This is one of the best explanations I've seen of these concepts, in large part because at the end you just plainly state "we don't know" in response to the types of questions which naturally arise from hearing the theories. That's quite refreshing. Thank you for sharing this.
@wzrubicon 1 In science it's usually the case that theories are also facts. Gravity is a theory, but you can't just float away. Electrons are a theory, but your electrical gadgets still work regardless. Tectonic plates are only a theory, but earthquakes still happen. I get how this misunderstanding arises. In day to day life "theories" are ideas we have based on best guesses. In science the definition is different. A _theory_ is an explanatory model of a phenomena in nature based on the best available observational evidence. In order to qualify as a scientific theory, that model must be robustly backed up by a whole stack of verified facts. If it's not, that theory won't last long before being demolished. At this point the Big Bang has been around as a theory nearly a century. At first it was just one of many competing models and it took many decades before the theory got traction as initially the evidence was lacking. But then in the 60s there was the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and since then a landslide of evidence brought in by modern technologies have only ever pointed towards the Big Bang. Every other model is now left for dead. Last I checked you could fit all the qualified physicists who still adhere to the Steady State Model today into the back of a small minibus - and all of them are past retirement age!
@wzrubicon 1 Here's a simple way of understanding of how the word theory is used in science, (problems with English language really). Some years ago I did an apprenticeship. One day a week I went to trade school. In the morning we were in a classroom where we learnt how to do various things, that class was called "theory", after lunch we went into the workshop and applied what we learnt in the classroom, that was called "Practical". Hope that helps, Cheers.
@@domainofscience “Have those who disbelieved not considered that the universe and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” (Quran 21:30) This verse was mentioned 1400 years ago when recently 50 years ago Scientists just made up this big bang, why not study the Quran is ahead of science and truly is a miracle book which indicates to us that there is a creator and the Quran is the word of God. :)
@@CountScarlioni I've been aware of the Big Bounce for a decade and its becoming more accepted every day. You can't compare plate tectonics to the theory of creation of the universe. A much greater percentage of the big bang theory is conjecture. A lot of bad methodology has been going on in recent years with literally dozens of theories being proposed and all of them shown to be incorrect. Is it any wonder people have become cynical towards the scientific community. Christ, how much longer do we have to endure we may be in a simulation nonsense?
@@manda3dprojects966 I find it helpful to think of a sheet of rubber - an explosion is where a single point expands while inflation is where the whole sheet is stretched in both directions at once.
Derrick Hodges that’s why it’s called a theory. It’s what is currently believed by scientists but nothing is 100% because there is so much stuff we don’t know
So why put bullshit like this into people's heads? They should keep their theory's to themselves, least until something halfway conceivable comes along.
@@compellinglyhigh646 It isn't bullshit. Scientific theories are the best current model to explain all the observations we see. As we observe more and more, the explanations will change, and so will the model. This is what makes science so reliable. We used to think we were made of the 5 elements, but now we know all matter is made of atoms and those atoms are made of even smaller particles. The newer theories are particularly prone to change, that is why you barely hear it outside of the science communities because it is not researched enough yet. The theory of evolution for example is hands down one of the most researched fields in science. It has definitely changed since its conception, but that doesn't automatically make it false. The ever-changing environment of science and our constant attempts to falsify the explanations we present is what makes it so reliable at explaining most things we observe in reality.
So, it seems like you’re saying that the Big Bang theory doesn’t describe the creation of anything, it just describes how the universe changed from one form to another, right?
The common misconception is that "the big bang" is the creation of the universe, but that's not true. The BB actually starts after inflation. Inflation is a thing we kind of pulled out of our arse to have an explanation for why the universe seems homogeneous on large scales (which means we are not in a special part of the universe). You see, if we look at one region of space and a random other, they look so similar (in temperature), but if we measure the speed and acceleration at which the universe is expanding, it doesn't add up. So scientists 'created' inflation so that it fits. There needs to be a force or some kind of field that made the universe grow exponentially for a very short period of time. Neither the BB of inflation explain anything about where the singularity came from and what gave it a little push. (the push that lead to inflation, which made the universe stretch an enormous amount in about 10^-30 seconds. 300.000 y later, the universe kind of recovered from his asshole being teared up and reheated, after which the big bang started (which is going strong till this date). Reheating, you say? Thank you for asking. There probably is a field that was once veery strong and overpowered all other forces. Think of the field and its (potential) energy as a ball on top of a hill. It got a little push and started rolling off the hill, gaining speed at the steep part, which made it release its potential energy and made the universe stretch. Once it reached the bottom of the hill, the expansion started to slow down (i should say that the acceleration started to slow down) and the universe finally got a chance to form atoms and shit. That part is the reheating if I'm correct.
Btw, Inflation is also supported by something else: The observable universe it not completely homegeneous. There are small fluctuations with regions slightly more dense or warmer than other regions. If the field (with the ball thingy and the hill thingy) was a normal field, that would raise questions on why it isn't completely homogeneous, but the field is actually a quantum field with small fluctuations in energy levels. While the ball was rolling down the steep part of the hill, in some parts there was a little bit more energy than in others, due to the small fluctuations in the field. Want to watch a 24min interview with a marvelously interesting physicist on this? th-cam.com/video/m7C9TjdziPE/w-d-xo.html everything i said here, comes from this mofo, I don't have the slightest clue what I'm talking about
@Sam Wilt Yea, the big bang theory is bullshit The universe was created by a sky fairy with magic, that's the only explanation that makes any sense at all! The BB theory might be hard to swallow, and even scientists themselves aren't really sure how the universe we know today came to be, but don't pretend that relegion exppanations aren't just a bunch of fairy tales that someone pulled out of their asshole because it made them feel more confortable with existance, because that's just what they are.
@Sam Wilt Yes, comfortably denying the mountains of evidence supporting the current expansion of the universe, which in turn leaves great evidence for the big bang. Just read the wikipedia article. You have a fundamental misconception of the universe and big bang, even though you commented on a video attempting to explain it. 'Nothing to something', please explain what that means. No scientist will say that, that is a layman term which is very misleading and is not accurate. If you actually listened to the video you would recall that ALL energy in the cosmos was together. You say the universe has a purpose, what is the purpose if you don't mind sharing? Your ignorance is astounding. You think science can't be trusted because the origin of the modern numerals came from India? The sun appears to rise and set because of earth's rotation about it's axis. Earth rotates to the east so the sun moves to the west. Earth's elliptical orbit also accounts for longer or shorter days. The 'chicken or egg' question shows that you, again, have a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution and speciation works. The modern chicken evolved from the red jungle fowl. You will know from basic biology class that evolution occurs over generations, over time. A non-chicken will not just produce a chicken in one generation. The genetic mutations and alleles will collect over time to produce enough variation and differences between the organisms until they are entirely different species. Please do more research before asking questions as you seem to have mistaken almost every field of study you have referenced...
@@thewholetruth5173 In that case, I'd rather be listening to and reading pseudoscience, as you call it, than 'knowledge' written down by some supersticious chaps who lacked fundamental knowledge of science and mathematics and who had not a shred of hard evidence to back up their claims. In fact, there's a good example of pseudoscience for you...
The beginning assumes that the universe is finite but unbounded. We don't know this. Space is just as likely infinite; We have no reason to believe it wraps around on itself.
Except that it's the only thing that makes any sense. "Infinity" makes no sense, no matter what it refers to. It just means "anything goes". Might as well say "God did it". Means just the same.
I am a muslimn the Qur’an talks about how did the universe begun... even tho these words r misleading: “ begun and the universe “ ... I really honestly think we humans can’t n don’t know anything how it started; n our little physics ... can not pass the frontier of our tiny minds( in respect to the Big universe) we have no clue ... at all n we can’t even grasp our near by galaxy... let alone the bigger universe. It only shows our mediocre ignorance.... what then is the hope of man n his misguided science, ... well ... that is the real q’n. The truth is we have to re-evaluate what we have in hand ...n be honest with ourselves n seek for Allah sw... “He created the : Universe, n only He can provide answers, man wake up... n get out of ur feet..
0:25 13.8 Billion Years Ago • No Matter • No Radiation • Just Space 1:12 Energy Becomes Matter 1:45 Particles, Nuclei 2:37 Expansion Slowed, but today it is _Accelerating again_ 3:12 The Cosmic Microwave Background 3:53 The Visible Universe is a small patch of the Total Universe 5:13 10^-33 seconds
Why later on the video he says something about a radius of 46.5 billion light years? Does it make any sense, if the universe was on it's earlier stages at 13.8 billion years ago?
@Donald Kasper what you said doesn't make sense. Gravity is also a concept we made up in order to understand the attraction of masses. Math is something we made up aswell, if you think about it. Time exists in the universe and it's directly related to the mass of objects, hence "time-space". Of course, we adapted it in a way where we can measure it on our own terms. Perhaps, that's why its concept seems made up. The heavier the mass of an object, the more it bends space. Therefore, in that given object, time goes on more slowly. In black holes, time actually stops. Time exists just as much as space does. They are intertwined.
@Donald Kasper if you're saying that, you really don't unterstand astronomy. Fun fact: time passes more slowly near the pyramid of Giza, in Egypt. Of course, the difference is really small, but it's true. Mass distorts space. The bigger the distortion, the bigger the gravity pull and the slower time goes by. It's very interesting.
When I studied astronomy 15 years ago, the timeline we were taught went like this: Planck time (10^-44 s), annihilation, inflation (10^-32 s), end of beta decay (1 sec), nucleosynthesis (10 min). I haven't followed any recent developments in the field since then, but it seems that a popular theory now is that (all?) matter was created during inflation. This theory might be quite new, since I don't remember studying it in this way. Thanks for the reply.
Fermilab say 13.8 billion years ago: 0 extremely high energy (Unknown physics) 10^-43s Inflation period: Expand space faster than the speed of light and cool relatively slowly 10^-36s strong force differentiated itself from the 3 other forces in the unified force causing visible universe to inflate from something about the size of an atom to something about the size of a grapefruit 10^-32s expanding universe but coasting 10^-13s expansion coasts and we have hard data (cosmic microwave background radiation with 2700°C temperature)
Thank you publisher for clearer explanation of 1) inflation 2) big bang 3)flatness of spacetime 4)the visible universe and their implications .my errors, inaccuracies and wrong conclusions have gone for 30 years .thanks for this new more correct insight. PS the diagrams are very effective.
