.
I want more.
But I am disgusted. Because I stumbled across these videos. Not a single one of the teachers I had before I stopped studying sciences showed anything similar to this. Not a single one. If they had, I would have changed paths when I had the choice.
This is why there are so little teenagers that choose to study astronomy and physics, because they're not interested. Teachers don't make them interested.
I always believed in my potential, and I feel like it's wasted because I could have done something worthy. Something that will actually bring us something.
graduated at 16? damn. you're like my sister.
I realize this is a year ago, but in case you see it, I wanted to offer a bit of advice. If you still feel this way, then continuing along your current path because you feel you no longer have the choice would be falling prey to normal but harmful human psychology -- look up both "escalation of commitment" and "sunk cost fallacy" on wikipedia if you're not familiar with them. An entire life/career that's not as happy is a terrible price to pay to avoid the one-time hassle of starting over. It's also true that at your age, there's still a good chance you'll discover a deeper passion yet, and if that happens, you might want to be open to pursuing it as well.
Saerayaa posting this guy to /r/iamverysmart look at him try to impress us
Thanks Phill. You taught me what dozens of pages in articles couldn't help me comprehend.
This is the way to teach 💓
9:40 -ish it says share your favorite space puns.
Well,
"How many astronomers does it take to change a lightbulb? None, astronomers aren't scared of the dark."
These videos have removed a lot of the difficulty trying to learn bout something that interests me so much. Thanks a lot for keeping the details in ppl tend to brush over, like how the information was found, just makes it easier to keep learning about it all. Bravo.
Me encantan estos videos, me gustaría que incluyeran subtítulos en Español.
Had I encountered such an enthusiastic teacher as Phil Plait way back, I would've gone and studied one of the fields in hard science even though I'm not such a smart guy. My curiosity grows more as I'm learning something new.
I wonder what inside your head. You are hella cool
+Zeal Ashtear I'm going to guess a brain.
+Jerryrig yea hahah he got a handsome brain
+Zeal Ashtear Search: Tree Mangosteen Fear Vs. Love
Wow. Just wow. This video should get academy award. And A nobel prize or smth. Crash course astronomy is the best.
NAAAAH, eet waus gawwd!
+Comrade Clarkson Religion is the opiate of the people Comrade.
Nice hypothesis, but we don't actually know.
The "big bang's" theory is so loosely formulated, that it contradicts actual science. You really have to be stupid to believe that the entire universe banged from a spec.
+Jafe you have to not understand it, or be stupid to not believe in the big Bang theory.
Gareth Dean Well said, my friend.
I'm studying astrophysics right now in university and I already know all this stuff but watching these videos still make me so happy! :)
"...or it's like asking what's north of the North Pole?"
I like that one :D
What I find incredible about the inflation theory - is that space-time expanded faster than the speed of light for however long it was (fractions of a second really). And this isn't in violation of anything physics wise because space-time itself was the thing expanding.
So awesome.
It sucks so much that I work in a place where talking about this stuff will make you seem not normal. All my colleagues are interested is football, what they had for breakfast and what they got for Christmas....sigh....
Oooooo what did she have for breakfast today?
R/iamverysmart
If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room.✌️
I enjoy this and football, they aren't mutually exclusive,.maybe its you who needs to find some enjoyment in sports as much as your coworkers in science.
Who cares about being normal
Aaaahhh, I'm late for work, but can't tear myself away from this, it's so interesting! Never seen the early universe compressed into such a well explained short video! Epic work!
is crash course ever gonna do a physics course?
yay
+Mihir P HYPPPEEEE!!!
+Mihir P HYPPPEEEE!!!
Finally! I wonder who will host it.
+Juan Aguilar Please 1000x more
This man is a great teacher because I remember and can understand what he's talking about. I love space.
I'm gonna cry when this ends
Hope not to be the only :((
'is asking what became before the universe is the the same as asking what's north of the north pole?'
I love that way of thinking about the universe and time! In away it explains so much
we humans are so easy to define things, when there's allways something to go against it
I love you phil! you teached me alot :)
Phil taught* me a lot as well.
