@@scudlee If it was the Snyder Cut, wouldn't that necessarily involve a lot of slow motion? So longer than two hours... plus some gratuitous grain handling shots with lens flare.
I recently watched a Minute Physics video where he gives a good explanation of the "what is space expanding into" question. If it's infinite then it's like the number line - you can scale any part of it as much as you want and it's still infinite. In other words, it expands into itself.
Best way to put it is to compare it to the question "where is the center of an infinite line" or "where is the beginning if a circle". Both are examples where the answer is simply "no". If the question is incoherent, the answer will also be incoherent. Some questions are inherently incoherent so as to be unanswerable. So, the answer to the question "what is the universe expanding into expanding into?" is "no".
What most forget is that when we talk about the big bang and the universe that's expanding from a tiny point, is still the portion of the universe that we consider observable at this moment. So around that blob that becomes our observable universe , is infinitely more universe which just expanded way faster than our portion At the moment of the big bang, space just sprang into existence everywhere, here, there, a gazillion billion light-years away. all at once. And it all started expanding as soon as it existed. So to recap, the descriptions of the big bang are ONLY OF OUR OBSERVABLE PORTION OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE! And I assumed the Universe to be infinite in size. But it would also work for a finite universe. At around 11:00 He says we could find the centre of a finite univere, but this is not necessarily true. If the Universe is shaped as a 4-dimensional version of a donut, it would be infinite still in distances that can be measured but the volume would be finite.
@@ScienceAsylum Linear time is a human construct necessary for the brain/ego to "get it." Time is a real thing, it does exist. BUT..... There is literally and exactly only ONE Moment of it. there is only NOW. everything is NOW, it just looks different because it is a different angle/frequency of the great universal hologram. Clif high says the "frequency of the universe is 22 trillion hz as a pulse, on and off. 'existence' reality-as-we-know-it then nothing/everything/all/none" Some people call the hologram "God" but it is you and you are it. like the matrix. and we are in it. This is base reality because to even be talking there has to be some existence in that/this base reality! PBS Space time has some very important videos about gravity being entropy at the 2d surface at the outer boundary of "this universe" in the last few episodes. a-mazing! So, here is the deal. The present moment is the gift. It's presence. It's teh Present. You can't "remember" without "that moment" being present here and now in "this moment". Our mind is scientifically proven to be non-local in time and non-local in space. we know this, look it up. I do like David Wilcock's first book _Source field Investigations_ for that reason, and that 1/5 of his 3" book is just references. Our "brain" is quantumly entangled. We know cellular structures in cells, called "Microtubules", open and close; creating a chamber of "quantum entanglement" when closed and then opening to gather/release information, then entangle, then open. The rate is about 40 hz, if i recall. Our brains entangle with "all that is" ~40 times a second. All cells, neurons too. Re-membering (like reattaching your thumb), remembering is viewing that moment of Now from a different perspective in the NOW. the fractal of the mind and universe is that amazing. Meditating does bring the mind into the present moment, ever more. And in doing so, we see further into the past (remember more), can see more and better outcomes and possibilities, and experience the present moment with more depth and clarity, simplicity and multi-faceted-ness. There is so much paradox to it, but that is also precisely what you are about. You crazies. 🤪 Interesting to note that the rational numbers are markers, labels, indicators of locations in the number line, but have no actual "space" within the number line. only irrational numbers contain "space" within the number line, and there are infinitely more irrational numbers between 0 and 1 than infinity itself. You know, Cardinality. Applied to TIME itself, there is an infinite amount of time we must wade through just to drink your covfefe [🤣]. The idea extends into space as well, they are one in the same. no? space-time? time-space? anyway. All space is HERE. All time is NOW. The stars and blackholes that you think are so far away? they are merely projections on the inside of your skull. They aren't that far away. The discussion of "space" being "One" is that it is one integrated field of itself. yes? all of it is all entirely entangled and in decoherence at the same time, always, now, right here. with you. It's in the room with you. Yes, it's behind you RIGHT NOW. [OMG] but don't bother looking. It'll only be MORE behind you when you look behind you. How do you know what is actually behind the wall? I personally like the "prime Radiant" concept, where everything is the same undifferentiated particle. It'd be like everything we see is more like the one giant particle that is carved out of the same piece of clay. Others have called it: The One Proton Model, The One Electron model, or, as Nassim puts it, the Schwarzschild Proton Model. I'll let Nassim describe his model.... WOW. I am a big fan of Nassim Haramein, what it could mean, and it's importance.... esp If true. stunning. It will need your specific level of expertise just to understand this video, my Science Asylum Friend. The audience of this video is the kind of scientist you are. "The [Quantum] Origin of Mass and Nature of Gravity Explained" Video ID: BwUOpBI0H0s It would be AMAZING if you did a critique video of this. What i like about Nassim's work regarding protons being "mini-stable blackholes" is that the proton itself becomes the 2D surface upon which the boundary is projecting our 4D reality. 🧐 That is to say, all protons may be the same proton because, as blackholes, they exist outside of time/space as we know it and have studied it. What is to say "quarks" aren't some measurable energy pattern within blackholes? and how might that apply/impact Hawking Radiation? both at the stellar level and as a proton? At the proton level, to maintain stability, anything it receives must be emited quickly. aka, another particle "bounces" off a proton after colliding.
Em is the perfect amount of intellegence that she understands each concept but still has questions. Em, youre awesome! You light up every video youre in!❤🎉
Whenever I think about the size of the universe, I always end up thinking of this quote from Hitchhiker's. “Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.” And it's crazy and awesome that we can even make an educated guess at the lower limit of its size.