"We don't know if time started or has existed forever" Well Time is only a way to measure change. Something that can change has to exist for "time" to exist.
Vishnu is singularity and then proton electron neutron became a atom means Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma became a full any.. and all expended.. all universe made up of atoms that's why God is everywhere .... ... So I'm God God is great
@@ffejpsycho Not in particular, a clock (in the einstein sense) can exist alone and keep track of time. A fundamental clock is just something that changes. Einstein used the example of the photon clock (a photon bouncing between two mirrors), it can also be a single particle swapping one of it's properties, like spin. There is no need for additional things to compare, the distance between changes is an unit of time.
@@zuubaa239 brother broaden your knowledge limits.... There are hundreds of more sub-atomic particles (like positron) so you can't compare electron, proton and neutron to GOD "Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma" .
The others are missing your point. (i.e., point of singularity) All this new theory does is try to say there was no "beginning point" and argue that a bunch of stuff was already here - and that's what got everything going. Yah, good luck with forwarding that!
I just watched a Fermilab video claiming we do know how long inflation lasted, it was very brief (can't recall the exact number, but it was basically a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second) and the universe expanded to the size of grapefruit at faster than light speed
This isn't science , complete pseudoscience. Easily proven false , earth is young proven with real science testable observable and repeatable using logic and reasoning.
@@opus53waldstein70 yes it is. but inflation is a name for the stage of the early universe where it expanded faster than light in all directions and what he means is that this early phase of rapid expansion stopped and the "normal" slower expansion we have now started..
Hey there DOS, I really love and appreciate your videos and how much effort you put into them especially your "map" videos so could please make a map of Rocket science😁
Actually, the measurement for this came out with a 0.004% (or something) when looking for curvature. We have no idea whether this was an error from the instruments, or if the universe is actually curved, but to such a small degree compared to our standpoint. It also means that our universe is waaay bigger than it thought it would be.
Not too bad! Mind you in an Inflation model the initial expansion could be so fast (say 50,000 times lightspeed) that fragments of spacetime casually disconnected - moved away from each other so fast that once inflation stopped - the traveling fragments of the aftermath are receding so fast that radiation from them can't every reach us. So Inflation can create a fragmentation model of expansion and we just happen to live in one fragment. If this is the case it might explain why the expansion of spacetime is speeding up. Dark energy might just be the residual radiating gravity wells of all the other fragments - finally starting to reach our fragment of the universe from all directions speeding us up. There are theories that the minute variations in the Cosmic Background radiation are just tiny pockets of patches of greater energy - but a glimse through our observable universe to slightly hotter points some of which may be other faint receding other fragments of the universe flying away from us. Personally the fragmented universe model is worth consideration to see under what constraints it would readily explain why spacetime expansion slowed down (radiation of our fragments gravity well) and then sped up - interaction with other receding fragment's residual gravity wells...
My wife's cousin, Frederick Reines, co-discovered the neutrino and was awarded a Nobel Prize for it. My mother-in-law's last name was Reines. It seems that the mystery of the size, scope, structure, and motion of the cosmos is matched by the unresolved understanding of quantum particles. Is it possible that each particle is infinitely reducible into smaller and smaller components? In that sense, each particle may be a universe unto itself with parts that are as tiny compared to the overall structure, as we are to the known universe. Just exercising the capacity for philosophical awe.
Phil Wilson (I’ll prefix this with my standard disclaimer that I’m discussing the edges of my own understanding. I’ll, of course, be happy for any clarification on any errors I’m introducing here.) Not necessarily smaller particles. I think particles and waves might be considered hold overs from classical physics. Perhaps it’s more appropriate to consider them fluctuations in fields? So a photon is a fluctuation in the electromagnetic field. Electrons and positrons are fluctuations in the electron field. Etc. We have as many fields as are needed to describe the standard model. One for each type of quark, lepton, etc. The main stand out is, of course the graviton as it not only describes gravity but also spacetime itself. In Relativity, spacetime is smooth and certain. In a quantum theory of gravity it would presumably be quantized and uncertain which is problematic to say the least. Also unknown would be dark matter, supersymmetry, etc. Saw a recent video (PBS Spacetime, I think) questioning if the hypothetical axion could be responsible for dark matter. I’ve also heard that it may be possible that the hypothetical inflaton field responsible for may also be responsible for dark energy.
@@philwilson609 I completely agree with your theory here. I've believed this is the case for a very long time. We just don't have the tools to measure anything smaller than a photon. We sorta see Neutrinos, but only barely. I believe the universe is infinitely small as well as large, but we just don't have the ability to measure within a certain range. Before telescopes and microscopes we had no clue just how large or small things were. What we use for tools now only expand what we can observe, but the most likely case is that there is smaller and larger out there. I'm really glad someone else has this understanding, too!
Very interesting and useful video. It made me think of the following... Lets represent our knowledge being contained in a sphere getting larger and larger as we heuristically obtain information. Accordingly its surface increases proportionally and is bordering the the Unknown. So the more we know, the more we understand how little we know. But nevertheless it is our call to know more and more and to explore. Don't you think so too?
5:24 "We can never see back farther then that because the information simply does not exist in our universe We can see back farther. The answer is in the Bible: *Genesis 1:1-5 KJV:* In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, *Let there be light:* and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
@@Immission idk (not Christian) I just watched a debate between flat earther and scientists And the flat earthers used verses from the bible (And btw it s said circle not round Even flat earther say it a circle so..) And what about 10 000y/o earth u can t deny this one Or whales are fish (i even found someone who s a young earth believer that denied this argumemt saying that God doesn't care if it s mammals if it swims it s a fish and this is stupid) And yeah what about "nothing died before humans existed (or sinned or smt) what did carnivore dinosaurs eat? Grass?? I hope you will disprove these argument then Christianity could be right If you can t well... it s probably wrong (or some people just chaged the books as they wanted that explains why there are many versions)
Please do a vid on how black hole visualizations are inconsistent with the theory. Too many show a spinning disc of matter blue shifting and rotation increasing the closer to the event horizon when the rotation actually would appear to slow and redshift the closer to the EH as time dilation slows light.
@S C It's been explained onYt that an outside observer would watch something approach the EH, slow to a stop, redden, then fade from view. It's very noticeable.
"End of inflation" Huh the "to be" Cosmos went from 10-32 sec to 10+30 Sec.... sure sounds like a big bang given commercial explosives are up to 25,000 fps....
sandy roberts-anderson There’s no way to answer for sure. Many believe in a multiverse theory in which there potentially are infinite universes. Others say that this universe in and of itself is infinite, so nothing is “beyond it”.
That question kind of doesn't make any sense actually, the universe by the definition is some type of "catch all" concept, there isn't anything "outside" the universe, everything is the universe, including you.
Seems to me by definition time must have existed forever because ''forever' is a measurement of time and without time there is nothing for it to measure. Well, while true, that was unhelpful. :p
@@FullAfterburner Yes, I think most people know the math end in a singularity. There buy proving that our the math so far is wrong. This is why I didn't use math but rather simple logic. ie. no matter how granular it gets it's still time. There is nothing before time because you would need time for anything to change. So the universe has existed forever. In short; before time is a self refuting statements.
@@FullAfterburner Woo hoo!. Get that published quickly to get your Nobel prize! Oh wait. Your using self referencing logic and mathematical representations of time and not what time actually is. “Time is a wave“ Think about that statement for a sec. You can’t have a wave without time already functioning. A Wave describes changes over time. What your talking about is like gravity. Sure we can observe it and know how to use it in calculations but that’s a far cry from knowing what it is. Or where it comes from. Are you one of the people that believe that numbers are real things and not just a useful tool? Do you think time exists simply because we can measure it's affects?
@@FullAfterburner Offended? Of course not. I had found it a little humorous, In a “student just learned a new thing and wants to use it despite It being off topic” kind of way. It’s not like I’m arguing against your math. I’m trying to point out your missing the point as it’s NOT a math problem. It’s a logic problem. And to understand why your having trouble with that I postulated that your a subscriber to the idea that math is a real thing. As it’s common for them to not understand the difference between a thing and a mathematical description of the properties of a thing. It is true that if you where to confirm that you believe math is a real thing that I would bail on you. No arguing with crazies and I could not see a way to get you on topic if that was the case. Either way, if all you have is the mathematical description of properties then I at least understand why you didn’t get my original post and we’ll leave it at that.
How can space double in size? Doesn't the concept of size already assumes space? Does this mean that the space we are talking about is expanding into another space, which also imply that the outer space is the real space?!
It's a hard concept to grasp. The "space" outside of the space we're familiar with is better described as nothing. I say this because it is thought to be impossible to ever know what's outside of the bubble of space (let alone interact with it). So if it can't affect what happens inside of the bubble of space and we can't prove any theories about it, we can essentially leave it out. Until something happens that reverses this view, we can for all practical purposes assume it to be nothing.
@@boddahboy I think it's more rational to say that we don't know what Space is. Empty Space is already conceptualized as "Nothing", or "No-Thing". Of course this can't be understood in an absolute sense, since "No-thing" is still something.. whatever that something is.
@@ChannelDefault I agree, we certainly don't understand space fully. When I say space, I refer to a volume within our known universe, devoid of any known particles. When I say nothing, I do not mean anything like space described above, but explicitly that which lies outside of the universe and is unknowable. For me those two things are completely separate concepts.
No there is no outer space that we know of. An example of space doubling in size would be this. Imagine two stars sitting stationary in space, they are not moving relative to each other through space, but because the space in between them is expanding, they keep getting further and further away from each other. Now the difficulty with this picture is that space itself isn't measurable. We can't just stab flags into the fabric of space to keep track of how far away different points are, we have to look at things like stars in space and see how they move. So with my star example, how do we know if they are stationary in an expanding space, or if they are actually moving away from each other in a non-expanding space? Well we can't know this if we just look at two stars. But we can tell the difference if we look at all of the stars, and when we look out into space, everything is moving away from everything else all the time. Not only that they are *accelerating* away from each other, the only explanation we have for this is that space itself keeps expanding.