*taught
Psychedelic Toaster
sorry im german x)
GreenShot That's fine. I'm just trying to educate, not insult.
+GreenShot Wie gehts!...and I'm out of German...
Phil, you are now up there will Bill, Neil and Carl in my book. Thank you for your awesome passion and inspirational attitude.
how's that for an ORIGIN story. beautiful
I'm so glad every time a new episode comes out I hit the thumbs up button before I even start the clip!
In the beginning there was nothing. Then, there was everything. The end. 😂
Hi Phil and company. I got a question that maybe can be answered here. This model of the Big Bang, is it assuming that dark energy is a constant, right? Because if it is, say, a vector, the model would have to be tweaked, right? So here are my two questions:
1) Does this model *requires* that the cosmological constant to be a constant or does it account for it to be a variable (like a tensor)? Would it have to be tweaked if dark energy wasn't constant?
2) Why didn't gravity take over at the Big Bang? I forgot it when I took an online course about it.
I love this channel and thank anyone in advance for helping me with these answers.
0:26 my refrigerator after my mom comes back from the grocery store
4:20 The quote Phil stated used to be found on older maps of the world, prior to our discovering of Antarctica and realizing a boat did not simply float away into nothingness. Cartographers (map makers) would often place this Latin quote in the far off corners of the then unknown world. Many believed and misquoted it as _Here be dragons_ when it actually read _Here be lions_ instead. The idea being, unknown creatures of oddity were located in these areas because in reality, they had absolutely zero idea of what truly was found there.
How do you tell a plumber from a scientist? Ask them to pronounce the word "unionized".
Nice
Nice
nice
nice
nice
"Science! Asking - and answering - the biggest questions of them all. I love this stuff".
Well said Phil. Science is freaking awesome !
Is time also expanding with space?
Spending time for weeks for these truly amazing videos, and now dreading the series almost come to an end...
at the start: "in the beginning, there was nothing... then there was everything." END OF VIDEO
You covered so much in one episode! It gets harder -- I would say impossible -- to answer, or even to ask, questions about the origin of the Big Bang. You can't really even think about BEFORE space and time.
+MakeMeThinkAgain Uness of course it happened in an existing spacetime. Then 'before' would be quite simple.
3:10 Yeah, they used to say that about atoms too. Look how that turned out.
+aperson22222 On the other hand before atoms they said stuff could always be cut up smaller and smaller, now we know otherwise, so you never know.
+Gareth Dean No, we don't. Notice Phil said "as far as we know." That';s how the educated talk about physics (and science) now--this is what we know now based on the data that's been collected so far, it may change in the future based on data we don't yet have.
Eristitia
Thanks for agreeing.
Of course you always get the 'skeptics' who use 'We don't *really* know' to dismiss anything they don't like.
i need more astronomy videos this year please don't stop making astronomy videos
Seeing the next episode 'Deep Time'.
ME: NO. THIS ISN'T THE END. NOOOOOOO!
+CrashCourse physics would really be a great starting point for those interested in independent study in the field. When one searches through most other sources for dabbling in physics, roadblocks are encountered. For example, PBS's Space Time (a great channel in its own right) often overlooks some fundamental details that are assumed to be understood. But for those of us with little to no formal education in physics, we need a more linear approach; starting with the basics and then building upon them, just like Crash Course does.Thanks for the great content, and keep up the good work!
Yours Sincerely, A Fellow Person of Science
OK, question: Are you ignoring quantum mechanics in your history of the universe? I'm referring to notion that the universe started out as pure energy which was then somehow converted into matter by a Higgs Field? I ask that I watched a documentary on the subject on Discovery Science the other day that you yourself were in. Strip the Cosmos, was it? Or do I have my documentaries mixed up?
It's astronomy
+Malidictus So Airman 3c Axel "The Unstoppable" Higgs helped create the universe? With science, of course.
+Malidictus Actually QM is the reason for those variations blown up by inflation. This is a very general video and skips over a LOT of what we think happened. (Matter vs antimatter anyone?)