Space is so vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big, that the number we express the lower size limit with is mind-bogglingly BIG. I mean, 42 to the power of 42 might seem big, but that's peanuts to space.
When I think about the size of space, I think in relative terms, so I can understand it. In general, I picture myself as a Galaxy, in which case, the nearest real Galaxy, Andromeda, is about a block or two down the road. The observable universe is about the size of California, but who knows the size of the whole thing, it could be infinity large. Lastly, the stars that make up the Galaxy, like our sun, are the size of atoms. But while the human body has hundreds of Trillions of atoms, the Galaxy has hundreds of Billions of Stars. So you'd be less dense than air, assuming stars are Atoms.
To that simple question of Lematre that he didn't have to solve I can tell you one thing: As a software developer I sometimes run into unexplainable issues at first glance. After half an hour one of the most efficient solving methods is to explain your code to a coworker, who is mostly unknown to this specific issue. By explaining and by receiving presumably "dumb" questions you are forced to think differently and that solves many problems. Works like magic.
Yep! And it's not limited to coding. I can't tell you the number of times I started writing up a detailed post or message explaining what specifically had me confused or stuck on some problem (sometimes coding related, sometimes not), in an attempt to ask for help, only to release I'd figured out the problem myself before I even finished typing.
Great stuff. Your graph near the end saying size of "observable" universe helps a lot with my grievance with seeing prominent science communicators not elaborating on that over the years. There was nothing more frustrating than hearing them say "the entire universe was X size at X time" only to follow it up with a contradicting "there is no such thing as a centre". That alone puts this vid up there with your Hawking Radiation one. Cheers.
I still think the distinction was not made enough in this video. When it is said "the universe was once smaller than the dit at the end of this sentence", it should have been pointed out that it was the observable universe. I think a better explanation for non specialist would be to state that the beginning of the universe is not a size singularity but a density singularity. The grid is just packed denser and denser. If the grid (entire universe) is infinite, then it is still infinite when packed denser and denser and the Big Bang happened everywhere in an infinite space, it is just the density that was infinite (or close to)
I know most of the concepts here from Cosmology classes - but once, again, your explanations make everything that much clearer :) Love the interaction with Awkward M! :)
Nick, I think all of your subscribers would LOVE a 2 hour Science Asylum video. Like, you can just post the link in a community post and make it an unlisted video if you want, but we really wanna see it all.
Hoyle tried to deride modern cosmology with “Big Bang” which is now ironically synonymous with the beginning of space & time. just like… Schrödinger trying to deride quantum mechanics, specifically superposition, with his famous dead/alive cat… now synonymous with quantum superposition.
5:23 Emily pointed out something that most people don't seem to grasp. The Big Bang happened *everywhere* . 7:47 THANK YOU! Those diffences between those two Horizons has *always* confused me. Well done :) 11:57 Again, she's rather spot on. After all, if we could travel 16.7 GLy from our planet, we *should* perceive the CEH further away (so to speak) in the direction we traveled than we can on Earth. Keep going, another 16.7GLy a trillion times, there's no real reason to think that we'd ever reach an actual PH, much less a CEH. Thank you both for discussing this for us! This is truly the MOST understandable explanation of the big bang since Scientific American, March 2005. Yep, look it up, it's pretty great (and I'm not even a SciAm fan).
Nice video, very informative. I do wish you talked a bit more about the graph at the end, kinda felt like you were about to get into it, then the video ended. So hoping to see a future deeper dive video from you!
Happy to have received this notification within 9 minutes of uploading! Love all your videos. You should start a science podcast where you talk to and chat with people.
You presented this so well that it finally gave me the idea (feels like I should have thought of it so much sooner) to start a playlist for videos I wish I could remember whenever I have a curious friend asking me space questions. I've seen so many space/science videos from various channels, and I'm always incredibly impressed with how you approach complicated topics. Plus I always get at least one good laugh out of each video. Love you and all involved ❤
I think the benefit of the balloon analogy is that it makes it clear that the math we use to describe the universe is the math of surfaces. Is raisin bread a manifold? Why raisins... Raisins are topological defects and you can't convince me otherwise.
Yes, the balloon is _mathematically_ closer to the model. But I have to prioritize the image accuracy in people's minds over the mathematical accuracy, at least with shallow dives like this one.
2:50 The Big Bang was uniform for a long time on human scales… but it was really only uniform during the period of intense heat that a c4 explosion would be uniform for, but because it is a bigger mass compared to explosion size, it stays hot and uniform for longer. It became turbulent when stars and galaxies formed.
I don't know how this never clicked for me until now, but despite the *entire* universe being whatever size during the big bang, our observable universe, or rather everything contained inside it, used to all exist in a teeny tiny space, right next to other heaps of matter and energy that are beyond our horizon. I mean that's just insane, everything all the galaxies and stars and planets and _us_ used to be a dense, hot dot, and it was like that EVERYWHERE, just WE were a dot of this soup.
If it’s infinite today then creation of Universe in big bang already created it infinite even at the very beginning when it was super duper dense Universe.
Why does no youtuber ever mention that if the (total) universe is infinite it must have been infinite from the beginning so that the imagination of a (small) point is very misleading. There never was a "point", the density of the universe was just infinite and size was infinitely big
Good comment. No one ever says that in an infinite universe the singularity was infinitely large, in which an infinitely large singularity makes absolutely no sense, unless we assert zero is an infinitely large number.