Henry You presume that it is light from the start of the universe. Mankind is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness that we have emerged from as the vastness that we are engulfed in
Why the hell do we need a cure for a cold? If you don't treat your body like shit you'd get over a cold in three to four days. Might not even get a cold at all if you take care yourself. Reason why we have theories because research. Making a vaccine or antibiotic is much more complicated than solving equations of physics, coming up with theories and just looking through a incredibly advanced telescope that has filters that can see hydrogen atoms, iron and etc. Technology is the sole reason we have these theories for the universe itself but I'm assuming you believe it was made by a bearded man who said "Let there be light."?
That's bizarre, so there were no particles/matter during inflation, and they appeared later? Does that mean that there was an extra dimension, that got so thin due to the stretching, that it couldn't contain the energy it had within and had no choice but to turn into particles/matter?
I'd like to add something to Dirk's comment. I'm sorry, but engineering can't exist without science as science can't exist without engineering. Asking what is 'more' relevant or important between the two is like asking what is the most useful word between 'why' and 'how'. The question itself is meaningless. By cruelly simplifying, one understands how stuff that exists 'can or may' be, and the other understands how things 'are, were and will' be. The other "thing" that understands stuff that exist, using some stuff that doesn't (unless you are not a Platonist) exist, is Mathematics. In the end, it's all about stuff being understood by using other stuff that may or may not exist. Neat!
Uhhhhhh any more videos or explanations on recombination? 1:59 to be exact How can a nucleus with protons be stable w/o the electron "neutralizing" it? Wouldn't the repulsive force not allow that? Or was the strong nucleur force even...stronger (?) back then?
@@user-ys9to2ie7k No, science offers the best explanation/model based on the evidence at the time. The model is subject to revision in the light of new evidence and that's a major strength of science. Twice you have mentioned pseudoscience. Perhaps you'd care to explain what you think real science is and propose a better method of understanding.
@@jns8393 it could be compared to the pathological liar. Starts with one lie and habitually continues to add to the LIE and at the end you have a story that is so far-fetched all brought about by pseudologia fantastica or pseudoscience!
I'm frequently being told that at the time of the big bang the gravitational forces were unfathomably strong, almost infinate. Now, we know that gravitation influence time. A strong gravitational field slows down time. So, when you say a few seconds after big bang or inflation or whatever, are you then referring to the slow seconds of that time, or seconds as we perceive them today on Earth? Since a second went slower back then, it may well have lasted as long as one of our present years. Could the big bang have been a rather slow flow of events, pretty much like what we experience today? I'm just curious.
Don't forget time is relative to the observator point of view. If you are really near a black hole for instance, someone far away will see you as a motionless object. But you will experiment time normally.
@@syspangylium But you can't stand and observe it out of it since the Universe contain everything by definition. You are part of it and there is no exterior to observe from. And sorry for my english, probably.
@@syspangylium No, you can observe black holes from the exterior. You can't do the same with the Universe. You can only observe the Universe from the "interior" since there is NO exterior. I dunno if I'm really clear..
1.End of inflation 2. Hot Big Bang 3. Nucleosynthesis 4. Recombination 5. First stars begin to shine 6. First galaxies form 7. Today. This reminds me of something.
“I’m gonna tell you why all these models that explain the beginning of the universe starting with a big explosion that expands space and time as a cone is wrong”... Then proceeds to explain that the beginning of the universe started with a big expansion that eventually describes a cone.
I say that space was already there, just the mixing of the atoms, particles and molecules made light what made heat, what attracted planets, made new planets and is still in control of outa space like it always has been.
According to the speaker, the earliest stage of the universe didn’t contain any stuff such as matter or radiation. It was just “pure space,” and this space had “energy.” However, looking back from our present perspective, it is difficult to ignore the fact that this alleged initial state of “pure space and energy” not only seems to have been imbued with every possible ingredient necessary to awaken us into existence, but also... (like some kind of cosmic “seed”) ...possessed an inherent teleological impetus to carry the process to its ultimate and obvious fruition. Don’t allow yourself to be distracted by cosmological jargon and clever illustrations, and pay attention to statements such as this: “...the energy inherent in space was “turned into” stuff: matter, anti-matter, particles, and radiation.” All of which (if we follow his logic) was then “turned into” the unthinkably precisioned workings of our earth/sun system. In other words, we’re simply supposed to believe that the utterly ham-handed processes of gravity and thermodynamics were somehow able to cause random and disparate particles of matter to coalesce into a context of mechanistic order that defies our comprehension. The point is that ambiguous phrases such as “turned into” must not be allowed to just slip-by unchallenged. _______
@@chiararosati2162 Hi Chiara, what I stated was meant to be taken as a metaphor. As was suggested in my first post, the “evidence” of the universe having a “seed-like” beginning is implicit in the very story of its existence (or at least in the story suggested by the Big Bang theory). I mean, the fact that it allegedly began as a tiny kernel of compressed matter that was not only imbued with everything necessary to “grow and blossom” into the fully-fruitioned structure we see today, but also contained some form of informationally-based impetus to achieve its goal,... ...seems to be a perfect representation of the seed analogy. Indeed, it was a blossoming that has now yielded the fruit of life and consciousness. In which case, what does the “Physics 101” fact of energy and matter being the same thing have anything to do with the metaphorical point I was making? Furthermore, what does it have to do with my criticism of the video presenter stating that... “...the energy inherent in space was ‘turned into stuff’...” ...as if we are all simply supposed to take it for granted that the blind and mindless energy inherent in space is somehow capable of turning itself into, again, a context of mechanistic order that defies our comprehension? _______
TheUltimateSeeds energy didn’t turn into matter, matter *is* energy. Thermodynamics states that energy will spread out to increase entropy. Temperature is atoms and molecules moving so the less heat there is, the less particles move, this would allow for positive and negative charges to attract each other, allowing the quarks to make proteins and neutrons
>> "It's because this is the best description we have that matches the things we observe in the universe today" This is interesting because that means if there are more models which also explain what we observe, that those could also potentially be correct: "What really happened". Including some seriously different ideas which have been debated for ages but always dismissed because of certain presuppositions.
How is light stretching apart? How can we measure it? ... Time (as I think) is just a sequence of all physical stances (moments) with measurable properties. So theoretically we could make "time travelling" locally by creating definite any process backwards, at least on molecular level with energy balance. The energy cost however may be unverificably high.
Physics papers are very technical and there is a lot of papers that you would need to go through. As a better alternative for a technical exposition to Cosmology might I suggest Barbara Ryden's 'Introduction to Cosmology (2016)'. It's an excellent book for people looking for a technical exposition to get acquainted with the subject.
How do we define and measure time? For instance, why did neutrinos get free after 1 second? And is it possible that there are interactions that change time itself? These questions probably sound weird to a physicist, but it just seems to me that we have so many particles to describe forces and phenomena but none for time itself. Could it be that time is a higher order thing that emerges from some interactions?
John Tibaldi If as you asked that time was indeed “a higher order thing that emerges from some interaction.” then you would have to explain how could these interactions take place without time being present for them to interact in? Nothing can happen without time.
More like man's attempt to explain everything we observe in reality to the best of our abilities from our observations through constant falsification and research. Also called science.
Choo Jun Wyng somewhat accurate. But it goes beyond that deception. Goes to trying to concoct an explanation in the name of science that actually voids principles of scientific reason and methodologies. Typically the domain of the godless factions of the ‘scientific’ community.
@@graphguy What explanations have we concocted? Please give some examples of scientists voiding scientific principles to find an explanation to something. Your first comment in the beginning was not related at all to why we want to explain things in the first place. What do you even mean by man's attempt to be god? Does trying to find the best explanation for a phenomenon count as trying to be god? Science doesn't fake explanations. We don't know who or what caused the big bang. We don't know who or what was the reason behind abiogenesis. We do not know a lot of things. It would be in our best interests to find out the cause behind them.
Every time I see more detailed explanation about the universe I get more and more convinced that someone just configured a program, wrote some basic rules and ran the program. There are so many things that just work like that. Makes no sense, but they just work like that.
@@TheFreeBass Yes. The bible's God's name is legit "I AM" meaning he is a constant without beginning outside of time able to create and manipulate time.
The best explanation is 5:26 . If i understood right, the information of how the universe was "created" (for lack a better word) is simply not available and may never be. Its at the same time frustrating and humbling (in a good way) because we see we are punching way above our weight with the current technology.
I dunno. This is a good shot at it, but I'm still confused. I've read/heard a number of times that it was roughly the size of a grapefruit at the *completion* of inflation. Like, around 10 ^-33 or thereabouts. Then they say that it's wrong to think about it originating from a certain place, i.e. that it's "everywhere". Now, I get that "everywhere" was all compressed into the smaller thing, if that's what they're chasing. But that kind of seems like a copout. Anyway, I think you did well, being candid about what we don't know. Which is quite a bit. Though it's amazing what we do know too. I'll keep at it, but I've read just about everything I can. Feel like I need more math.
I wrote a sci-fi story in the 80's for a creative writing class that centered around the creation of a faster than light method of travel. While doing research for the story (the teacher insisted that we use actual scientific papers and text books upon which we based our stories), the evolved into a paper about a rather obscure hypothesis that the big bang is a cyclic event where the universe is trying to achieve a perfect balance between space/time and energy. That equilibrium never occurs, according to this hypothesis (it was from a book written in the 70's) because as space/time gains equilibrium in one area of space, energy within that area becomes matter and displaces space/time. Space/time then causes all that matter to condense into smaller and smaller volumes while increasing its mass until it becomes a black hole. Eventually space/time manages to condense all matter into a single black hole and that black hole dissipates, causing the cycle to begin again perpetually. I wish I remember the book I was reading, because that hypothesis seems to explain so many inconsistencies of the big bang and I'd like to know if any further research was conducted to make it an alternative theory of the creation of the universe.
Dear Dominic, I found this as most lucid TH-cam video on 'Big Bang' theory in cosmology and quantum physics. Also, almost accurate. Thank you Dr. Dominic Walliman for your valuable efforts.