Gareth Dean I was mostly confused since I could swear I've seen Phil talk about just that on Discovery Science, is all :)
Malidictus
I'd really like to see a hit-by-hit discussion of the BB and its possibilities sometime, there's a LOT to cover, at least half an hour.
I still can't get over the Bill, Bob, and Jeb figures on your desk.
I was thinking about relating economic inflation with cosmic inflation. I got nothing still.
+Ganaram Inukshuk The finance sector creates vast amounts of cash out of nothing but pure hot air. There tends to be rapid expansion followed by sudden collapse.
+Gareth Dean So we'd really need more of a big bounce model. Except, in the new universe, only some of the particles get to have all the hot dense energy. Most of the particles just sit outside the universe, watching it bounce.
Twas supposed to be a space pun, but I found that the Big Bang can be used a different way in Cards Against Humanity.
The Federal Reserve keeps pumping out dark energy, and we need to stop it before it makes a big rip in my wallet.
+Ganaram Inukshuk They already did in this episode...
Thank you for making this video, and I have some questions.
1) What created the space that the big bang was able to explode into?
2) You said that everything started as a big bang, does anyone know if all the mass that was produced by this went out in space in equal dimensions? Such as when you drop a stone into a pool of water.
3) Does anyone have any idea what area of the universe this so called big bang started?
4) Why doesn't our moon look like earth? It is basically the same distance from the sun that we are.
Before there was time, before there was anything, there was nothing. And before there was nothing, there were monsters. Here is your gold star...
This is such a brilliant series! I'll have to binge watch the whole thing once all the episodes have been completed.
Crash Course Geography or Geology?
Pace of most of Phil's episodes is very fast, but this one is pretty incomprehensible.
did anyone else notice he has a lego millennium falcon on his desk?
+deadparachuteman You can watch that very same Millennium Falcon being built here: th-cam.com/video/reuuOjX1hAI/w-d-xo.html
CrashCourse thanks?
+CrashCourse wow cool stuff
Y
Gimmicky
Huh
BBC
This is the future of learning. It’s fascinating how fast and efficient he is while he explains.
there are other theories to the start of the universe, aren't there?
Physics noob here (and no, I'm not talking about the creationist theory)
+From Hyrule In general the Big Bang is the go-to, nothing else comes close to explaining things. The question is the details. The BB could have happened in an existing universe or from ;nothing' The universe might be cyclical or undergo 'eternal inflation' . There are a lot of BB varieties.
But the Big Bang Theory is creationist, which is why most atheistic scientist resisted it for so long. The opposite of creationism is eternalism, not inanimate creationism. Only if the Universe has existed forever and will exist forever could you escape some form of creationism. I'm sorry you had to find this out in a TH-cam comment, but you're a creationist. Phil is a creationist as well. Everything was created in some mystical magical genesis event. Whether you call the thing that made it God or Big Bang makes no difference at all.
This is my favourite course on the internet. I actually make notes of the dates when new episodes release. Thank you for this, CrashCourse :)
Before the Universe started all those years ago, what created the space for it to be in ? If you understand what I mean.
The Universe is just the contents of space, what created the actual _space_ ?
Ethan Boyd If the universe is the receptacle, the container for space, then outside the universe may be another object. I think you need 2 objects in existence to have space because then the distance can theoretically be measured between them. If there's no object no space, idk though.
Since the universe is space and time, then there was no “before” the universe, because there is no time for there to be a before. So technically, you could say that the universe was always there.
A question not even the smartest people on the planet could or can answer, why bother asking in a TH-cam comment, seriously dude.
Absolutely loved the snowball metaphor, had a total "aha" moment and now have a much better understanding of atomic behavior! Thanks Phil!!!
Deep time?
I don't even want to KNOW what that is...
Sam Lund it soooooooooo interesting
Absolutely brilliant summary. Brilliant , brilliant, brilliant!
Oo new video
How incredibly amazing is it that we can determine with some amount of certainty what happened in the first few hours of the universe at specific times
+TheStoryOfJohnny On the other hand we must avoid falling for pet theories.