Months ago I knew very little about the sciences, but thanks to your channel, I can confidently explain quantum electrodynamics, chemistry, and so many other things. You’ve made my learning process SO MUCH EASIER! Thank you!
just things getting smaller would leave the distances between objects (e.g. galaxies) growing at the same rate, but what we actually see is objects further away moving faster away from us, than nearby objects. At the cosmic event horizon, that speed crosses the speed of light and therefore we cannot communicate with anything beyond that (and the cosmic event horizon is shrinking on us, as space expands even more)
Every time you drop a new video I am reminded of how much I love your enthusiasm and passion for exploring complex topics in an easy to understand way! ❤ I end up revisiting your other videos 😂
Hey Nick, thanks for another awe inspiring video. Can you make another one purely discussing time dilation during big bang? If matter was so dense after gravity happens, time would stop like near a black hole. But then nothing should move. How can space expand when time is literally stopped?
I went back and watched your "I'm not quitting" video. I was impressed with what you said then and still am. I love that you are not about absolute monetization and more about your ethics and quality of life... a lesson a lot of folks could use! I'm in my early 60's and retired (by circumstances, not by choice) and I've been a long-time subscriber. While I am a science nerd at heart, I readily admit I don't understand anything about 25% of what you talk about (the "HUH???" part). I cannot wrap my head around quantum physics and string theory, no matter how much I watch stuff about it. But I keep watching just in case one day, I have that eureka moment! I kind of get about another 25% (the learning part). The rest is just fun to watch! I love when you have Em with you. She asks a lot of the questions I would, and she makes your presentation a lot of fun.. not that you and the Clones weren't fun already lol. I'm on a fixed income and I have never provided Patreon support to anyone before, but I can manage a few bucks a month for someone who is worthy! Great job, as always, Nick! Cheers from Canada!
Wonderful explanation. Simple, yet elegant. I feel like the cosmic horizon part was a missed opportunity for a Gandalf "You shall not pass" meme. Hahaha
3:58 The Dough expanding is a better analogy than the surface of the balloon, not only because of the number of dimensions (3 rather than 2) but also because of curvature. The balloon's surface is curved, the dough's volume isn't. And as far as we know our universe is probably not curved so it's more dough-like
You guys are really cool. I watch and read a lot of science content. I also try to explain this stuff to my wife too. But it is nice to see you guys just chatting about this stuff, because we do the same thing.
That change of scale of time on the end of the video, which took me a while to realize it is not just a zoom of the first moments of BigBang left me scratching my head again.
Hi Nick, question: when, in the timeline of the universe, do fermions become fermions? I know that only one fermion can occupy a particular quantum state at a given time. When the universe was really, really young, and space-time was small, I imagine / assume there were a limited number of quantum states possible. Is this right? And if so, then I can imagine / assume that there either weren't as many fermions in the universe at that time, or maybe they were whatever fermions exist as at super-high energy so they don't have to follow Fermi-Dirac statistics, or maybe space-time is squeezed down to a higher resolution at that age of the universe? I hope you can spot and correct any bad assumptions in my above understanding - thanks!
8:45 Wait this point wasn't very clear for me... How is this uniformity of any importance, is it just the "we don't want edges" argument again? And how does it tie to actual measurements? Otherwise, good video, like always!
One measurement we can make is the angles of very large triangles in the sky. If our universe is "flat" these should add up to 180°. If it is "spherical" or "open" they can add up to something else. The measurements indicate that it is flat, but there is an error attached to that. The flat and open universe are both infinite. The spherical one is finite, if you go far enough in one direction you end up where you started. The error allows for a spherical universe that is at least 20 times larger than the observable universe.
I remember that I had issues with physics and could not understand it, then I found your videos and suddenly I could understand stuff. Nick, you would be an excellent teacher and if you are, you are an example!
I love how thunder sound waves look! There are three patterns - noise, parabolic, and finally sine. I think it's a good idea to introduce such imagery into Bing Bang descriptions.
It’s mind blowing that the particle horizon is beyond the observable universe 6:37 . And that this is because particles are *slower* than light. The photons that would show us the same information have already zoomed past us 🤯
This is an awesome video! You two have great chemistry (da dum tsch) together. I think a lot of couples would struggle making this type of video, but it seems so natural and friendly for you two.
There is no beginning and there is no end. Humans are running into the three body problem, where the observer bias makes us believe there is, but really it's our own perspective limiting how far we can interact with the universe. Everything is relative.
Doesn't the "Center of the entire universe" being a thing (~11:00) make it so that it is much more likely to be way bigger than 930 bil ly in radius? Just on the assumption that the center could be at any place as likely as another I'd expect it to be most likely around 700-800 bil ly away from us (from taking the radius of half the volume) and having to add the 930 bil ly we are certain to that, making it most likely bigger than 1600 bil ly in radius. Is there any logic in my thought process, or am I just confusing things?
6:59 Em mentioned that no communication shall occur between us and a hypothetical civilization behind the cosmic event horizon. My question: wouldn't it be possible to communicate with said civilization if there is a third civilization between us and them relaying the information/communication?
1:33 “It’s like there was a gap you know what I mean and he filled it.” Yes exactly actually, “lexical gap” is a technical term used by linguists to describe almost exactly this.
The graphic at 13:00 could use a bit more explanation IMO. What's the "hadron lepton plasma" era that seems to last for over 10^15 seconds (about 32 million years)? And is that the CMB shown *after* that?
Hadrons are particles made from quarks. So basically protons and neutrons. Leptons are electrons, muons, and tau particles. Electrons will be the vast majority of this to the point where we can ignore the rest. So this is mostly a plasma of protons and electrons, so basically hot hydrogen with some helium thrown in. This is the period where the universe was opaque and the CMB comes after it because it is released when this plasma cooled down enough to become transparent. This is called Recombination, because the electrons combine with the hadrons to form atoms, releasing energy as light. This should end around 10^13 seconds, I'm not sure why it is shown after 10^15.