Nice update - one less erroneous exposition. Besides the Hot Big Bang, I gather from PBS series that the general big bang is defined as the period of low Hubble rate (after inflation) by most in the newest generation of astrophysicists. One additional point is that the new meme is that "inflation puts the bang in big bang" since the release of potential energy even at that stage drives initial expansion. Also, Planck 2018 final data review could model the dust noise sufficiently that they showed inflation both in cosmic background amplitude and polarization spatial spectra, so it seems fairly safe - they could tell it is low curvature slow roll "eternal" inflation, not chaotic (high curvature possible) inflation.
The universe expansion is actually slowing down because of gravity, but still the most distance you have from an object in space the faster you are moving away from it.
I appreciate this considerable adjustment in the origin of everything. The “bang” part of cosmology always sounded suspicious, frankly, just as “speed of light” is very misleading, since lightspeed is an artifact (I believe?) of observing the speed of actuality, or the actualization, of anything. Sounds like Cosmology needs some better writers, or explicators.
I couldn't really understand the difference between the bang explosion & the fast expansion.. I still see them the same.. As long they both started from a tiny thing.
basically, there was just a seed which found rich soil and over the years it grew to become a full-fledged tree but the branches are becoming infinite and we don't know what could possibly stop it. the questions asked at the end means the same as to ask who put that seed in the first place and unfortunately we can't see further in the past because the light from that time has died. only a time machine can give the right answers but it has the same probability of existence as teleportation. it'll be interesting to see how quantum mechanics evolve in the future because that's the key to the door.
The video states that we don’t know whether time had a beginning or if it has existed forever. But if time has existed forever, wouldn’t the present moment have already passed (and not only that, but passed an infinitely long time ago)? The only way to say time has existed forever - without creating a paradox - is to claim a new “timepoint one” relative to our universe, at the moment where we can begin measuring / conceiving of things. Which is the same as saying that, for all intents and purposes, time had a beginning. Am I missing something?
I don't think time actually exists the way you think it does. Time, like the measurement of distance, is just a unit of measure. If you replace "time" with "meter" in your question it becomes meaningless, right? I think that is the way we need to look at time when trying to contemplate the early universe. There can never be a beginning to it. Does this help?
@@ronrothrock7116 If we are best served to use a functional definition of time (i.e., a measurement of change from State A to State B), then I think it highlights the need for my question. Why would the video claim that we don't yet know whether time had a beginning or if it has existed forever, if in fact _"there can never be a beginning to it"_ ? Thanks.
@@FruitOfTheSpirit Yeah, I see where you are going with this. This guy made this video to explain things as they were explained to him, but he doesn't UNDERSTAND all of what was explained to him. There are several major things he shows in this video that show his lack of comprehension on the topic.
It is certainly a fascinating subject. I have been an amateur astronomer and astrophotographer for many years and never cease to marvel at the beauty of the universe. How amazing it is that over the course of billions of years what once was a collection of atoms became stars that formed ever more complex matter, leading to the birth of planets and galaxies, and eventually life. One can only wonder at what exciting new discoveries will be made in the future, perhaps we may even discover how to travel to the stars, or even find alien intelligence.
I struggle with a lot of this. For starters (literally) I'm surprised he speaks throughout of space, not space-time. He doesn't mention that inflation was allowed to vastly exceed the speed of light because it was an expansion of space-time, dragging matter along with it (I do not think it is correct to imply, as he seems to, that matter only occurred after inflation ceased). Locations beyond the boundary of the observable universe can still recede from us faster than light, even though inflation is deemed to have ended (perhaps), because they belong to a different inertial frame; but that boundary shrinks and grows due to the variations in the rate of expansion, possibly causing matter to each side of it to cross the light-speed barrier in both directions. Inertial frames are a theoretical fiction (check out the definition in Wikipedia!) The correlation of distance with age accounts only for the time needed for light to get to us, ignoring the time needed for there and here to move apart. Cosmologists seem not to be fazed by any of this - but they never explain why. (Walliman appears not to be a cosmologist at all: he qualified as a quantum physicist.)
This was fascinating - and as a sidenote, I'm going to steal the phrase "updated my understanding" because it's really great. I teach physics, but since astronomy isn't covered in our curriculum, I talk about what I know when I get questions (which is frequently). Do you think I should change how I talk about the big bang? Once I simplify it to the middle school level, it doesn't seem to be much different from the previous explanation. I would appreciate your advice!
It’s worth remembering that the term ‘Big Bang’ was a derogatory term coined by Fred Hoyle intended to ridicule this theory and was not intended to describe what we now think of as the Big Bang. Unfortunately even those proposing this theory adopted the phrase with all its deficiencies and potential to generate misconceptions.
I have a problem with the "inherent energy" early in the video. Where did this inherent energy come from? What was outside this energy? what are we expanding into? Into nothing? What is nothing? What was before? Was it timeless, before?
Are you reffering to the tiny point of space which contained energy also called known as singularity?if so nobody knows where it came from or what happenned before it if anything or if something else could exist outside of it...space doesnt expand into nothingless it just expands...imagine that you have a blanket wrapped up and then you just keep pulling it from the corners causing it to stretch...there are some definitions of nothing.the first one is empty space(remove all planets,stars dust etc.) But you still have space so it is not trully nothingless..in the second one you remove space as well and you are closer to what we understand as absolutely nothingless...there was probably no time before the big bang since it needs space to exist
This is one of the best explanations I've seen of these concepts, in large part because at the end you just plainly state "we don't know" in response to the types of questions which naturally arise from hearing the theories. That's quite refreshing. Thank you for sharing this.
Thanks! Yeah I'm all about being honest about exactly what we do and don't know, and what we are likely to never know. That's just science! :D
@wzrubicon 1 In science it's usually the case that theories are also facts. Gravity is a theory, but you can't just float away. Electrons are a theory, but your electrical gadgets still work regardless. Tectonic plates are only a theory, but earthquakes still happen.
I get how this misunderstanding arises. In day to day life "theories" are ideas we have based on best guesses. In science the definition is different. A _theory_ is an explanatory model of a phenomena in nature based on the best available observational evidence. In order to qualify as a scientific theory, that model must be robustly backed up by a whole stack of verified facts. If it's not, that theory won't last long before being demolished.
At this point the Big Bang has been around as a theory nearly a century. At first it was just one of many competing models and it took many decades before the theory got traction as initially the evidence was lacking. But then in the 60s there was the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and since then a landslide of evidence brought in by modern technologies have only ever pointed towards the Big Bang. Every other model is now left for dead. Last I checked you could fit all the qualified physicists who still adhere to the Steady State Model today into the back of a small minibus - and all of them are past retirement age!
@wzrubicon 1 Here's a simple way of understanding of how the word theory is used in science, (problems with English language really). Some years ago I did an apprenticeship. One day a week I went to trade school. In the morning we were in a classroom where we learnt how to do various things, that class was called "theory", after lunch we went into the workshop and applied what we learnt in the classroom, that was called "Practical". Hope that helps, Cheers.
@@domainofscience “Have those who disbelieved not considered that the universe and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” (Quran 21:30)
This verse was mentioned 1400 years ago when recently 50 years ago Scientists just made up this big bang, why not study the Quran is ahead of science and truly is a miracle book which indicates to us that there is a creator and the Quran is the word of God. :)
@@CountScarlioni I've been aware of the Big Bounce for a decade and its becoming more accepted every day. You can't compare plate tectonics to the theory of creation of the universe. A much greater percentage of the big bang theory is conjecture. A lot of bad methodology has been going on in recent years with literally dozens of theories being proposed and all of them shown to be incorrect. Is it any wonder people have become cynical towards the scientific community. Christ, how much longer do we have to endure we may be in a simulation nonsense?
It’s more like a big expansion rather than an explosion
Indeed.
"An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner."
- Wikipedia
@@dariusduesentrieb Fair point.
I don't see the difference between expansion and explosion, they are the same thing to me.
@@manda3dprojects966 I find it helpful to think of a sheet of rubber - an explosion is where a single point expands while inflation is where the whole sheet is stretched in both directions at once.
Can't hardly wait for the new version in 10 years
Derrick Hodges that’s why it’s called a theory. It’s what is currently believed by scientists but nothing is 100% because there is so much stuff we don’t know
So why put bullshit like this into people's heads? They should keep their theory's to themselves, least until something halfway conceivable comes along.
@@compellinglyhigh646 Because its continual and gradual process to understanding... you don't go from understanding nothing to everything in one hit
@@jarrodgeikie870 you're smoking the wrong stuff then😤
@@compellinglyhigh646 It isn't bullshit. Scientific theories are the best current model to explain all the observations we see. As we observe more and more, the explanations will change, and so will the model. This is what makes science so reliable. We used to think we were made of the 5 elements, but now we know all matter is made of atoms and those atoms are made of even smaller particles. The newer theories are particularly prone to change, that is why you barely hear it outside of the science communities because it is not researched enough yet. The theory of evolution for example is hands down one of the most researched fields in science. It has definitely changed since its conception, but that doesn't automatically make it false. The ever-changing environment of science and our constant attempts to falsify the explanations we present is what makes it so reliable at explaining most things we observe in reality.
The Big Bang is still banging.
Faks
Both of you should give an award 😂
@@ryansandigan7184 you mean they should get an award, not give lolol
@UltimateGeek true tbh
No, expansion is still happening. The Big Bang was a single event.
So, it seems like you’re saying that the Big Bang theory doesn’t describe the creation of anything, it just describes how the universe changed from one form to another, right?
The common misconception is that "the big bang" is the creation of the universe, but that's not true. The BB actually starts after inflation.
Inflation is a thing we kind of pulled out of our arse to have an explanation for why the universe seems homogeneous on large scales (which means we are not in a special part of the universe). You see, if we look at one region of space and a random other, they look so similar (in temperature), but if we measure the speed and acceleration at which the universe is expanding, it doesn't add up. So scientists 'created' inflation so that it fits. There needs to be a force or some kind of field that made the universe grow exponentially for a very short period of time.
Neither the BB of inflation explain anything about where the singularity came from and what gave it a little push. (the push that lead to inflation, which made the universe stretch an enormous amount in about 10^-30 seconds. 300.000 y later, the universe kind of recovered from his asshole being teared up and reheated, after which the big bang started (which is going strong till this date).
Reheating, you say? Thank you for asking.