But bananas are perfectly designed to go in the mouth, perfectly curved so it reaches down the back of the throat, nice and smooth, how can you explain that? 😂
+Macconator2010
Hormones.
+Macconator2010 selective breeding
Evolution, only the ones that were better suited to be eaten got spread across longer distances, dropped, eaten, shat. Don't forget real bananas have seeds.
+Macconator2010 Mr. Cumfart, is that you?
+Macconator2010 The thing I always love about that argument is that wild bananas have gigantic inedible seeds as hard as a rock and can range in flavor from dry, mealy, tasteless and starchy, to sickening, rotten, sweetness.
We bred them to be convenient and tasty.
yes ive asked for crash course physics to i cant wait until it happens. chemistry has alot of physics discussion almost to tease us
Are there any theories regarding how long the first few seconds of the universe actually took to pass. It seems to me that if all of spacetime was coming into existance and the laws of physics didn't exist as we understand them... then what was happening at the moment that time was coming into existance, and if time didn't fully exist then how long did it take. Did time expand to fill the new universe and if so, how, and what was it expanding into. Or was time created before space and if-so, what was it created from? If both space and time were created together then was prototime as unimaginable as the first gazallionth of a second of space, and if it is so unimaginable, then surely it could have lasted indefinantly, or not at all. There seems to be a lot of information regarding the creation of space & matter but nothing regarding the creation of time which seems to be intimatly related to the former. Is this because we cannot see time in the same way that we can see space?
+Graham Bell Space and time are the same think
+Graham Bell It's because we have no inertial point of reference when it comes to time. We have no way of knowing whether the "frame rate" (frames being the time equivalent of atoms, the distance in time between frames being the smallest possible subdivsion of time in which the fastest possible object can only move the absolute minimum distance) was faster or slower or even have anything to compare it to. For this reason, 90% percent of age estimates are likely inaccurate due to the fact that it has been proven that time- as far as humans can perceive it- is, in fact, distorted by objects occupying space, and that the rate of time is at least partially dependent on the amount of matter in the general area
+NotAGoodUsername360 thanks for that, I had a feeling that time would be the clockwork-elephant-in-the-room when it comes to the origins of the universe. Possibly once we have an understanding of how time is constructed then our understanding of the universe will undergo an inflation of its own.
Graham Bell
The question is really a matter of perception- is what we perceive as "time" really referring to speed at which atoms are capable of moving, and if that rate is slowed universally, does "time" slow down, or is that merely a matter of functionality? We measure time based on the Earth's rotation and orbit, but outside of any system of bodies, how exactly would one measure "time"?
Graham Bell
It also causes problems with relativity... nothing can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum, but speed is measured in meters per _second_... well, what exactly IS a second from an absolute inertial viewpoint? The period of time it takes a certain amount to traverse a certain distance? In that case, if all matter moved at a different rate when the universe was in an extreme rate, a second could be significantly longer or shorter than it is now, allowing for undefined speeds.
Yet at the same time the very term m/s stresses the absolute necessity for time to have a set value... if the value of a second is 0, you get a divide by zero error and all speeds become conceivable. In other words, you can't simply dismiss the existence of time in relation to movement.
Thus actually meaning that massive distances between stars might actually not have taken nearly as long as current models estimate. While perhaps it may be true that it'd take light from other stars billions of years to reach us, that may not have been the case in a high-energy universe. What we currently perceive as a century may have been a nanosecond in such a condensed environment where matter could not possibly form
I enjoyed this episode very very much. You've explained in such a professional manner things that I knew them before but the recapitulation is always important.
who says there was nothing before the big bang?