If I went into more detail on that graphic, then I'd subdivided a little more. In this video, I was just trying to give a general overview of what the matter was like. That plasma era ends around 400,000 years. (To be honest, I was having render issues with that graph for days. It's a miracle I got it to render at all. If there are any errors on it, I will fix them for the next video that includes it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.)
So during that early period referred to as the big bang where we say "space was expanding", was "new" space being created or were individual "units" of space getting larger? (I know we talk about planck volume but that doesn't mean space is quantized).
There is no meaningful distinction between your two options. Space isn't made of anything. It _is_ the distances. Distances getting larger and "new space" being created is the same thing.
Thanks, I loved that video. If gravitational waves are bound by the speed of light, how come we can detect them from before the CMB? I would guess it has something to do with the waves predating the moment when the universe became "transparent", but I'd understand it better if you did a video.
The CMB is the farthest that light could arrive from (almost but not quite). Like you said, light couldn't travel long distances until it became transparent, so that's when the first free light was _released._ Had it been released earlier, we would still have been able to see it. Gravitational waves don't care whether or not the universe is transparent.
Id watch a 2 hour Science asylum video
Absolutely, make it happen Nick! :D
Same
I have a feeling it can be found on the Patreon 🤔.
@@louisrobitaille5810 oh! nice
Yes!
I love when Em is on the show! She's a great avatar for the audience, because she asks exactly the right questions.
she asked a lot of the same questions I have too!
so true, love her, heuuuu i mean i like her. Sorry Nick lol
Completely agree. You guys are awesome!
You're so smart you think like a woman
And they're so wonderful together! There's this great mutual respect and love of Science and each other
Mrs. Asylum finally understands "It's OK to be a little crazy." at a deep, fundamental level.
And her Animal shirt rocked hard.
It's always nice to see Mrs.Asylum. She helps tie all the information into something we can understand.
I'm a fan of the natural hair.
That would be a hilarious last name!
@@ChinnuWoW’natural hair’ or ‘mrs. Asylum’? 😁
These videos with you two are insanely pleasent to watch. Thank you!
It's hard to believe nobody ever said that before 1949 because that's what they believed in as the beginning of the universe.
If Em legitimately didn't know much of this beforehand, she is a master in logic and reasoning. Every inference was spot-on.
@94leroyal
And well scripted. 😁
We lost a lot of the conversation. She probably looks smart for the sake of time
It probably helps that she is a scientist, even if not a physicist, so she likely has a lot of experience with scientific reasoning.
They mentioned at the end that the unedited video was two hours long.
I really enjoy smart people talking nerdy to each other
Well done, editing the video down from two hours of conversation to under a quarter of an hour.
Thanks! This thing was a beast. Hardest edit I've ever done.
I'd watch the two hour video
@@jeffreyb.2817 seconed.
Release the Snyder Cut!
Er... The Lucid-er Cut?
@@scudlee If it was the Snyder Cut, wouldn't that necessarily involve a lot of slow motion? So longer than two hours... plus some gratuitous grain handling shots with lens flare.
I recently watched a Minute Physics video where he gives a good explanation of the "what is space expanding into" question. If it's infinite then it's like the number line - you can scale any part of it as much as you want and it's still infinite. In other words, it expands into itself.
And there was no matter before that, only energy, from what I have heard.
Best way to put it is to compare it to the question "where is the center of an infinite line" or "where is the beginning if a circle". Both are examples where the answer is simply "no". If the question is incoherent, the answer will also be incoherent.
Some questions are inherently incoherent so as to be unanswerable. So, the answer to the question "what is the universe expanding into expanding into?" is "no".
Pls share the link to that video.
@@rajatsharma6256 m.th-cam.com/video/q3MWRvLndzs/w-d-xo.html
What most forget is that when we talk about the big bang and the universe that's expanding from a tiny point, is still the portion of the universe that we consider observable at this moment. So around that blob that becomes our observable universe , is infinitely more universe which just expanded way faster than our portion At the moment of the big bang, space just sprang into existence everywhere, here, there, a gazillion billion light-years away. all at once. And it all started expanding as soon as it existed.
So to recap, the descriptions of the big bang are ONLY OF OUR OBSERVABLE PORTION OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE!
And I assumed the Universe to be infinite in size. But it would also work for a finite universe.
At around 11:00 He says we could find the centre of a finite univere, but this is not necessarily true. If the Universe is shaped as a 4-dimensional version of a donut, it would be infinite still in distances that can be measured but the volume would be finite.
The last time I was this early, the universe was still in its inflationary epoch
😆 It's been a long time.
@@ScienceAsylumsince I rock and rolled.
when I last saw this comment, universe expansion was still slowing down
@@ScienceAsylum Linear time is a human construct necessary for the brain/ego to "get it." Time is a real thing, it does exist. BUT..... There is literally and exactly only ONE Moment of it. there is only NOW. everything is NOW, it just looks different because it is a different angle/frequency of the great universal hologram. Clif high says the "frequency of the universe is 22 trillion hz as a pulse, on and off. 'existence' reality-as-we-know-it then nothing/everything/all/none" Some people call the hologram "God" but it is you and you are it. like the matrix. and we are in it. This is base reality because to even be talking there has to be some existence in that/this base reality!
PBS Space time has some very important videos about gravity being entropy at the 2d surface at the outer boundary of "this universe" in the last few episodes. a-mazing!