There probably is a field that was once veery strong and overpowered all other forces. Think of the field and its (potential) energy as a ball on top of a hill. It got a little push and started rolling off the hill, gaining speed at the steep part, which made it release its potential energy and made the universe stretch. Once it reached the bottom of the hill, the expansion started to slow down (i should say that the acceleration started to slow down) and the universe finally got a chance to form atoms and shit. That part is the reheating if I'm correct.
Btw, Inflation is also supported by something else:
The observable universe it not completely homegeneous. There are small fluctuations with regions slightly more dense or warmer than other regions. If the field (with the ball thingy and the hill thingy) was a normal field, that would raise questions on why it isn't completely homogeneous, but the field is actually a quantum field with small fluctuations in energy levels. While the ball was rolling down the steep part of the hill, in some parts there was a little bit more energy than in others, due to the small fluctuations in the field.
Want to watch a 24min interview with a marvelously interesting physicist on this? th-cam.com/video/m7C9TjdziPE/w-d-xo.html
everything i said here, comes from this mofo, I don't have the slightest clue what I'm talking about
@Sam Wilt
Yea, the big bang theory is bullshit
The universe was created by a sky fairy with magic, that's the only explanation that makes any sense at all!
The BB theory might be hard to swallow, and even scientists themselves aren't really sure how the universe we know today came to be, but don't pretend that relegion exppanations aren't just a bunch of fairy tales that someone pulled out of their asshole because it made them feel more confortable with existance, because that's just what they are.
Maybe 'creation' is not real. All.we've ever observed is things changing from one form to another. Maybe that's all there is . Change.
@Sam Wilt Yes, comfortably denying the mountains of evidence supporting the current expansion of the universe, which in turn leaves great evidence for the big bang. Just read the wikipedia article. You have a fundamental misconception of the universe and big bang, even though you commented on a video attempting to explain it. 'Nothing to something', please explain what that means. No scientist will say that, that is a layman term which is very misleading and is not accurate. If you actually listened to the video you would recall that ALL energy in the cosmos was together. You say the universe has a purpose, what is the purpose if you don't mind sharing? Your ignorance is astounding. You think science can't be trusted because the origin of the modern numerals came from India? The sun appears to rise and set because of earth's rotation about it's axis. Earth rotates to the east so the sun moves to the west. Earth's elliptical orbit also accounts for longer or shorter days. The 'chicken or egg' question shows that you, again, have a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution and speciation works. The modern chicken evolved from the red jungle fowl. You will know from basic biology class that evolution occurs over generations, over time. A non-chicken will not just produce a chicken in one generation. The genetic mutations and alleles will collect over time to produce enough variation and differences between the organisms until they are entirely different species. Please do more research before asking questions as you seem to have mistaken almost every field of study you have referenced...
Smartly presented and articulated. Gonna be showing this to my students:)
Clearly not smart , complete liars using pseudoscience
@@thewholetruth5173 In that case, I'd rather be listening to and reading pseudoscience, as you call it, than 'knowledge' written down by some supersticious chaps who lacked fundamental knowledge of science and mathematics and who had not a shred of hard evidence to back up their claims. In fact, there's a good example of pseudoscience for you...
@@thewholetruth5173 With a username like THAT, I don't WANT to know what you consider real science, lol.
Great, teaching the youth more bullshit that doesn't explain shit.
What evidence do they use to back their facts? Evidence sounding like opinions to me.
The beginning assumes that the universe is finite but unbounded.
We don't know this. Space is just as likely infinite; We have no reason to believe it wraps around on itself.
Except that it's the only thing that makes any sense. "Infinity" makes no sense, no matter what it refers to. It just means "anything goes". Might as well say "God did it". Means just the same.
@@kenlogsdon7095 God did it, but I'm guessing 'God' is not a man-like entity with white robes and a long beard.
@@shack8110 Well, it sure as Hell isn't the idiotic lunatic known as the Arabian Tribal War God of Abraham.
@@kenlogsdon7095 would you be so kind as to why "infinity makes no sense"? I'm new to this language and don't understand.
@@kenlogsdon7095
Roger that!
Very helpful. Thank you!
The Universe is constantly blowing my mind of how fascinating it all is. Just subbed. Wonderful video.
I am a muslimn the Qur’an talks about how did the universe begun... even tho these words r misleading: “ begun and the universe “ ...
I really honestly think we humans can’t n don’t know anything how it started; n our little physics ... can not pass the frontier of our tiny minds( in respect to the Big universe) we have no clue ... at all n we can’t even grasp our near by galaxy... let alone the bigger universe. It only shows our mediocre ignorance....
what then is the hope of man n his misguided science, ... well ... that is the real q’n. The truth is we have to re-evaluate what we have in hand ...n be honest with ourselves n seek for Allah sw... “He created the : Universe, n only He can provide answers, man wake up... n get out of ur feet..
The very word universe should tell you something 😉
0:25 13.8 Billion Years Ago
• No Matter • No Radiation
• Just Space
1:12 Energy Becomes Matter
1:45 Particles, Nuclei
2:37 Expansion Slowed, but today it is _Accelerating again_
3:12 The Cosmic Microwave Background
3:53 The Visible Universe is a small patch of the Total Universe
5:13 10^-33 seconds
Thanks haven't seen the video yet just scrolling through comments
Why later on the video he says something about a radius of 46.5 billion light years? Does it make any sense, if the universe was on it's earlier stages at 13.8 billion years ago?
@Bruce Zar 'empty space' isn't really 'empty'. It has a non-zero energy density or 'vacuum energy'. th-cam.com/video/J3xLuZNKhlY/w-d-xo.html
@@ceticamente th-cam.com/video/XBr4GkRnY04/w-d-xo.html
@@girv98 thanks!
He said within a microsecond it started to cool, but even time was expanding. So the perception of a second might have seamed an eternity in itself.
*spacetime was expanding, not time
@@girv98 I did not mean to suggest that only time was expanding. Yes, time and space are inseparable components of the same fabric.
@Donald Kasper Good point, Mr. KP . . . and, yup, I admit: that's me !
@Donald Kasper what you said doesn't make sense. Gravity is also a concept we made up in order to understand the attraction of masses. Math is something we made up aswell, if you think about it. Time exists in the universe and it's directly related to the mass of objects, hence "time-space". Of course, we adapted it in a way where we can measure it on our own terms. Perhaps, that's why its concept seems made up. The heavier the mass of an object, the more it bends space. Therefore, in that given object, time goes on more slowly. In black holes, time actually stops. Time exists just as much as space does. They are intertwined.
@Donald Kasper if you're saying that, you really don't unterstand astronomy. Fun fact: time passes more slowly near the pyramid of Giza, in Egypt. Of course, the difference is really small, but it's true.
Mass distorts space. The bigger the distortion, the bigger the gravity pull and the slower time goes by. It's very interesting.
The most amazing thing is that we can possibly be completely wrong
Scientific concepts are always so much clearer when they're illustrated in a chalkboard-like font. ^^
4:43 this image of 'milky way' is a good example of optical illusion.
Hooray for the neutrinos!! They freed themselves from bondage!! (1:39)
🥳
Neutrino Life Matters.
When I studied astronomy 15 years ago, the timeline we were taught went like this: Planck time (10^-44 s), annihilation, inflation (10^-32 s), end of beta decay (1 sec), nucleosynthesis (10 min). I haven't followed any recent developments in the field since then, but it seems that a popular theory now is that (all?) matter was created during inflation. This theory might be quite new, since I don't remember studying it in this way. Thanks for the reply.
Fermilab say 13.8 billion years ago: 0 extremely high energy (Unknown physics) 10^-43s Inflation period: Expand space faster than the speed of light and cool relatively slowly 10^-36s strong force differentiated itself from the 3 other forces in the unified force causing visible universe to inflate from something about the size of an atom to something about the size of a grapefruit 10^-32s expanding universe but coasting 10^-13s expansion coasts and we have hard data (cosmic microwave background radiation with 2700°C temperature)
What reply?
Here is an updated version
*we don't know*
good job
smart
Thank you publisher for clearer explanation of 1) inflation 2) big bang 3)flatness of spacetime 4)the visible universe and their implications .my errors, inaccuracies and wrong conclusions have gone for 30 years .thanks for this new more correct insight. PS the diagrams are very effective.
"We don't know if time started or has existed forever"
Well Time is only a way to measure change. Something that can change has to exist for "time" to exist.
Vishnu is singularity and then proton electron neutron became a atom means Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma became a full any.. and all expended.. all universe made up of atoms that's why God is everywhere .... ... So I'm God God is great
Well, and something in which to compare a time in relation to another time needs to exist, as time has no coherence without a contrasting comparative.
@@ffejpsycho Not in particular, a clock (in the einstein sense) can exist alone and keep track of time.
A fundamental clock is just something that changes.
Einstein used the example of the photon clock (a photon bouncing between two mirrors), it can also be a single particle swapping one of it's properties, like spin.
There is no need for additional things to compare, the distance between changes is an unit of time.
Oh, shit just missed the 9.20 train to work.
@@zuubaa239 brother broaden your knowledge limits.... There are hundreds of more sub-atomic particles (like positron) so you can't compare electron, proton and neutron to GOD "Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma" .
you can't start with saying 'this was already here'! that's the bit we want!
Nailed it Dexter!! Exactly!
Isnt that how the bible starts?
A guy without parents after hard party decided to make a simulation?
@@dr_birb everything bangs everything in the bible
@@dr_birb Jesus Christ is waiting for you
The others are missing your point. (i.e., point of singularity) All this new theory does is try to say there was no "beginning point" and argue that a bunch of stuff was already here - and that's what got everything going. Yah, good luck with forwarding that!
Thank you for this well made presentation and explanation!
Offtopic: may I ask what you used for animating?
A computer probably.
ok i precise my question: Which program/app/tool was used to animate?
@@skjelm6363 I guess Windows 7 or 10 with mouse and keyboard
Hey thanks! I use illustrator for the drawings and after effects for the animations.
@@domainofscience Thanks a lot!
I just watched a Fermilab video claiming we do know how long inflation lasted, it was very brief (can't recall the exact number, but it was basically a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second) and the universe expanded to the size of grapefruit at faster than light speed
This channel is sooo underrated! You deserve so many more subscribers.