+Vito Corleone the question is hard to answer, but it is assumed that there was no before since time itself was created as well as space itself during the big bang so about your question. . . there was neither a "there" nor a "before", at least that's what the evidence and observations show.. Hard concept to grasp
Behemothokun Ya I know, but I was saying that in the context of religious apologetics that put God as the answer to "something from nothing" in a short and sweet way. Here's my true opinion on the subject, it ain't that long if ya wanna read it but its based on a decent amount of research I did:
here are three reasons why the answer “idk” doesn’t matter when asked about something from nothing (for more concise and orderly future reference):
1. To take the lack of an answer as an argument that it’s impossible without a god is an argument from ignorance; just because the explanation is not known does not mean there is no possible explanation. This particular fallacy has been coming up a LOT.
2. We don’t know that we did start with nothing, either in the way Laurence Krauss means in his book “A Universe From Nothing” or in the way apologetics mean. Even if it’s completely impossible for something to come from nothing, this doesn’t necessitate an extra entity like a god until we establish that there ever was actually nothing. The simpler explanation, working solely from the ordinary law of conservation of matter and energy, is that there was always something.
3. God isn’t nothing. To posit that God started the universe and then immediately say God didn’t have to come from anywhere or anything is to make two assertions where one will do: that the universe didn’t have to either. Divine creation is not a simpler explanation, it’s just the one that meets the religious criterion that a god be necessary to the process at some point. I often say that any restriction you place on the universe to necessitate a god must immediately be broken to allow for a god.
Behemothokun what do you think?
Vito Corleone in short, I agree with all your points. About the god argument, in my view is a bit of a lazy cop out to fit the science (which is unrelated to belief in general) with one's personal belief. The god of the gaps, if you will. The problem with that kind of thinking is, that the realm where this god (under whichever name/religion) resides gets smaller with every piece of new evidence is found, to explain part of the universe. Someone of belief, that uses this kind of explaination also renders the scripture of their religion as wrong anyway, and all that remains is a god that doesn't fit in any shape or form in any religion besides being the "thing" that started the universe but at the same time, doesn't influences it in any way beyond this point, which renders the worshipping of said god useless, since it makes no difference. This is basically a paradox. I'm not affected, since I don't believe in the existence of all things "super natural"; meaning things that can break the laws of physics, unrelated to if we actually know the extend of physics in this universe.
Behemothokun Very well put. you seem like a smart guy, have you ever read anything by Krauss or Dawkins? If not I'm sure you would enjoy them, krauss for a more scientific view and dawkins for a more historical/biological view on the concept of religion
Such a satisfying episode to watch :) Thank you!!
kind of funny how this sounds similar to biblical creation stories.
+hyperbolic fuckboi I don't quite see the connection to be honest.
Behemothokun
The universe was created out of nothing either by god or an explosion.
In the early stages of the universe nothing made sense, reality was warped and forces didn't exist.
"In the first 3 minutes of the universe..." "in the first 17 minutes of the universe..." Similar to, on the 7th day.
hyperbolic fuckboi the problem with the god theory is, that it is a bit of a cop out and it's called the "god of the gaps". If we apply the logic that everything we can't explain yet, was therefore the doing of god, just puts god in an ever receding realm. Which means. . . what role has this god then anyway, if it just becomes a filler for the lack of knowledge. Either god started the universe but doesn't affect it any further, because of what we know, doesn't allow any manipulation outside of physics; or god itself, the concept or the one out of scripture doesn't exist. . . or said god has no influence at all on anything that goes on since the inception of time. Let's go back to the point of god being the thing that kickstarted the "big bang", what happens when the source of it is found? where does that put god? For the time being I think it's the safest to just let the one's that want to believe in a god, believe; but at the same time, leave this believe out of the process of science. Science is neither against nor in favour of a god, it's in the end a procedure and a set of rules on how to observe evidence and based on said observation, predict and test hypothesis.
Behemothokun
Cool story bro, i am not religious.. Science is not intrinsically against anything but current scientific theory conflicts with creationism, so it is against it. Anyways it was just funny how similar to the two theories of creation are.
+hyperbolic fuckboi
Nice try. Close but no cigar, etc.
i love watching these videos........they are packed with information....phil helped me a lot with biology at the time of my exams....thanks a lot!!!!!!
P.S :- DON'T STOP MAKING THESE VIDEOS PLEASE...