So, here is the deal. The present moment is the gift. It's presence. It's teh Present. You can't "remember" without "that moment" being present here and now in "this moment". Our mind is scientifically proven to be non-local in time and non-local in space. we know this, look it up. I do like David Wilcock's first book _Source field Investigations_ for that reason, and that 1/5 of his 3" book is just references. Our "brain" is quantumly entangled. We know cellular structures in cells, called "Microtubules", open and close; creating a chamber of "quantum entanglement" when closed and then opening to gather/release information, then entangle, then open. The rate is about 40 hz, if i recall. Our brains entangle with "all that is" ~40 times a second. All cells, neurons too.
Re-membering (like reattaching your thumb), remembering is viewing that moment of Now from a different perspective in the NOW. the fractal of the mind and universe is that amazing.
Meditating does bring the mind into the present moment, ever more. And in doing so, we see further into the past (remember more), can see more and better outcomes and possibilities, and experience the present moment with more depth and clarity, simplicity and multi-faceted-ness. There is so much paradox to it, but that is also precisely what you are about. You crazies. 🤪
Interesting to note that the rational numbers are markers, labels, indicators of locations in the number line, but have no actual "space" within the number line. only irrational numbers contain "space" within the number line, and there are infinitely more irrational numbers between 0 and 1 than infinity itself. You know, Cardinality. Applied to TIME itself, there is an infinite amount of time we must wade through just to drink your covfefe [🤣].
The idea extends into space as well, they are one in the same. no? space-time? time-space? anyway.
All space is HERE. All time is NOW. The stars and blackholes that you think are so far away? they are merely projections on the inside of your skull. They aren't that far away. The discussion of "space" being "One" is that it is one integrated field of itself. yes? all of it is all entirely entangled and in decoherence at the same time, always, now, right here. with you. It's in the room with you. Yes, it's behind you RIGHT NOW. [OMG] but don't bother looking. It'll only be MORE behind you when you look behind you. How do you know what is actually behind the wall?
I personally like the "prime Radiant" concept, where everything is the same undifferentiated particle. It'd be like everything we see is more like the one giant particle that is carved out of the same piece of clay. Others have called it: The One Proton Model, The One Electron model, or, as Nassim puts it, the Schwarzschild Proton Model. I'll let Nassim describe his model.... WOW.
I am a big fan of Nassim Haramein, what it could mean, and it's importance.... esp If true. stunning. It will need your specific level of expertise just to understand this video, my Science Asylum Friend. The audience of this video is the kind of scientist you are.
"The [Quantum] Origin of Mass and Nature of Gravity Explained"
Video ID: BwUOpBI0H0s
It would be AMAZING if you did a critique video of this.
What i like about Nassim's work regarding protons being "mini-stable blackholes" is that the proton itself becomes the 2D surface upon which the boundary is projecting our 4D reality. 🧐 That is to say, all protons may be the same proton because, as blackholes, they exist outside of time/space as we know it and have studied it. What is to say "quarks" aren't some measurable energy pattern within blackholes? and how might that apply/impact Hawking Radiation? both at the stellar level and as a proton? At the proton level, to maintain stability, anything it receives must be emited quickly. aka, another particle "bounces" off a proton after colliding.
It's hard to believe nobody ever said that before 1949 because that's what they believed in as the beginning of the universe.
Em is the perfect amount of intellegence that she understands each concept but still has questions. Em, youre awesome! You light up every video youre in!❤🎉
Whenever I think about the size of the universe, I always end up thinking of this quote from Hitchhiker's. “Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.” And it's crazy and awesome that we can even make an educated guess at the lower limit of its size.
LMAO First thing that came to my mind too.
Space is so vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big, that the number we express the lower size limit with is mind-bogglingly BIG. I mean, 42 to the power of 42 might seem big, but that's peanuts to space.
When I think about the size of space, I think in relative terms, so I can understand it.
In general, I picture myself as a Galaxy, in which case, the nearest real Galaxy, Andromeda, is about a block or two down the road. The observable universe is about the size of California, but who knows the size of the whole thing, it could be infinity large.
Lastly, the stars that make up the Galaxy, like our sun, are the size of atoms.
But while the human body has hundreds of Trillions of atoms, the Galaxy has hundreds of Billions of Stars. So you'd be less dense than air, assuming stars are Atoms.
"...that's just peanuts to space." That's like the biggest understatement in the history of the universe.
Absolutely! my absolute favorite science couple. I personally love the longer uploads.
To that simple question of Lematre that he didn't have to solve I can tell you one thing:
As a software developer I sometimes run into unexplainable issues at first glance. After half an hour one of the most efficient solving methods is to explain your code to a coworker, who is mostly unknown to this specific issue.
By explaining and by receiving presumably "dumb" questions you are forced to think differently and that solves many problems.
Works like magic.
Explaining code to someone feels like you gain 15 IQ. It's almost like a roleplaying game and you took a +15 intelligence potion.
Yep! And it's not limited to coding. I can't tell you the number of times I started writing up a detailed post or message explaining what specifically had me confused or stuck on some problem (sometimes coding related, sometimes not), in an attempt to ask for help, only to release I'd figured out the problem myself before I even finished typing.
Great stuff. Your graph near the end saying size of "observable" universe helps a lot with my grievance with seeing prominent science communicators not elaborating on that over the years.
There was nothing more frustrating than hearing them say "the entire universe was X size at X time" only to follow it up with a contradicting "there is no such thing as a centre".
That alone puts this vid up there with your Hawking Radiation one. Cheers.
Glad you appreicate the nuance.
Yes, there are 2 universes that we know of, the observable, and the universe beyond that, but very few specify that.
I still think the distinction was not made enough in this video. When it is said "the universe was once smaller than the dit at the end of this sentence", it should have been pointed out that it was the observable universe.