Its youtube the number of subs may only incease
Thanks! I'm getting there, one video at a time. :D
@@domainofscience
Can you explain what do you mean by saying that inflation stopped and the universe is expanding? Isn't it a continuous inflation?
This isn't science , complete pseudoscience. Easily proven false , earth is young proven with real science testable observable and repeatable using logic and reasoning.
@@opus53waldstein70 yes it is. but inflation is a name for the stage of the early universe where it expanded faster than light in all directions and what he means is that this early phase of rapid expansion stopped and the "normal" slower expansion we have now started..
Hey there DOS,
I really love and appreciate your videos and how much effort you put into them especially your "map" videos so could please make a map of Rocket science😁
"space is flat"
Flat earthers: told ya so
Actually, the measurement for this came out with a 0.004% (or something) when looking for curvature. We have no idea whether this was an error from the instruments, or if the universe is actually curved, but to such a small degree compared to our standpoint. It also means that our universe is waaay bigger than it thought it would be.
LOL
You gotta give em credit since they can at least recognize animation from real video unlike the special group 😂
Not too bad! Mind you in an Inflation model the initial expansion could be so fast (say 50,000 times lightspeed) that fragments of spacetime casually disconnected - moved away from each other so fast that once inflation stopped - the traveling fragments of the aftermath are receding so fast that radiation from them can't every reach us. So Inflation can create a fragmentation model of expansion and we just happen to live in one fragment. If this is the case it might explain why the expansion of spacetime is speeding up. Dark energy might just be the residual radiating gravity wells of all the other fragments - finally starting to reach our fragment of the universe from all directions speeding us up. There are theories that the minute variations in the Cosmic Background radiation are just tiny pockets of patches of greater energy - but a glimse through our observable universe to slightly hotter points some of which may be other faint receding other fragments of the universe flying away from us. Personally the fragmented universe model is worth consideration to see under what constraints it would readily explain why spacetime expansion slowed down (radiation of our fragments gravity well) and then sped up - interaction with other receding fragment's residual gravity wells...
Please do an episode on the Cosmic Neutrino Background.
My wife's cousin, Frederick Reines, co-discovered the neutrino and was awarded a Nobel Prize for it. My mother-in-law's last name was Reines. It seems that the mystery of the size, scope, structure, and motion of the cosmos is matched by the unresolved understanding of quantum particles. Is it possible that each particle is infinitely reducible into smaller and smaller components? In that sense, each particle may be a universe unto itself with parts that are as tiny compared to the overall structure, as we are to the known universe. Just exercising the capacity for philosophical awe.
Phil Wilson
(I’ll prefix this with my standard disclaimer that I’m discussing the edges of my own understanding. I’ll, of course, be happy for any clarification on any errors I’m introducing here.)
Not necessarily smaller particles. I think particles and waves might be considered hold overs from classical physics. Perhaps it’s more appropriate to consider them fluctuations in fields?
So a photon is a fluctuation in the electromagnetic field. Electrons and positrons are fluctuations in the electron field. Etc.
We have as many fields as are needed to describe the standard model. One for each type of quark, lepton, etc.
The main stand out is, of course the graviton as it not only describes gravity but also spacetime itself. In Relativity, spacetime is smooth and certain. In a quantum theory of gravity it would presumably be quantized and uncertain which is problematic to say the least.
Also unknown would be dark matter, supersymmetry, etc. Saw a recent video (PBS Spacetime, I think) questioning if the hypothetical axion could be responsible for dark matter.
I’ve also heard that it may be possible that the hypothetical inflaton field responsible for may also be responsible for dark energy.
@@philwilson609 I completely agree with your theory here. I've believed this is the case for a very long time. We just don't have the tools to measure anything smaller than a photon. We sorta see Neutrinos, but only barely. I believe the universe is infinitely small as well as large, but we just don't have the ability to measure within a certain range. Before telescopes and microscopes we had no clue just how large or small things were. What we use for tools now only expand what we can observe, but the most likely case is that there is smaller and larger out there. I'm really glad someone else has this understanding, too!
Definitely not what we think it is
Very interesting and useful video. It made me think of the following...
Lets represent our knowledge being contained in a sphere getting larger and larger as we heuristically obtain information. Accordingly its surface increases proportionally and is bordering the the Unknown. So the more we know, the more we understand how little we know.
But nevertheless it is our call to know more and more and to explore.
Don't you think so too?
Really good narration, thanks!
But the real question is what happend before the big bang
It's a bit of a nonsensical question because there's no way of answering it.
Chuck Norris
Well that is what science hasn’t discovered it yet. But according to religious views and quotes you can go further.
@@Hans_247 rather get my fiction from tolkien
@@ivarbaratheon264 At least you'd have a source - atheists, on the other hand, have nothing to quote when it comes to _their_ fiction ;)
5:24 "We can never see back farther then that because the information simply does not exist in our universe
We can see back farther. The answer is in the Bible:
*Genesis 1:1-5 KJV:* In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, *Let there be light:* and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Bible say that the Earth is flat lol
And the earth is 10 000 y/o
And that whales are fish
So...
@@The_Qu Is this from the KJV? (King James Version) because in Isaiah 40:22 KJV it says It is he that sitteth upon the *circle* of the earth...
@@Immission idk (not Christian)
I just watched a debate between flat earther and scientists
And the flat earthers used verses from the bible
(And btw it s said circle not round
Even flat earther say it a circle so..)
And what about 10 000y/o earth u can t deny this one
Or whales are fish (i even found someone who s a young earth believer that denied this argumemt saying that God doesn't care if it s mammals if it swims it s a fish and this is stupid)
And yeah what about "nothing died before humans existed (or sinned or smt) what did carnivore dinosaurs eat? Grass??
I hope you will disprove these argument then Christianity could be right
If you can t well... it s probably wrong (or some people just chaged the books as they wanted that explains why there are many versions)
4:15 but is that model drawn to scale??
Edit: Man, Many people aren't getting the joke!
Most likely not, nobody really knows how large the whole universe is, AT LEAST it's for sure orders of magnitude bigger
@@drew8443 r/whoooosh
Rodoks42 probably trillions of light years
Please do a vid on how black hole visualizations are inconsistent with the theory.
Too many show a spinning disc of matter blue shifting and rotation increasing the closer to the event horizon when the rotation actually would appear to slow and redshift the closer to the EH as time dilation slows light.
@S C It's been explained onYt that an outside observer would watch something approach the EH, slow to a stop, redden, then fade from view. It's very noticeable.
You deserve an oscar for your maps! Cheers from Germany
"End of inflation" Huh the "to be" Cosmos went from 10-32 sec to 10+30 Sec.... sure sounds like a big bang given commercial explosives are up to 25,000 fps....
So, cool. It still leaves me with a question I’ve been pondering for years...what is beyond the universe?
sandy roberts-anderson There’s no way to answer for sure. Many believe in a multiverse theory in which there potentially are infinite universes.
Others say that this universe in and of itself is infinite, so nothing is “beyond it”.
That question kind of doesn't make any sense actually, the universe by the definition is some type of "catch all" concept, there isn't anything "outside" the universe, everything is the universe, including you.
Your explanation is great
Seems to me by definition time must have existed forever because ''forever' is a measurement of time and without time there is nothing for it to measure.
Well, while true, that was unhelpful. :p
If the only thing that is forever is "space" and "time", then why do they think they began during the Big Bang? :p
@@FullAfterburner Yes, I think most people know the math end in a singularity. There buy proving that our the math so far is wrong. This is why I didn't use math but rather simple logic. ie. no matter how granular it gets it's still time. There is nothing before time because you would need time for anything to change. So the universe has existed forever. In short;
before time is a self refuting statements.
@@FullAfterburner Explain the connection to time not existing.
@@FullAfterburner Woo hoo!. Get that published quickly to get your Nobel prize! Oh wait. Your using self referencing logic and mathematical representations of time and not what time actually is.
“Time is a wave“ Think about that statement for a sec. You can’t have a wave without time already functioning. A Wave describes changes over time. What your talking about is like gravity. Sure we can observe it and know how to use it in calculations but that’s a far cry from knowing what it is. Or where it comes from.
Are you one of the people that believe that numbers are real things and not just a useful tool? Do you think time exists simply because we can measure it's affects?
@@FullAfterburner Offended? Of course not. I had found it a little humorous, In a “student just learned a new thing and wants to use it despite It being off topic” kind of way. It’s not like I’m arguing against your math. I’m trying to point out your missing the point as it’s NOT a math problem. It’s a logic problem. And to understand why your having trouble with that I postulated that your a subscriber to the idea that math is a real thing. As it’s common for them to not understand the difference between a thing and a mathematical description of the properties of a thing.
It is true that if you where to confirm that you believe math is a real thing that I would bail on you. No arguing with crazies and I could not see a way to get you on topic if that was the case. Either way, if all you have is the mathematical description of properties then I at least understand why you didn’t get my original post and we’ll leave it at that.
new favorite channel,..gonna binge
"Once upon a time, a long, long, long...... time ago."
in a thousand theories explanation later.
Excellent lesson. A bit difficult to understand for obvious reasons. This subject is very complicated naturally. 👏👏👏👏
How can space double in size?
Doesn't the concept of size already assumes space?
Does this mean that the space we are talking about is expanding into another space, which also imply that the outer space is the real space?!
I think it was just an analogy to understand spaces growth
It's a hard concept to grasp. The "space" outside of the space we're familiar with is better described as nothing. I say this because it is thought to be impossible to ever know what's outside of the bubble of space (let alone interact with it). So if it can't affect what happens inside of the bubble of space and we can't prove any theories about it, we can essentially leave it out. Until something happens that reverses this view, we can for all practical purposes assume it to be nothing.
@@boddahboy I think it's more rational to say that we don't know what Space is. Empty Space is already conceptualized as "Nothing", or "No-Thing". Of course this can't be understood in an absolute sense, since "No-thing" is still something.. whatever that something is.
@@ChannelDefault I agree, we certainly don't understand space fully. When I say space, I refer to a volume within our known universe, devoid of any known particles. When I say nothing, I do not mean anything like space described above, but explicitly that which lies outside of the universe and is unknowable. For me those two things are completely separate concepts.