It always boggles my mind why people would be religious when mathematics and the scientific method is clearly the superior devices for finding factual quantifiable knowledge. That being said someone is bound to answer with "An comforting explanation for life and death". I cannot conceive how some people can find emotional self deception to be comforting if they know and understand an emotional appeal explanation is likely not a good measure of finding real factual truth.
+Jackboy019 I'm of the opinion that God started the Big Bang, and that the Six Days of Creation were Six Billion Years (roughly the age of our solar system) so it all works out.
+Dan Menard except 1. you haven't provided evidence you just asserted it 2. nothing is "6 billion years" it's actually about 13. and 3. it doesn't say that you're just making shit up
+Jackboy019 Because being human is being unscientific. Justice, truth, love, these things do not exist. We made them up. WE are made up. There is no atom of consciousness, no soul particle. Even the most scientific need some way of speaking about these concepts and dealing with them. We are not a logical species, not by far.
+Jackboy019 I am a creationist but however that doesn't mean I don't think science is real. I love science and I study it as well. However, mathematics and physics can only explain so much. There's no true way to determine how the earth, sun, stars and other planets were formed. Also most people don't "choose" to be religious. We live this way because of our experiences that are beyond any form of explanation or any relativity to science.
_Extremely_ clear presentation. I'm going to recommend this one for my young nephew.
I love how he explains how God created the universe.
+1 rep. cheeky comment
+tmason995 hmm, that's one way to see it... but nah, it's hard to grasp, but there was a point zero with nothing before it. There is literally no need for anything to be prior to that time zero when the Big Bang happened...
+Coro , but there has to be a creator someone somewhere created the universe.
tmason995 Ehhm, nope. Okay, this one is strange, try to hear me out.
I assume you've watched the video, well alright, we run the clock backwards to that fraction of a second where our math and laws of physics collapse. What we have is a point of almost infinite density. I hope we can agree on that. Why do our maths + laws collapse? Well, gravity and time are bound together as Einstein's theorie on relativity concludes. If we have something moving at the speed of light, for expample you in an imaginary space ship, you don't perseve time as continuing. As you get infinitly small to that speed, your time flows infinitly slow... yea hard stuff.
Back to density: take a black hole. beyond it's event horizon even light can't escape. in a way the gravitational pull is stronger/ faster than the speed of light. Time stops advancing.
Same thing with the infinitly dense new born universe...
Time does not exist at point zero. There is no time for an action to cause this process.
Next thing: in quantum physics particles are allowed to appear out of nowhere.and go back out of existance. In a similar way (and that's quite mind bending) the whole matter at time zero is allowed to, according to all laws of physics we know of today, pop into existence as it pleases, just being there without any cause.
So... no there is no need for a creator. It's hard to accept, but in a way, it's really rational and logical.
Little PS: this thought process wasn't done by me. It's more the work and idea of Stephen Hawking regarding his ideas if there's a god or not. Point is: there may be, but according to physics, there's no need for him to exist, and the whole model works perfectly fine without him.
+Coro do not feed the troll
DON'T STOP THE SERIES!!!!
Get your religious ideology out of science.
Nah, just kidding. That is how people reacted to the big bang theory though just because it was proposed by a Catholic priest and accepted by the Catholic Church.
not really. they actually rejected much of science like evolution and the earth not being the center of the universe. religions are nothing but cultural and restricted by psychology. reality Is not
+Mario Pendic um that is pathetically incorrect if you're implying Catholics reject evolution and earth not being the center of the universe. Do some research on the topic and you'll be surprised by how accepting the Catholic Church is of science, and for good reason too.
Quorstra Qq actually many catholics DONT accept it and the church is still not accepting of evolution officially and the big bang. Claiming "god did it" and " Adam and even were there" is not accepting science. refusing to accept facts for thousands of years and even torturing those who opposed them( Galileo) is not accepting and nor is finally accepting these facts thousands of years later only due to secular influence and fear of being irrelevant in any way demonstrates they have some great care for science. You don't get to claim absurd ideas and claim to accept science when everyone around you has no choice only for a PR image. So don't be a fucking idiot. And this doesn't even touch on ethical problems.