I think a better explanation for non specialist would be to state that the beginning of the universe is not a size singularity but a density singularity. The grid is just packed denser and denser. If the grid (entire universe) is infinite, then it is still infinite when packed denser and denser and the Big Bang happened everywhere in an infinite space, it is just the density that was infinite (or close to)
I know most of the concepts here from Cosmology classes - but once, again, your explanations make everything that much clearer :) Love the interaction with Awkward M! :)
A little refresher lesson never hurt anyone 😉
Nick, I think all of your subscribers would LOVE a 2 hour Science Asylum video. Like, you can just post the link in a community post and make it an unlisted video if you want, but we really wanna see it all.
Love these Q&A sessions! Good stuff! 😊
Hoyle tried to deride modern cosmology with “Big Bang” which is now ironically synonymous with the beginning of space & time.
just like… Schrödinger trying to deride quantum mechanics, specifically superposition, with his famous dead/alive cat… now synonymous with quantum superposition.
5:23 Emily pointed out something that most people don't seem to grasp. The Big Bang happened *everywhere* .
7:47 THANK YOU! Those diffences between those two Horizons has *always* confused me. Well done :)
11:57 Again, she's rather spot on. After all, if we could travel 16.7 GLy from our planet, we *should* perceive the CEH further away (so to speak) in the direction we traveled than we can on Earth. Keep going, another 16.7GLy a trillion times, there's no real reason to think that we'd ever reach an actual PH, much less a CEH.
Thank you both for discussing this for us!
This is truly the MOST understandable explanation of the big bang since Scientific American, March 2005.
Yep, look it up, it's pretty great (and I'm not even a SciAm fan).
Nice video, very informative. I do wish you talked a bit more about the graph at the end, kinda felt like you were about to get into it, then the video ended. So hoping to see a future deeper dive video from you!
You mean the graph at 7:40? Or the timeline at 12:58?
The one at 12:58
@@LiquidWater91 I'm sure I'll go deeper into that in a more technical video. No worries. My patrons/members have been asking for that for a while.
Great to hear! Thanks for everything you make for us!
Happy to have received this notification within 9 minutes of uploading! Love all your videos. You should start a science podcast where you talk to and chat with people.
It is a great idea!
I love Em's t-shirt.
Thanks!
Thanks for the support!
Your videos are always something that make my day better, especially with y'alls dynamic! Thank you for being an awesome content creator.
Em is the best! You guys are great when you do these conversation videos.
Wow! My favorite couple! ❤❤❤ thank you so much! Wonderful subject, as always so well explained!
Anytime Em is on I feel like it's a good video to show people who don't quite understand the topic.
7:15 "Marty, you're not thinking fourth dimensionally!" :)
I LOVE hearing Nicks laugh! Something unbelievably wholesome about it!
Great show you two. Real pleasure to watch
bro watched on x16 speed
@@eozineable 😂
@@eozineable watching at regular pace is so yesterday..😏
@@eozineable"Fast Fast!"
@@worstuserever 😆
"We know that the actual universe is at least 20 times larger"... that's a strong statement and one that I hadn't heard before.
love this format!
You presented this so well that it finally gave me the idea (feels like I should have thought of it so much sooner) to start a playlist for videos I wish I could remember whenever I have a curious friend asking me space questions.
I've seen so many space/science videos from various channels, and I'm always incredibly impressed with how you approach complicated topics.
Plus I always get at least one good laugh out of each video. Love you and all involved ❤
Good idea! I've considered making a playlist of my favorite videos from other science creators.
You're such a delightful science couple! 😎🥰🙏🇩🇪
Thank you! 🤓
This format is the best since these are questions I would ask myself too.
I think the benefit of the balloon analogy is that it makes it clear that the math we use to describe the universe is the math of surfaces. Is raisin bread a manifold? Why raisins... Raisins are topological defects and you can't convince me otherwise.
Yes, the balloon is _mathematically_ closer to the model. But I have to prioritize the image accuracy in people's minds over the mathematical accuracy, at least with shallow dives like this one.
@@ScienceAsylum so you're telling me raisins are a price you're willing to pay for imagery. Vile but understandable.
2:50 The Big Bang was uniform for a long time on human scales… but it was really only uniform during the period of intense heat that a c4 explosion would be uniform for, but because it is a bigger mass compared to explosion size, it stays hot and uniform for longer. It became turbulent when stars and galaxies formed.
I don't know how this never clicked for me until now, but despite the *entire* universe being whatever size during the big bang, our observable universe, or rather everything contained inside it, used to all exist in a teeny tiny space, right next to other heaps of matter and energy that are beyond our horizon. I mean that's just insane, everything all the galaxies and stars and planets and _us_ used to be a dense, hot dot, and it was like that EVERYWHERE, just WE were a dot of this soup.
If it’s infinite today then creation of Universe in big bang already created it infinite even at the very beginning when it was super duper dense Universe.
*"...used to all exist in a teeny tiny space, right next to other heaps of matter and energy that are beyond our horizon."*
Exactly!
Emily: So are we talking about the show, the attack vegeta uses, or the physical theory?
Nick: Yes
Why does no youtuber ever mention that if the (total) universe is infinite it must have been infinite from the beginning so that the imagination of a (small) point is very misleading. There never was a "point", the density of the universe was just infinite and size was infinitely big
Yes it could have been expanding forever (eternal inflation) before our big bang happened, possibly in an infinite multiverse.
Lots of people mention this. But whenever people talk about "The universe was such and such (finite) size" they always mean the observable universe.
@@narfwhals7843Quite. PhysicsGirl definitely mentioned it a few years ago, just for starters.