No there is no outer space that we know of. An example of space doubling in size would be this. Imagine two stars sitting stationary in space, they are not moving relative to each other through space, but because the space in between them is expanding, they keep getting further and further away from each other. Now the difficulty with this picture is that space itself isn't measurable. We can't just stab flags into the fabric of space to keep track of how far away different points are, we have to look at things like stars in space and see how they move. So with my star example, how do we know if they are stationary in an expanding space, or if they are actually moving away from each other in a non-expanding space? Well we can't know this if we just look at two stars. But we can tell the difference if we look at all of the stars, and when we look out into space, everything is moving away from everything else all the time. Not only that they are *accelerating* away from each other, the only explanation we have for this is that space itself keeps expanding.
really nice explanation thanks
We can’t even cure a cold,and you’re going to tell me the complexities of the beginning of this universe? Cool.
Henry You presume that it is light from the start of the universe. Mankind is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness that we have emerged from as the vastness that we are engulfed in
comparing apples to oranges.
Why the hell do we need a cure for a cold? If you don't treat your body like shit you'd get over a cold in three to four days. Might not even get a cold at all if you take care yourself.
Reason why we have theories because research. Making a vaccine or antibiotic is much more complicated than solving equations of physics, coming up with theories and just looking through a incredibly advanced telescope that has filters that can see hydrogen atoms, iron and etc. Technology is the sole reason we have these theories for the universe itself but I'm assuming you believe it was made by a bearded man who said "Let there be light."?
Cold isn't a disease dumbass, it's your body's immunity system fighting against infection or viruses.
Also its been well established that curing viruses is basically impossible in the way you think...
That's bizarre, so there were no particles/matter during inflation, and they appeared later? Does that mean that there was an extra dimension, that got so thin due to the stretching, that it couldn't contain the energy it had within and had no choice but to turn into particles/matter?
Are you ever going to do a map of engineering?
Engineering ∉ Science
I also want to know this
I'd love to yeah, I just need to find the time!
I'd like to add something to Dirk's comment. I'm sorry, but engineering can't exist without science as science can't exist without engineering. Asking what is 'more' relevant or important between the two is like asking what is the most useful word between 'why' and 'how'. The question itself is meaningless.
By cruelly simplifying, one understands how stuff that exists 'can or may' be, and the other understands how things 'are, were and will' be. The other "thing" that understands stuff that exist, using some stuff that doesn't (unless you are not a Platonist) exist, is Mathematics. In the end, it's all about stuff being understood by using other stuff that may or may not exist.
Neat!
Uhhhhhh any more videos or explanations on recombination? 1:59 to be exact
How can a nucleus with protons be stable w/o the electron "neutralizing" it? Wouldn't the repulsive force not allow that? Or was the strong nucleur force even...stronger (?) back then?
Yes.
This video has so many more holes in it than that though. Good catch!
"Just forms clump." Yeah that explains it.
Yes! Finally somebody that questions what these morons are spewing out on a regular basis! Pseudoscience!
@@user-ys9to2ie7k And you have the actual explanation?
@@jns8393 That's the problem! All scientists think they have the explanation, but it's all derived from nothing but pseudoscience.
@@user-ys9to2ie7k No, science offers the best explanation/model based on the evidence at the time. The model is subject to revision in the light of new evidence and that's a major strength of science. Twice you have mentioned pseudoscience. Perhaps you'd care to explain what you think real science is and propose a better method of understanding.
@@jns8393 it could be compared to the pathological liar. Starts with one lie and habitually continues to add to the LIE and at the end you have a story that is so far-fetched all brought about by pseudologia fantastica or pseudoscience!
Maybe the start of inflation should be a philosophical question?
I'm frequently being told that at the time of the big bang the gravitational forces were unfathomably strong, almost infinate. Now, we know that gravitation influence time. A strong gravitational field slows down time. So, when you say a few seconds after big bang or inflation or whatever, are you then referring to the slow seconds of that time, or seconds as we perceive them today on Earth? Since a second went slower back then, it may well have lasted as long as one of our present years. Could the big bang have been a rather slow flow of events, pretty much like what we experience today? I'm just curious.
Don't forget time is relative to the observator point of view. If you are really near a black hole for instance, someone far away will see you as a motionless object. But you will experiment time normally.
@@docgonzobordel Exactly. So when we observe the first second of big bang it should be like observing something very close to a black hole.
@@syspangylium But you can't stand and observe it out of it since the Universe contain everything by definition. You are part of it and there is no exterior to observe from. And sorry for my english, probably.
@@docgonzobordel True. But the same is true for observing black holes. They are also part of the universe.
@@syspangylium No, you can observe black holes from the exterior. You can't do the same with the Universe. You can only observe the Universe from the "interior" since there is NO exterior. I dunno if I'm really clear..
1.End of inflation 2. Hot Big Bang 3. Nucleosynthesis 4. Recombination 5. First stars begin to shine 6. First galaxies form 7. Today. This reminds me of something.
“I’m gonna tell you why all these models that explain the beginning of the universe starting with a big explosion that expands space and time as a cone is wrong”... Then proceeds to explain that the beginning of the universe started with a big expansion that eventually describes a cone.
I say that space was already there, just the mixing of the atoms, particles and molecules made light what made heat, what attracted planets, made new planets and is still in control of outa space like it always has been.
@@chapo335 problem.
Space expanded.
What caused that.
That is breaking the laws of physics until fixed.
You're way oversimplifying this
Your work is in a word
"Extremely Wonderful "💙
According to the speaker, the earliest stage of the universe didn’t contain any stuff such as matter or radiation. It was just “pure space,” and this space had “energy.”
However, looking back from our present perspective, it is difficult to ignore the fact that this alleged initial state of “pure space and energy” not only seems to have been imbued with every possible ingredient necessary to awaken us into existence, but also...
(like some kind of cosmic “seed”)
...possessed an inherent teleological impetus to carry the process to its ultimate and obvious fruition.
Don’t allow yourself to be distracted by cosmological jargon and clever illustrations, and pay attention to statements such as this:
“...the energy inherent in space was “turned into” stuff: matter, anti-matter, particles, and radiation.”
All of which (if we follow his logic) was then “turned into” the unthinkably precisioned workings of our earth/sun system.
In other words, we’re simply supposed to believe that the utterly ham-handed processes of gravity and thermodynamics were somehow able to cause random and disparate particles of matter to coalesce into a context of mechanistic order that defies our comprehension.
The point is that ambiguous phrases such as “turned into” must not be allowed to just slip-by unchallenged.
_______
TheUltimateSeeds matter is condensed energy, as the equation E=mc^2 shows, where Evis energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light
@@naturegirl1999
Hi Danielle, I'm not real sure of how your statement relates to the point I was making. Please explain what you are getting at.
@@TheUltimateSeeds It Means that energy and matter are the same thing, so there is no evidence or need for a "seed" as you call it
@@chiararosati2162
Hi Chiara, what I stated was meant to be taken as a metaphor.
As was suggested in my first post, the “evidence” of the universe having a “seed-like” beginning is implicit in the very story of its existence (or at least in the story suggested by the Big Bang theory).
I mean, the fact that it allegedly began as a tiny kernel of compressed matter that was not only imbued with everything necessary to “grow and blossom” into the fully-fruitioned structure we see today, but also contained some form of informationally-based impetus to achieve its goal,...
...seems to be a perfect representation of the seed analogy.
Indeed, it was a blossoming that has now yielded the fruit of life and consciousness.
In which case, what does the “Physics 101” fact of energy and matter being the same thing have anything to do with the metaphorical point I was making?
Furthermore, what does it have to do with my criticism of the video presenter stating that...
“...the energy inherent in space was ‘turned into stuff’...”
...as if we are all simply supposed to take it for granted that the blind and mindless energy inherent in space is somehow capable of turning itself into, again, a context of mechanistic order that defies our comprehension?
_______
TheUltimateSeeds energy didn’t turn into matter, matter *is* energy. Thermodynamics states that energy will spread out to increase entropy. Temperature is atoms and molecules moving so the less heat there is, the less particles move, this would allow for positive and negative charges to attract each other, allowing the quarks to make proteins and neutrons
thanks i just have a few questions. what is time? what is space? is radiation materia? how to tell if something is curved or not?
Finally, an accurate, concise, and intelligent explanation I can show my daughter! Thanks
I knew big bang is very commonly misunderstood concept, but I never realized how wrong I was until now 😂
@Booth it's also misunderstood
>> "It's because this is the best description we have that matches the things we observe in the universe today"
This is interesting because that means if there are more models which also explain what we observe, that those could also potentially be correct: "What really happened".
Including some seriously different ideas which have been debated for ages but always dismissed because of certain presuppositions.
How is light stretching apart?
How can we measure it?
...
Time (as I think) is just a sequence of all physical stances (moments) with measurable properties. So theoretically we could make "time travelling" locally by creating definite any process backwards, at least on molecular level with energy balance. The energy cost however may be unverificably high.
Redshift is measured. E.g. spectral lines can appear at a different position in the spectrum if the light source moves with respect to the detector.
@@Hecatonicosachoron It is. And there should be a way (formula) to bind those light properties with the space itself as it's expanding or shrinking.
@@deadboy4735 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Expansion_of_space
for a start
Sources please? It's not that I don't believe you, it's that I love reading papers on cosmology and don't believe you ;)
Physics papers are very technical and there is a lot of papers that you would need to go through. As a better alternative for a technical exposition to Cosmology might I suggest Barbara Ryden's 'Introduction to Cosmology (2016)'. It's an excellent book for people looking for a technical exposition to get acquainted with the subject.
How do we define and measure time? For instance, why did neutrinos get free after 1 second? And is it possible that there are interactions that change time itself? These questions probably sound weird to a physicist, but it just seems to me that we have so many particles to describe forces and phenomena but none for time itself. Could it be that time is a higher order thing that emerges from some interactions?
Time is a measurement of change.
It emerges from change.& btw it is relative(ie) it is different for different places and so on.
Time is fundamental like space or spatial dimensions.(i.e. space-time)
John Tibaldi If as you asked that time was indeed “a higher order thing that emerges from some interaction.” then you would have to explain how could these interactions take place without time being present for them to interact in? Nothing can happen without time.
@@E.T.S. mind is officially blown. Thanks for that
@@johntibaldi9496 well thermodynamical arrow of time is different from psycological arrow if time btw.& theres cosmological arriw of time too.