So spare me the regressive bullshit. they are an organization with a dogma and popularity to uphold no matter what. not a scientific organization and nor are they any representative of Christianity as a whole as there are thousands of denominations and catholics who don't agree which is why so many don't accept evolution and big bang cosmology etc. And even if they do they don't accept it for any good reason rather make excuses.
+Mario Pendic Evolution has been accepted into official Catholic dogma. Do your research kid.
Also, the big bang theory was accepted by Catholics BEFORE everyone else. It was originally viewed as a religious theory. Georges Lemaitre had a doctorate in mathematics and studied astronomy at Harvard and MIT. He also happened to be a Catholic priest. It was because of this and the fact that the big bang happened to coincide well with creationism that people viewed it as a crazy religious theory. Even Einstein was dismissive of his views stating, "Your calculations are correct, but your physical insight is abominable." books.google.com/books?id=e_DXqvK6SVUC&pg=PA39&dq=&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
+The Creeper They support theistic evolution. Meaning they think god causes evolution rather than nature. Oh, and they also think the human soul is somehow special.
It's even more insidious. No matter what science discovers, lazy religion can co-opt it.
u not ending this crash course its so amazing I love it I love phil and amazing explainer
You never mentioned how God done it?
Because this is science
+Bismah Naqui any way to support that?
+Thurston Lambert Beat me to it. Was just about to comment "GOD DONE DID IT"
+Bismah Naqui Its ironic that the Universe having a beginning was thought of as Religious Dogma a century ago then it turned out to be true.
+Aidan Helvey yea all he has is pier reviews studied we have the bible!
Thank you Phil for sharing your passion with us!
Im new to crash course but i must say, to host guy....i like you. Some hosts suck...but your way of speaking works. good job.
Got so much respect for this guy.. waiting for the Pluto update tho!
its been amazing so far don't want it to end
this inspire me to live longer so i can hopefully know the truth of the universe before i die. Hopefully we are making good progress this following century!!
Is the universe infinite? If so, what does density mean? Does this definition assume a geometry of the universe? I loved this series! Massive thanks to everyone involved!
+James Craver It is infinite on earth. The most intelligent creatures that we know of, Us, can't contemplate how vastly big and dawning with shimmers of awe, we can't even imagine, even though we know so many things, many things for animals, can't, and won't, help at all to understand it. So simply put, Yes! the universe is infinite.
I like the "north pole" analogy because its the perfect example of why we need to keep looking. If your talking about the magnetic north pole, then to find whats north of the north pole you have to start your study of magnetism and geology. If your talking about the axial north pole then you have to start your study of gravity and astrophysics. Either way, reaching the pole is just scratching the surface.
Excellent video, Phil. You’re the best.
So happy you're back, Phil! Happy New Year to Crash Course too!!
we want more crashcoure astronomy!!!! never stop, more video posts!!!
So what about a retrospective over the history of human space exploration?
An episode dedicated to outlining the events in mankind's mission to explore outer space?
These are all great videos, as always. When it comes to inflationary cosmology it might help to clarify that the inflationary period (which is usually only bounded from below in terms of its duration) diluted any particle content that might have existed initially - so that at the end of inflation we have an essentially empty universe which is then filled once again with particles during reheating when inflation comes to an end.
Love this series. Watched some other CC but this one is the best. Thanks to CC for getting Phil Plait to do the presentations. I'll be sad to see it end, but OTOH, the astronomy portion of the course is very nearly being left behind as the last few episodes have trended toward a decidedly cosmological direction. Don't get me wrong, cosmology is a great field and it is related to astronomy but they are not the same. From reading the comments I know that there are two episodes remaining. After that who knows? Maybe it is time for some courses in other sciences. I've seen some good suggestions including cosmology, physics and meteorology...others could include math, chemistry, biology. More science courses please.
+John Schnupp oops...I see that the Chemistry course has already been done...looks like I have another series to watch :-)