@@narfwhals7843 lol must be a different TH-cam than mine
Good comment. No one ever says that in an infinite universe the singularity was infinitely large, in which an infinitely large singularity makes absolutely no sense, unless we assert zero is an infinitely large number.
This works so well, listening to you explain things to somebody else makes it easier for me to take in the knowledge.
2 hours down to 13 minutes, I can't help but be curious what all was left out. I'm sure there might be some off-topic stuff or giggle-fits.
_A LOT_ of math was left on the editing room floor. Might cut it into a Nebula exclusive if I ever have time.
Love the interaction betwen you two. The science content is fun too.
Animaaaaal!
I love this science couple!!! So cool to be geeking it out together!!!
I think the surface of a balloon is a better comparison since it also indicates there is no center.
Fair, but I have found that it's a lot easier to get people to imagine an infinite bread loaf than to jump from 2D to 3D. All analogies have problems.
@@ScienceAsylum Good luck explaining the 4D version with space AND time.
Months ago I knew very little about the sciences, but thanks to your channel, I can confidently explain quantum electrodynamics, chemistry, and so many other things. You’ve made my learning process SO MUCH EASIER! Thank you!
That's wonderful to hear! I'm glad my style works for you.
What if space is not getting bigger, but everything in space is just getting smaller?
you'd have to go to the flip side of string theory for that. but yeah. It's been answered, actually.
just things getting smaller would leave the distances between objects (e.g. galaxies) growing at the same rate, but what we actually see is objects further away moving faster away from us, than nearby objects. At the cosmic event horizon, that speed crosses the speed of light and therefore we cannot communicate with anything beyond that (and the cosmic event horizon is shrinking on us, as space expands even more)
Eventually that would have a limit. Either asymptotically approaching zero size or disappearing entirely.
Every time you drop a new video I am reminded of how much I love your enthusiasm and passion for exploring complex topics in an easy to understand way! ❤ I end up revisiting your other videos 😂
Such an awesome couple. Love you guys! Love your content! Gotta love the somewhat organized chaos... the very smart crazyness.
Hey Nick, thanks for another awe inspiring video. Can you make another one purely discussing time dilation during big bang? If matter was so dense after gravity happens, time would stop like near a black hole. But then nothing should move. How can space expand when time is literally stopped?
I went back and watched your "I'm not quitting" video. I was impressed with what you said then and still am. I love that you are not about absolute monetization and more about your ethics and quality of life... a lesson a lot of folks could use! I'm in my early 60's and retired (by circumstances, not by choice) and I've been a long-time subscriber. While I am a science nerd at heart, I readily admit I don't understand anything about 25% of what you talk about (the "HUH???" part). I cannot wrap my head around quantum physics and string theory, no matter how much I watch stuff about it. But I keep watching just in case one day, I have that eureka moment! I kind of get about another 25% (the learning part). The rest is just fun to watch! I love when you have Em with you. She asks a lot of the questions I would, and she makes your presentation a lot of fun.. not that you and the Clones weren't fun already lol. I'm on a fixed income and I have never provided Patreon support to anyone before, but I can manage a few bucks a month for someone who is worthy! Great job, as always, Nick! Cheers from Canada!
Thank you. I really appreciate the delivery in this video and the others. It's just an absurdly effective style for me personally.
9:51 - 1 question, what about the james web telescope, did it make the bubble larger? or we stand in the same size?
Thank you Ms. Asylum for being a good sport and providing a foil. I like this format.
I want the 2 hour video. Love it.
Wonderful explanation. Simple, yet elegant. I feel like the cosmic horizon part was a missed opportunity for a Gandalf "You shall not pass" meme. Hahaha
😆
I love that you guys could have a talk like this over breakfast. ❤
Thank you both for your dedication
3:58 The Dough expanding is a better analogy than the surface of the balloon, not only because of the number of dimensions (3 rather than 2) but also because of curvature. The balloon's surface is curved, the dough's volume isn't. And as far as we know our universe is probably not curved so it's more dough-like
This felt so short! I liked this so much.
Thanks fro another great video. I'm glad I watched until the very end. Thanks for addressing my point.
Am I the only one that can only focus on this Zelda t-shirt? lol
Great video, reallly love it!
Science Asylum is the most enjoyable physics channel. Thank you both for making me laugh, bringing me joy, and making me smarter ❤️
You guys are really cool. I watch and read a lot of science content. I also try to explain this stuff to my wife too. But it is nice to see you guys just chatting about this stuff, because we do the same thing.
That change of scale of time on the end of the video, which took me a while to realize it is not just a zoom of the first moments of BigBang left me scratching my head again.
It was a change from linear time to logrithmic time, which exaggerates the tiny amounts of time at the beginning so they're visible.
I'd love to see the full conversations from these episodes, you could even call it a podcast!
The 2 hr version I'd like as a podcast
i love the way you explained it all so simply and here i thought i knew about the big bang.
I would definitely fall down the rabbit hole of a 2 hour long discussion on the Big Bang.
Hi Nick, question: when, in the timeline of the universe, do fermions become fermions?
I know that only one fermion can occupy a particular quantum state at a given time. When the universe was really, really young, and space-time was small, I imagine / assume there were a limited number of quantum states possible. Is this right?
And if so, then I can imagine / assume that there either weren't as many fermions in the universe at that time, or maybe they were whatever fermions exist as at super-high energy so they don't have to follow Fermi-Dirac statistics, or maybe space-time is squeezed down to a higher resolution at that age of the universe?
I hope you can spot and correct any bad assumptions in my above understanding - thanks!
Priceless chemistry, brilliant physics, and a smattering of biology too!
8:45 Wait this point wasn't very clear for me... How is this uniformity of any importance, is it just the "we don't want edges" argument again? And how does it tie to actual measurements?