It is exactly what I know it to be.
Man's attempt to be god.
More like man's attempt to explain everything we observe in reality to the best of our abilities from our observations through constant falsification and research. Also called science.
Choo Jun Wyng somewhat accurate. But it goes beyond that deception. Goes to trying to concoct an explanation in the name of science that actually voids principles of scientific reason and methodologies. Typically the domain of the godless factions of the ‘scientific’ community.
@@graphguy What explanations have we concocted? Please give some examples of scientists voiding scientific principles to find an explanation to something. Your first comment in the beginning was not related at all to why we want to explain things in the first place. What do you even mean by man's attempt to be god? Does trying to find the best explanation for a phenomenon count as trying to be god? Science doesn't fake explanations. We don't know who or what caused the big bang. We don't know who or what was the reason behind abiogenesis. We do not know a lot of things. It would be in our best interests to find out the cause behind them.
Every time I see more detailed explanation about the universe I get more and more convinced that someone just configured a program, wrote some basic rules and ran the program. There are so many things that just work like that. Makes no sense, but they just work like that.
Ye my friend its kind of a scam 😂
I went to school with a girl who's nickname was "BIG BANG" 😆
At 2:05 "photons fly free," think Tom Hanks in Cast Away after making fire; the sparks go up, "you're free!"
Something from nothing equals God.Keep looking.
Michael Cascio So funny
You mean that god that came from nothing?
@@TheFreeBass Yes.
The bible's God's name is legit "I AM" meaning he is a constant without beginning outside of time able to create and manipulate time.
@@artysanmobile I find it funny.
The best explanation is 5:26 .
If i understood right, the information of how the universe was "created" (for lack a better word) is simply not available and may never be.
Its at the same time frustrating and humbling (in a good way) because we see we are punching way above our weight with the current technology.
I'm so early in comment section big bang hasn't even occured
In 500 years this model will be looked back upon as ridiculously primitive.
No you can do that right now...
Big Bang theory dates back from the 1930's (more or less) so be sure it will change within 40 years.
Keep it real, save our time and just say y'all don't know shit
thanks for clearing this up!
No Human:
God: You have it all wrong!!!!
@@AReallyLongAndUnremakableUser Godville
@@AReallyLongAndUnremakableUser i believe in Scientology
@@AReallyLongAndUnremakableUser what's your religion?
@@AReallyLongAndUnremakableUser i made a joke and you're taking it very seriously
@@AReallyLongAndUnremakableUser Yes that would be the trinity.
Short, as accurate as possible in this short time and nice visualisation... Great job 👍👍
2020 and people still think that our universe is made with luck..
Just stumbled on this channel. Thanks for the well put together and informative videos. Subscribed!
I dunno. This is a good shot at it, but I'm still confused. I've read/heard a number of times that it was roughly the size of a grapefruit at the *completion* of inflation. Like, around 10 ^-33 or thereabouts. Then they say that it's wrong to think about it originating from a certain place, i.e. that it's "everywhere". Now, I get that "everywhere" was all compressed into the smaller thing, if that's what they're chasing. But that kind of seems like a copout. Anyway, I think you did well, being candid about what we don't know. Which is quite a bit. Though it's amazing what we do know too. I'll keep at it, but I've read just about everything I can. Feel like I need more math.
I wrote a sci-fi story in the 80's for a creative writing class that centered around the creation of a faster than light method of travel. While doing research for the story (the teacher insisted that we use actual scientific papers and text books upon which we based our stories), the evolved into a paper about a rather obscure hypothesis that the big bang is a cyclic event where the universe is trying to achieve a perfect balance between space/time and energy. That equilibrium never occurs, according to this hypothesis (it was from a book written in the 70's) because as space/time gains equilibrium in one area of space, energy within that area becomes matter and displaces space/time. Space/time then causes all that matter to condense into smaller and smaller volumes while increasing its mass until it becomes a black hole. Eventually space/time manages to condense all matter into a single black hole and that black hole dissipates, causing the cycle to begin again perpetually. I wish I remember the book I was reading, because that hypothesis seems to explain so many inconsistencies of the big bang and I'd like to know if any further research was conducted to make it an alternative theory of the creation of the universe.
If i talked about this to my teachers they would not believe me because it is not in the "books".
nicely explained- a whole semester 'intro to cosmology' lecture in
But don't General Theory of Relativity predicts that the universe shall began from singularity?
I really liked this. first time watcher here, thinking about subbing
Dear Dominic,
I found this as most lucid TH-cam video on 'Big Bang' theory in cosmology and quantum physics. Also, almost accurate. Thank you Dr. Dominic Walliman for your valuable efforts.
Nice update - one less erroneous exposition. Besides the Hot Big Bang, I gather from PBS series that the general big bang is defined as the period of low Hubble rate (after inflation) by most in the newest generation of astrophysicists. One additional point is that the new meme is that "inflation puts the bang in big bang" since the release of potential energy even at that stage drives initial expansion. Also, Planck 2018 final data review could model the dust noise sufficiently that they showed inflation both in cosmic background amplitude and polarization spatial spectra, so it seems fairly safe - they could tell it is low curvature slow roll "eternal" inflation, not chaotic (high curvature possible) inflation.
Great job Dom! Love your style. Many thanks for the update! 🦍
What was the universe expanding and inflating into?
The universe expansion is actually slowing down because of gravity, but still the most distance you have from an object in space the faster you are moving away from it.
I appreciate this considerable adjustment in the origin of everything. The “bang” part of cosmology always sounded suspicious, frankly, just as “speed of light” is very misleading, since lightspeed is an artifact (I believe?) of observing the speed of actuality, or the actualization, of anything.
Sounds like Cosmology needs some better writers, or explicators.
I couldn't really understand the difference between the bang explosion & the fast expansion.. I still see them the same.. As long they both started from a tiny thing.
I'm surprised that even documentary from Discovery Channel etc. gives a wrong / misleading description
basically, there was just a seed which found rich soil and over the years it grew to become a full-fledged tree but the branches are becoming infinite and we don't know what could possibly stop it. the questions asked at the end means the same as to ask who put that seed in the first place and unfortunately we can't see further in the past because the light from that time has died. only a time machine can give the right answers but it has the same probability of existence as teleportation. it'll be interesting to see how quantum mechanics evolve in the future because that's the key to the door.
The video states that we don’t know whether time had a beginning or if it has existed forever. But if time has existed forever, wouldn’t the present moment have already passed (and not only that, but passed an infinitely long time ago)?
The only way to say time has existed forever - without creating a paradox - is to claim a new “timepoint one” relative to our universe, at the moment where we can begin measuring / conceiving of things. Which is the same as saying that, for all intents and purposes, time had a beginning.
Am I missing something?
I don't think time actually exists the way you think it does. Time, like the measurement of distance, is just a unit of measure. If you replace "time" with "meter" in your question it becomes meaningless, right? I think that is the way we need to look at time when trying to contemplate the early universe. There can never be a beginning to it. Does this help?
@@ronrothrock7116 If we are best served to use a functional definition of time (i.e., a measurement of change from State A to State B), then I think it highlights the need for my question. Why would the video claim that we don't yet know whether time had a beginning or if it has existed forever, if in fact _"there can never be a beginning to it"_ ?
Thanks.
@@FruitOfTheSpirit Yeah, I see where you are going with this. This guy made this video to explain things as they were explained to him, but he doesn't UNDERSTAND all of what was explained to him. There are several major things he shows in this video that show his lack of comprehension on the topic.
It is certainly a fascinating subject. I have been an amateur astronomer and astrophotographer for many years and never cease to marvel at the beauty of the universe. How amazing it is that over the course of billions of years what once was a collection of atoms became stars that formed ever more complex matter, leading to the birth of planets and galaxies, and eventually life. One can only wonder at what exciting new discoveries will be made in the future, perhaps we may even discover how to travel to the stars, or even find alien intelligence.
I struggle with a lot of this. For starters (literally) I'm surprised he speaks throughout of space, not space-time. He doesn't mention that inflation was allowed to vastly exceed the speed of light because it was an expansion of space-time, dragging matter along with it (I do not think it is correct to imply, as he seems to, that matter only occurred after inflation ceased). Locations beyond the boundary of the observable universe can still recede from us faster than light, even though inflation is deemed to have ended (perhaps), because they belong to a different inertial frame; but that boundary shrinks and grows due to the variations in the rate of expansion, possibly causing matter to each side of it to cross the light-speed barrier in both directions. Inertial frames are a theoretical fiction (check out the definition in Wikipedia!) The correlation of distance with age accounts only for the time needed for light to get to us, ignoring the time needed for there and here to move apart. Cosmologists seem not to be fazed by any of this - but they never explain why. (Walliman appears not to be a cosmologist at all: he qualified as a quantum physicist.)
Thank you.... You've made it more clear than any professor I've ever had. Cheers!
Could you do the map of Philosophy?
This was fascinating - and as a sidenote, I'm going to steal the phrase "updated my understanding" because it's really great.
I teach physics, but since astronomy isn't covered in our curriculum, I talk about what I know when I get questions (which is frequently). Do you think I should change how I talk about the big bang? Once I simplify it to the middle school level, it doesn't seem to be much different from the previous explanation. I would appreciate your advice!
It’s worth remembering that the term ‘Big Bang’ was a derogatory term coined by Fred Hoyle intended to ridicule this theory and was not intended to describe what we now think of as the Big Bang. Unfortunately even those proposing this theory adopted the phrase with all its deficiencies and potential to generate misconceptions.
I have a problem with the "inherent energy" early in the video. Where did this inherent energy come from? What was outside this energy? what are we expanding into? Into nothing? What is nothing? What was before? Was it timeless, before?
Are you reffering to the tiny point of space which contained energy also called known as singularity?if so nobody knows where it came from or what happenned before it if anything or if something else could exist outside of it...space doesnt expand into nothingless it just expands...imagine that you have a blanket wrapped up and then you just keep pulling it from the corners causing it to stretch...there are some definitions of nothing.the first one is empty space(remove all planets,stars dust etc.) But you still have space so it is not trully nothingless..in the second one you remove space as well and you are closer to what we understand as absolutely nothingless...there was probably no time before the big bang since it needs space to exist
very helpful thanks for the video :)