Otherwise, good video, like always!
If you want to go any deeper into that segment, it's going to involve math (spacetime curvature to be specific).
@@ScienceAsylum Okay I didn't know this was about curvature, I'll read more, thanks!
One measurement we can make is the angles of very large triangles in the sky.
If our universe is "flat" these should add up to 180°.
If it is "spherical" or "open" they can add up to something else.
The measurements indicate that it is flat, but there is an error attached to that.
The flat and open universe are both infinite. The spherical one is finite, if you go far enough in one direction you end up where you started.
The error allows for a spherical universe that is at least 20 times larger than the observable universe.
@@narfwhals7843 I knew about that metric but didn't connect the dots with what was explained. Thanks for the precision!
I remember that I had issues with physics and could not understand it, then I found your videos and suddenly I could understand stuff.
Nick, you would be an excellent teacher and if you are, you are an example!
I love how thunder sound waves look! There are three patterns - noise, parabolic, and finally sine. I think it's a good idea to introduce such imagery into Bing Bang descriptions.
Well you are going to love Baryon Acoustic Oscillations. Wave patterns observed in the density of the CMB.
@@narfwhals7843 thank you! And I love Penrose's latest papers with his Nobel ideas. Amazing wordings there.
2 HOUR VIDEOS!!!!!!! Then I can listen on my way home from work and have 30 mins left to watch at home!!!! It's perfect!
Oh, I read Hoyles's "Black Cloud". Thanks for the final clarification about protons.
Great video! Thanks Nick and Em!
Glad you enjoyed it! 🤓
You two are adorable, and your videos together are true gems.
Don't ever change.
Thanks! Just in time when I'm doing research on the subject 👌💫
Glad it was helpful! 🤓
It’s mind blowing that the particle horizon is beyond the observable universe 6:37 .
And that this is because particles are *slower* than light.
The photons that would show us the same information have already zoomed past us 🤯
Love watching you both.
This is an awesome video! You two have great chemistry (da dum tsch) together.
I think a lot of couples would struggle making this type of video, but it seems so natural and friendly for you two.
Great video! Talking with your wife adds a nice dimension to your videos!
Thanks 👍
Great video! by the way, you two make a great couple - two wonderfully, excited to live, people exploring the universe together.
Em's shirt is the business
Great vid as always! What happened to quantum fields during the big bang? Did they already exist? Or did they “extend“ along with space?
The quantum fields existed back then, but their behavior was different. Under those conditions, there was less variety.
There is no beginning and there is no end. Humans are running into the three body problem, where the observer bias makes us believe there is, but really it's our own perspective limiting how far we can interact with the universe. Everything is relative.
You guys are awesome! Keep it up! 👍🏼
Doesn't the "Center of the entire universe" being a thing (~11:00) make it so that it is much more likely to be way bigger than 930 bil ly in radius? Just on the assumption that the center could be at any place as likely as another I'd expect it to be most likely around 700-800 bil ly away from us (from taking the radius of half the volume) and having to add the 930 bil ly we are certain to that, making it most likely bigger than 1600 bil ly in radius. Is there any logic in my thought process, or am I just confusing things?
6:59 Em mentioned that no communication shall occur between us and a hypothetical civilization behind the cosmic event horizon. My question: wouldn't it be possible to communicate with said civilization if there is a third civilization between us and them relaying the information/communication?
1:33 “It’s like there was a gap you know what I mean and he filled it.”
Yes exactly actually, “lexical gap” is a technical term used by linguists to describe almost exactly this.
Cool! Thanks for the technical term.
"Do expound." That's just great!
The graphic at 13:00 could use a bit more explanation IMO. What's the "hadron lepton plasma" era that seems to last for over 10^15 seconds (about 32 million years)? And is that the CMB shown *after* that?
Hadrons are particles made from quarks. So basically protons and neutrons. Leptons are electrons, muons, and tau particles. Electrons will be the vast majority of this to the point where we can ignore the rest.
So this is mostly a plasma of protons and electrons, so basically hot hydrogen with some helium thrown in.
This is the period where the universe was opaque and the CMB comes after it because it is released when this plasma cooled down enough to become transparent. This is called Recombination, because the electrons combine with the hadrons to form atoms, releasing energy as light.
This should end around 10^13 seconds, I'm not sure why it is shown after 10^15.
If I went into more detail on that graphic, then I'd subdivided a little more. In this video, I was just trying to give a general overview of what the matter was like. That plasma era ends around 400,000 years. (To be honest, I was having render issues with that graph for days. It's a miracle I got it to render at all. If there are any errors on it, I will fix them for the next video that includes it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.)
10:14 Em/me thinking: "Between 20 and infinite? Yeah, what I was thinking. They haven't got the slightest idea what the number is."
Another video? Awesome!
I know I’m learning when I see a vid like this and there’s nothing new to me! Still it’s wonderful reinforcement
So during that early period referred to as the big bang where we say "space was expanding", was "new" space being created or were individual "units" of space getting larger? (I know we talk about planck volume but that doesn't mean space is quantized).
There is no meaningful distinction between your two options. Space isn't made of anything. It _is_ the distances. Distances getting larger and "new space" being created is the same thing.
Thanks, I loved that video. If gravitational waves are bound by the speed of light, how come we can detect them from before the CMB? I would guess it has something to do with the waves predating the moment when the universe became "transparent", but I'd understand it better if you did a video.
The CMB is the farthest that light could arrive from (almost but not quite). Like you said, light couldn't travel long distances until it became transparent, so that's when the first free light was _released._ Had it been released earlier, we would still have been able to see it. Gravitational waves don't care whether or not the universe is transparent.